Hamas crimes against humanity

[Marc39]

As I said, until I can be provided information from a source of higher quality to convince me my perspective is wrong, I'm going to trust in HRW's assessment.

It's clear that certain individuals on this forum have their minds made up to be anti-Israel and do not want to be confused with the facts.

 

[BabyHeadedMan]

Can you provide me the link so I can read the whole thing?

I reproduced the article in full. I'm not allowed to post links yet as per forum rules, but if you want to see the article in its original location, just do a Google search for it and you'll see it right away.

 

[BabyHeadedMan]

Israel is under no obligation to provide HRW with anything, particularly given HRW's history of anti-Israel bias. Targeted assassinations, under specific circumstances, are legal. The US has engaged in the practice in the past and has been seeking members of Al Qaeda for targeted assassinaton. Israel has the same rights in this regard as the US. iAs for the misleading statement made by a HRW spokesman, "This is in essence a policy of killing without public accountability," targeted assassinations in Israel must be approved by a senior Israeli official, so, he is wrong as there is full accountability. An illustration of making negative pronouncements against Israel based on counterfactual informaton.

This has nothing to do with Israel fulfilling an obligation specifically to furnish HRW with evidence. Israel has "not made public any evidence" at all, so in light of this, there is no "public accountability" for the decisions of the "senior Israeli official."

 

[Marc39]

This has nothing to do with Israel fulfilling an obligation specifically to furnish HRW with evidence.

Why don't you protest in front of the Israeli embassy? Me, I have better things to do. Israel has no obligation to furnish HRW with anything, particularly given HRW's record of anti-Israel bias that includes active participantion in the 2001 Durban conference that turned into a bash-Israel free-for-all, proclaiming Zionism is racism. As a consequence of that outrageous event, the US has announced it will not attend Durban 2. HRW continues to campaign in favor of boycotts and other measures against Israel.

Israel has "not made public any evidence" at all, so in light of this, there is no "public accountability" for the decisions of the "senior Israeli official."

Boo hoo. Cry me a river. HRW has no legal authority to subpoena documents from Israel and no court of law, as far as I know, has done so either. Solid legal grounding justifies Israel's use of targeted assassinations of confirmed terrorists in the interest of national security. Has Hamas submitted any accountability documents to HRW? LOL.

HRW has seriously compromised credibiity and integrity and deserves nothing from Israel.

 

[Thunder]

Boo hoo. Cry me a river. HRW has no legal authority to subpoena documents from Israel and no court of law, as far as I know, has done so either. Solid legal grounding justifies Israel's use of targeted assassinations of confirmed terrorists in the interest of national security. Has Hamas submitted any accountability documents to HRW? LOL.

HRW has seriously compromised credibiity and integrity and deserves nothing from Israel.

Maybe Human Rights Watch is not on your side because you don't act like a human being?

Please keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks to argue your point.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[Thunder]

It's clear that certain individuals on this forum have their minds made up to be anti-Israel and do not want to be confused with the facts.

There are clearly a few folks on JREF who believe that Israel and Jews are incapable of expressing collective racism and prejudice, and will disregard ANY accusations of prejudice and inhumane actions and policies, regardless of the evidence, with accusations of "anti-Semitism".

What would the Judeo-fascists and right-wing Israelis do with out anti-Semitism?? Its such a useful tool for them. They use it all the time.

 

[gdnp]

Israel is under no obligation to provide HRW with anything, particularly given HRW's history of anti-Israel bias.

You keep saying this, yet have not posted any evidence documenting untrue or misleading statements about Israel.

Targeted assassinations, under specific circumstances, are legal. The US has engaged in the practice in the past and has been seeking members of Al Qaeda for targeted assassinaton. Israel has the same rights in this regard as the US.

Is this true? Can you furnish me the international treaties that spell out the circumstances under which targeted assassinations are legal? I'm not saying you are wrong, but without knowing what the rules are it's hard to say whether they are legal or not. In general, I do not think that international law favors extrajudicial executions.

iAs for the misleading statement made by a HRW spokesman, "This is in essence a policy of killing without public accountability," targeted assassinations in Israel must be approved by a senior Israeli official, so, he is wrong as there is full accountability.

How does "approval by a (unnamed) senior Israeli official" equate to "public accountability," which is what HRW referred to. It sounds like private accountability to me. The public knows nothing about who approved the assassination or why. In many cases, I believe, Israel refuses to confirm or deny that they had anything to do with the assassination. So in my mind this falls short of "full accountability" by any reasonable stretch of the imagination.

An illustration of making negative pronouncements against Israel based on counterfactual informaton.

"This is in essence a policy of killing without public accountability,"

Killing: check. Undeniable
No public accountability: check.

It seems neutral and unbiased to me. It uses the term "killing" rather than "murder" or even "assassination", the most generic term for taking of a human life. And there is no public accountability: regardless of what safeguards Israel uses behind the scenes, the public is not privy to it.

So it is neither a negative pronouncement, nor based on counterfactual information.

Is this the best example you can com up with for "anti-Israeli bias?"

 

[Marc39]

Can you furnish me the international treaties that spell out the circumstances under which targeted assassinations are legal?

Article 51 of the First Protocol Additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions is the relevant law.

The approach of international law applied to armed conflicts is that enemy civilians are protected from attacks by the military. However, that protection does not extend to civilians who take part in hostilities. Harming such civilians, even if the result is death, is permitted provided there is no other option that would be less harmful, and on condition that innocent civilians nearby are not harmed, at least not harmed disproportionately. According to this provision, a civilian who takes violent action against the enemy does not lose his civilian status, but loses the protected status of a civilian during the time that he was involved in the violent action.

In a ruling by the Israeli High Court of Justice, in order for a targeted killing to be considered legal, the state must fulfill four conditions to the best of its ability...

1) It must have strong evidence that the potential target meets the conditions for having lost his protected status.

2) An independent and thorough investigation must be conducted immediately after the operation to determine whether it was justified. In appropriate cases, the state should compensate innocent civilians for harm done.

3) If less drastic measures can be used to stop the potential target posing a security a threat, such as arrest, the state must use them, unless this alternative poses too great a risk to the lives of the soldiers.

4) The state must assess in advance whether the collateral damage to innocent civilians involved in a targeted killing is expected to be greater than the advantage gained by the operation. If it is, the state must not carry out the operation.

If the state performs all four duties and finds that the proposed actions meet the conditions set forth in the law, the targeted assassination will be legal, concluded the Court.

 

[portlandatheist]

I reproduced the article in full. I'm not allowed to post links yet as per forum rules, but if you want to see the article in its original location, just do a Google search for it and you'll see it right away.

I found it here:
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2001/01/28/israel-end-liquidations-palestinian-suspects?print

It would be nice to have more context and background to this story, this is dated January 28, 2001.

 

[Marc39]

I found it here:
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2001/01/28/israel-end-liquidations-palestinian-suspects?print

It would be nice to have more context and background to this story, this is dated January 28, 2001.

Ask the prevaricator from Queens if B'Tselem has anything more current LOL.

 

[gdnp]

Article 51 of the First Protocol Additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions is the relevant law.

The approach of international law applied to armed conflicts is that enemy civilians are protected from attacks by the military. However, that protection does not extend to civilians who take part in hostilities. Harming such civilians, even if the result is death, is permitted provided there is no other option that would be less harmful, and on condition that innocent civilians nearby are not harmed, at least not harmed disproportionately. According to this provision, a civilian who takes violent action against the enemy does not lose his civilian status, but loses the protected status of a civilian during the time that he was involved in the violent action.

In a ruling by the Israeli High Court of Justice, in order for a targeted killing to be considered legal, the state must fulfill four conditions to the best of its ability...

It sounds like the Israeli High court of Justice has done their best to assure that targeted killings are only performed as a last resort.

1) It must have strong evidence that the potential target meets the conditions for having lost his protected status.

This provision disturbs me, as it would seem that the government decides whether the evidence is strong or not. Of course, the US does the same. It led to the Iraq war.

2) An independent and thorough investigation must be conducted immediately after the operation to determine whether it was justified. In appropriate cases, the state should compensate innocent civilians for harm done.

It would seem to me that the time for the independent and thorough investigation would be before the target is killed. Otherwise, there is no effective remedy for the inappropriately targeted victim.

Who provides this "independent and thorough investigation?" International human rights groups? Israeli judiciary? It has the potential to be a rubber stamp.

3) If less drastic measures can be used to stop the potential target posing a security a threat, such as arrest, the state must use them, unless this alternative poses too great a risk to the lives of the soldiers.

Again, reasonable on its face. The question, of course, it what a "reasonable" level of risk to soldiers is. Israel killed hundreds of Palestinian civilians in January to avoid the risk of the loss of soldiers. It would seem that they are willing to sacrifice many Palestinian lives to avoid the risk to their troops.

Or perhaps not. They may simply have come to the decision that a commando raid would both be more risky and less likely to succeed than a missile from a drone.

4) The state must assess in advance whether the collateral damage to innocent civilians involved in a targeted killing is expected to be greater than the advantage gained by the operation. If it is, the state must not carry out the operation.

Another slippery definition that is hard to challenge. Is a key Hamas terrorist worth 5 civilians, 50 civilians, 500 civilians, or more? Do children count the same as adults? It's a pretty flexible standard.

If the state performs all four duties and finds that the proposed actions meet the conditions set forth in the law, the targeted assassination will be legal, concluded the Court.

The guidelines are reasonable, but as with any situation such as this the devil is in the details. Who makes up the independent commission, and by what standards do they judge the evidence as "strong" and whether the advantage gained was worth the collateral damage? And as important, are these results released for public scrutiny, or do we just need to take the Israeli government's word for it that a particular operation was justified?

So as not to be seen as picking on Israel, these procedures may well be more rigorous than those in the US.

 

[Marc39]

It sounds like the Israeli High court of Justice has done their best to assure that targeted killings are only performed as a last resort.
This provision disturbs me, as it would seem that the government decides whether the evidence is strong or not. Of course, the US does the same. It led to the Iraq war.

It would seem to me that the time for the independent and thorough investigation would be before the target is killed. Otherwise, there is no effective remedy for the inappropriately targeted victim.

Who provides this "independent and thorough investigation?" International human rights groups? Israeli judiciary? It has the potential to be a rubber stamp.

Again, reasonable on its face. The question, of course, it what a "reasonable" level of risk to soldiers is. Israel killed hundreds of Palestinian civilians in January to avoid the risk of the loss of soldiers. It would seem that they are willing to sacrifice many Palestinian lives to avoid the risk to their troops.

Or perhaps not. They may simply have come to the decision that a commando raid would both be more risky and less likely to succeed than a missile from a drone.
Another slippery definition that is hard to challenge. Is a key Hamas terrorist worth 5 civilians, 50 civilians, 500 civilians, or more? Do children count the same as adults? It's a pretty flexible standard.

The guidelines are reasonable, but as with any situation such as this the devil is in the details. Who makes up the independent commission, and by what standards do they judge the evidence as "strong" and whether the advantage gained was worth the collateral damage? And as important, are these results released for public scrutiny, or do we just need to take the Israeli government's word for it that a particular operation was justified?

So as not to be seen as picking on Israel, these procedures may well be more rigorous than those in the US.

It's amusing to read your snap analysis of the thoughtul Israeli Supreme Court's ruling on targeted assassination, given you didn't even know the law in the first place. That's ok, I'm a giver.

 

[gdnp]

It's amusing to read your snap analysis of the thoughtul Israeli Supreme Court's ruling on targeted assassination, given you didn't even know the law in the first place. That's ok, I'm a giver.

Your post was excellent. I like to give credit where it is due.

There may be hope for you yet.

 

[Marc39]

Your post was excellent. I like to give credit where it is due.

There may be hope for you yet.

I appreciate that. Thank you. Have a nice weekend.

 

[gdnp]

You too.

 

[BabyHeadedMan]

Boo hoo. Cry me a river. HRW has no legal authority to subpoena documents from Israel and no court of law, as far as I know, has done so either. Solid legal grounding justifies Israel's use of targeted assassinations of confirmed terrorists in the interest of national security. Has Hamas submitted any accountability documents to HRW? LOL.

HRW has seriously compromised credibiity and integrity and deserves nothing from Israel.

As I said before, this has nothing to do with what HRW is requesting. No one has been able to get any evidence released period. I wouldn't be so bold in making pronouncements as to the "solid legal grounding" on which "liquidations" are based when no evidence is available to review the legality of past assassinations.

In some cases, the circumstances under which assassinations were carried out may have rendered them unlawful, regardless of the amount of evidence that exists against the targets. Here is a quote from Amnesty International's case study of the Thabet Thabet assassination from Israel and the Occupied Territories: State assassinations and other unlawful killings:

According to his wife, Dr. Thabet Thabet could have been arrested by the Israeli authorities if suspected of any offence without difficulty since he regularly drove to Nablus and each Friday he attended a mosque in Far'un in Area B

Noting that the law you cite permits harming a civilian "provided there is no other option that would be less harmful," Dr. Thabet's assassination may very well have been illegal on the grounds that Israel could have just arrested him and put him on trial.

 

[Thunder]

Ask the prevaricator from Queens if B'Tselem has anything more current LOL.

You can address me directly if you have something to say.

 

[Marc39]

As I said before, this has nothing to do with what HRW is requesting. No one has been able to get any evidence released period.

Requests are being made by Israeli groups of Israel's AG compelling the IDF to release information. Knowing the extraordinary lengths that the IDF goes to in order to assure themselves each individual targeted assassination is on solid legal ground, involving senior-most IDF officials working in close concert with legal counsel, I'm confident the "evidence" will demonstrate the IDF's actions have been within the law. And, if not, then they will be held accountable. I don't see you nor the human rights groups protesting Hamas's "extra-judicial" assassinations. When will this happen?

In some cases, the circumstances under which assassinations were carried out may have rendered them unlawful, regardless of the amount of evidence that exists against the targets. Here is a quote from Amnesty International's case study of the Thabet Thabet assassination from Israel and the Occupied Territories: State assassinations and other unlawful killings:

Noting that the law you cite permits harming a civilian "provided there is no other option that would be less harmful," Dr. Thabet's assassination may very well have been illegal on the grounds that Israel could have just arrested him and put him on trial.

Amnesty Int'l is also not a court of law, Amnesty, like HRW, has a record of anti-Israel bias and not pressing Hamas nor other terrorist groups for reform. Amnesty's "studies" carry no weight nor are to be relied upon for accuracy given their bias. Targeted assassinations are a proven effective means for the IDF to eliminate terrorists and preserve Israel's national security.

 

[Thunder]

Amnesty Int'l is also not a court of law, Amnesty, like HRW, has a record of anti-Israel bias and not pressing Hamas nor other terrorist groups for reform. Amnesty's "studies" carry no weight nor are to be relied upon for accuracy given their bias. Targeted assassinations are a proven effective means for the IDF to eliminate terrorists and preserve Israel's national security.

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2007/03/23/hamas-end-military-group-attacks-against-civilians

HRW does indeed attack Hamas for their murder of innocent Israeli civilians.

Israel's "targeted assassinations" are just murder of accused terrorists. Nothing more. They are just murder by another name.

 

[BabyHeadedMan]

Requests are being made by Israeli groups of Israel's AG compelling the IDF to release information. Knowing the extraordinary lengths that the IDF goes to in order to assure themselves each individual targeted assassination is on solid legal ground, involving senior-most IDF officials working in close concert with legal counsel, I'm confident the "evidence" will demonstrate the IDF's actions have been within the law. And, if not, then they will be held accountable. I don't see you nor the human rights groups protesting Hamas's "extra-judicial" assassinations. When will this happen?

For an example of a human-rights organization criticizing Hamas' extrajudicial killings, see B'Tselem's Extra-judicial execution of alleged collaborators by Hamas. For an example of HRW specifically criticizing Hamas and Fatah, see Occupied Palestinian Territories: New Arrests Highlight Abuses by Hamas, Fatah.

I don't share you blind faith in the incorruptibility of the Israeli government, and I fail to see what is wrong with a little bit of transparency. We're talking about human beings' lives here.

Amnesty Int'l is also not a court of law, Amnesty, like HRW, has a record of anti-Israel bias and not pressing Hamas nor other terrorist groups for reform. Amnesty's "studies" carry no weight nor are to be relied upon for accuracy given their bias. Targeted assassinations are a proven effective means for the IDF to eliminate terrorists and preserve Israel's national security.

A prominent, respected human-rights group carries a lot more weight than the proclamations of a secretive government.