But there is clear evidence that the Israeli government will ignore its courts: the courts said journalists should be allowed into Gaza, the government disagreed.
Let's clarify the facts.
First of all, it's not as if there are *no* journalists in Gaza. There are, else you wouldn't see any of the photos you see of the war. In fact, Reuters complained yesterday (
http://www.lcsun-news.com/ci_11463373 ) when "two high-rise buildings housing international media" were supposedly struck by Israelis, "injuring two journalists". And the Associated Press also complained after bullets "flew into the office of The Associated Press in another building several hundred yards away, entering a room where two staffers were working". Of course The Associate Press staffers quickly identified the bullets as Israeli
rolleyes
, which is part of the problem with letting journalists free to do as they please.
Second, it was on December 31 when the Israeli Supreme Court ruled the government must allow
a limited number of journalists (specifically, 8) into Gaza ...
when it reopens the border crossing. If the government has not fully complied with the order, perhaps it's because the border crossing hadn't been reopened. Or perhaps there were safety concerns (about half a dozen journalists have died in the fighting so far). But in any case, some foreign journalists have been allowed into Gaza since then. On January 8, for example, two Israeli media outlets and the BBC were allowed to accompany Israeli forces and the link above indicates a dozen journalists were taken into Gaza by the Israelis just yesterday.
And by the way, I heard that Egypt is not allowing journalists to enter Gaza from it's border, either. Have you complained to them?
What did you think of the policy while it was policy?
Have I said anything to suggest that I agree with a policy of forcing civilians to help capture potentially armed fugitives? May I ask you what you think of Hamas' policy of *inviting* women with babies to stand on the top of buildings containing their leadership and weapons in order to protect not the babies but those leaders and weapons? Hmmmmmm?
Originally Posted by BBC
The state argued that its rules were necessary to arrest wanted militants and did not endanger Palestinian civilians who - it argued - gave their consent to take part in the operations.
[...] Adallah submitted an affidavit by one Israeli reservist who said: "No civilian would refuse a 'request' presented to him at 0300 by a group of soldiers aiming their cocked rifles at him."
Just curious. What if the civilian volunteered in broad daylight with no rifles aimed at him? Would you still be opposed to his helping the soldiers?
Quote:
If they are "volunteers" then perhaps they are no longer non-combatants and Israel should take the gloves off and bomb cases like that.
Are you advocating that unarmed people be bombed?
What I'm advocating is that the Geneva Conventions be obeyed by ALL parties in this conflict. And those Conventions (the portions I quoted in an earlier post) state those "volunteers" are NOT protected individuals because of their behavior and because of Hamas' role in that behavior. Understand?
Quote:
These aren't innocent civilians. They put themselves into the line of fire to "rescue" "gunmen".
Are you suggesting that these unarmed people should have been killed?
Let me repeat, what I'm proposing is that the Geneva Conventions be obeyed by ALL parties in this conflict. And those Conventions (the portions I quoted in an earlier post) state those "volunteers" are NOT protected individuals because of their behavior and because of Hamas' role in that behavior. Surely you want Hamas to abide by the Conventions too? Don't you?
Quote:
The article says they planned to "smuggle their men out in women’s clothes". Again, these aren't *innocents* caught in the line of fire or used by Israel to protect their own troops. These are people who are actively helping one side in the conflict ... who placed themselves into a situation where bullets were flying.
Are you suggesting that these unarmed people should have been killed?
Again. I'm suggesting that the Geneva Conventions be obeyed by ALL parties in this conflict. And those Conventions (specifically the portions I quoted in an earlier post) state those "volunteers" are NOT protected individuals because of their behavior and because of Hamas' role in that behavior. Is that clear enough for you?
Quote:
If one of them got killed doing that ... so be it.
So you don't mind that an unarmed woman was killed.
What was she doing? Was she aiding and abetting murderous terrorists in a war zone? Seems to me, she was participating in the battle, not an innocent observer.
Quote:
I salute the bravery of the unarmed citizens who rushed to the battle front to help their soldiers.
Help their soldiers do what ... escape so they could kill again later on? And how did the Israeli soldiers who fired at those *citizens* know they were unarmed? Were they naked ... or were they wearing thick, loose robes that could have hidden anything?
And by the way, you haven't answered my two questions ... whether the plan to disguise the gunmen as women (and presumably they'd still be carrying their weapons under their robes) would have put Palestinian women everywhere in more danger and whether you approve of those Hamas *soldiers* shooting at Israeli soldiers from a mosque? Care to answer them now or will we just here crickets?
Right. Did you forget that those famous "little ships" and the civilians on them were fired at and bombed by Germans as they showed their bravery? Some of those civilians were even killed in the operation by German bullets.
Do you have any indignation for what we Brits did at Dunkirk to save our soldiers?
Did anyone charge the Germans then with a war crime for attacking those unarmed merchant men? Of course not.
Back then you Brits had enough sense to see and understand the obvious in such a situation.
By the way, here's a few more facts about Dunkirk that might interest folks (from
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v02/v02p375_Lutton.html ).
First, a written order was issued commanding that French troops be embarked in equal numbers with the British. But British troops disobeyed that order and even fired on French soldiers who attempted to board the ships. Only after all the British had escaped were efforts made to evacuate French troops. Guess the British soldiers weren't any better than the Israeli soldiers at obeying orders from higher up.
Second, some British troops were supplied with dumdum bullets where were expressly banned by the Geneva Conventions. And London issued orders to take no prisoners except when they specifically needed captive Germans for interrogation. In fact, from the above link:
On 27 May, ninety prisoners of the Norfolk Regiment were killed by members of the SS Totendopf Division and on 28 May over eighty men of the Warwickshire Regiment were executed by troops of the SS Adolf Hitler Regiment. These acts were committed in retaliation for the massacre of large numbers of men of the SS Totenkopf Division who had surrendered to the British.
So I guess you Brits at Dunkirk weren't any better at obeying the Geneva Conventions then Hamas is in the current conflict.
Third, the above source states that
French and Belgian civilians fared little better than the Germans at the hands of their British confederates. Looting was common and 'stealing from civilians soon became official policy.' British military authorities executed without trial, civilians suspected of disloyalty. In one instance, reports Harmon, the Grenadier Guards shot seventeen suspected 'fifth columnists' at Helchin. The perpetrators of these war crimes were apparently not disciplined or placed on trial, as were German soldiers later charged with similar acts.
Again, at Dunkirk it would appear the Brits behaved like Hamas in the current conflict.
And finally, from the above source
Perhaps the most memorable aspect of the evacuation was the role played by civilians in their small boats. Harmon explains that this is just part of the myth. The British public was not informed that an evacuation was underway until 6pm on 31 May. A Small Vessels Pool, based on Sheerness, did assemble a large number of small civilian craft. But most of them were useless for evacuation work. Only on the last two days of the withdrawal did civilian volunteers play a role in rescuing an additional 26,500 men from the beaches. Their contribution, notes the author, "was gallant and distinguished; but it was not significant in terms of numbers rescued."
So perhaps your example of Dunkirk is one you now regret introducing.
They held up his promotion. Poor guy. I bet he misses the days when he could play General with all the other soldiers. Oh wait... Is he still a General?
I don't know, but again, can you provide us with ANY action taken against Hamas soldiers and *generals* who did the equivalent (OR WORSE)? No? I thought not.
And by the way, did you just miss the fact that your original source, B'tselem, congratulated the Israeli army on it's handling of this case?
