UN Report says Israel targeted civilians in Gaza

[CptStern]

United Nations investigators said on Monday Israel violated a range of human rights during its invasion of Gaza, including targeting civilians and using a child as a human shield.

Israeli soldiers shot a father after ordering him out of his house and then opened fire into the room where the rest of the family was sheltering, wounding the mother and three brothers and killing a fourth.

In another, on January 15, at Tal al Hawa south-west of Gaza City, Israeli soldiers forced an 11-year-old boy to walk in front of them for several hours as they moved through the town, even after they had been shot at.

An Israeli commander in the 22-day Gaza invasion said on Monday Israel's efforts to protect troops from Palestinian fire may have contributed to unwarranted killing of civilians.

"If you want to know whether I think that in doing so we killed innocents, the answer is, unequivocally, yes," Tzvika Fogel, a reserve brigadier-general, told Reuters. Fogel added that such incidents were exceptional.

this comes as no surprise to anyone who followed the 3 week war in gaza. Although this validates what most people already knew

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090323/ts_nm/us_un_rights_israel

more details:

A month-long investigation also obtained evidence of civilians being hit by fire from unmanned drone aircraft said to be so accurate that their operators can tell the colour of the clothes worn by a target.

Some of the most dramatic testimony gathered by the Guardian came from three teenage brothers in the al-Attar family. They describe how they were taken from home at gunpoint, made to kneel in front of Israeli tanks to deter Hamas fighters from firing, and sent by Israeli soldiers into Palestinian houses to clear them. "They would make us go first so if any fighters shot at them the bullets would hit us, not them," 14-year-old Al'a al-Attar said.

Medics and ambulance drivers said they were targeted when they tried to tend to the wounded; sixteen were killed. According to the World Health Organisation, more than half of Gaza's 27 hospitals and 44 clinics were damaged by Israeli bombs.

The Guardian gathered testimony on missile attacks by Israeli drones against clearly distinguishable civilian targets. In one case a family of six was killed when a missile hit the courtyard of their house. Israel has not admitted using drones but experts say their optical equipment is good enough to identify individual items of clothing worn by targets

Israel's response:

The army responded to the claims. "The IDF operated in accordance with rules of war and did the utmost to minimise harm to civilians uninvolved in combat. The IDF's use of weapons conforms to international law," it said. The IDF said an investigation was under way into allegations hospitals were targeted. It said Israeli soldiers were under orders to avoid harming medics, but: "However, in light of the difficult reality of warfare in the Gaza Strip carried out in urban and densely populated areas, medics who operate in the area take the risk upon themselves."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/23/israel-gaza-war-crimes-guardian

 

[Officer Combine]

Well if you wanna end a war in your favor real quick, this is the way. (Think Hiroshima).

 

[Eejit]

Doesn't matter, Israel can do whatever they want, whenever they want. Or have you forgotten the Holocaust?

 

[Solaris]

Doesn't matter, Israel can do whatever they want, whenever they want. Or have you forgotten the Holocaust?

Nobody says that.

And the original article is disgusting. Clearly Israel are always excessively heavy handed.

 

[Officer Combine]

Well if you wanna end a war in your favor real quick, this is the way. (Think Hiroshima).

That is the worst excuse I've ever heard. Thats like saying that because the British taxed our tea, it was our right to overthrow the British Monarchy. How ridiculous.

 

[PimpinPenguin]

That is the worst excuse I've ever heard. Thats like saying that because the British taxed our tea, it was our right to overthrow the British Monarchy. How ridiculous.

I'm confused, that was your excuse.
Overall what's new. All military forces are heavy handed and break the rules.

 

[CptStern]

except Israel continuallly accused hamas of using human shields ...pretty hypocritical dont you think? also war or not, crimes commited during war are still crimes

 

[Warped]

Humanity I'm afraid is entering yet again another Dark Age of Stupidity

 

[jet_porkins]

Sheesh.

 

[Maturin]

It's not like Israel denies it. Or they have acknowledged their indiscriminatory, collective punishment tactics in the past.

Just don't mention it, or you're an anti-Semite.

 

[No Limit]

Well of course they did.

 

[Officer Combine]

I'm confused, that was your excuse.
Overall what's new. All military forces are heavy handed and break the rules.

My point is that Eejit's post makes no sense.

 

[Warped]

well its like this: someone gets attacked, the other side does something to retaliate and then the original side does something that crosses the line and is considered dirty then both sides break more rules and usually there is one loser but in war a lot is lost. dignity being the 1st because its nearly impossible to fight by any rules of war nowadays. i mean imagine if they made a gun that shoot hydrochloric acid bullets or thermite rounds that evaporate people on the spot. the people that don't have that technology would be pissed and resort to different means to fighting.

so when you have a country that is reduced to small children being taught to throw rocks because there aren't really any other weapons to use and they fire rockets at random targets, its because they have nothing left to fight with. if the Palestinians had any Airforce at all they would use it. instead you had the US backed Israeli army/air force decimating a population which also took a lot of land in the process and no other country has the balls to help out. Imo its an unfair fight and its like big brother putting little brother in a head lock. also most US media outlets are pro-Israeli but unfortunately many people have been flocking to internet radio and tv from around the globe to get a different perspective. and if you watch Fox news your an idiot

 

[Officer Combine]

There is nothing morally wrong with killing civilians on the enemy side in a war (in most cases).

 

[Escaep]

There is nothing morally wrong with killing civilians on the enemy side in a war (in most cases).

Umm. What? So I if im a pilot and bomb a shelter full of civilian women and children thats not morally wrong?

 

[Warped]

Umm. What? So I if im a pilot and bomb a shelter full of civilian women and children thats not morally wrong?

exactly its taking it too far. there is killing someone and there is murder. its a big difference even during war

 

[Officer Combine]

Nope. Not in my opinion.

 

[PimpinPenguin]

There is nothing morally wrong with killing civilians on the enemy side in a war (in most cases).

How can you say that killing innocent civilians is not wrong. If you were at war and someone wiped out your family, destroyed everything you owned, You'd just stand there and except it. I don't think so, you would be pissed off and you would more than likely want revenge and justice done. It's easy to sit there saying it morally ok when your not the one being attacked. Those people are innocent it's murder pure and simple, there is no difference to me shooting an unarmed man who is of no threat in a war than one on the street. Civilian deaths are never acceptable.

 

[Officer Combine]

How can you say that killing innocent civilians is not wrong. If you were at war and someone wiped out your family, destroyed everything you owned, You'd just stand there and except it. I don't think so, you would be pissed off and you would more than likely want revenge and justice done. It's easy to sit there saying it morally ok when your not the one being attacked. Those people are innocent it's murder pure and simple, there is no difference to me shooting an unarmed man who is of no threat in a war than one on the street. Civilian deaths are never acceptable.

How can you say that killing soldiers is not wrong. If you were at war and someone wiped out your son/daughter, You'd just stand there and except it. I don't think so, you would be pissed off and you would more than likely want revenge and justice done. It's easy to sit there saying it morally ok when your not the one being attacked. Those men and women are innocent it's murder pure and simple, there is no difference to me shooting an unarmed man who is of no threat in a war than one on the street. Soldier deaths are never acceptable.

 

[unozero]

There is nothing morally wrong with killing civilians on the enemy side in a war (in most cases).

wow dude.

 

[Officer Combine]

In the Bible God ordered the Jews to kill an entire people, women, children, everything. According to you, this is evil yes? The bible is evil, yes?

 

[PimpinPenguin]

You choose to be a Soldier including the risk it involves. Soldiers are not innocent when they go to war they go to fight. You can't criticize the enemy for killing your Solider during a war, thats ****ing stupid learn the definition of war. Can you not tell the difference between Civilians and a Military force.
Also next time if you going to copy my post bar changing one word atleast make sure it makes sense in your context.

What's the ****ing Bible got to do with this?. Personally i think the Bible is full of bullshit for what it's worth.

 

[Officer Combine]

You choose to be a Soldier including the risk it involves. Soldiers are not innocent when they go to war they go to fight. You can't criticize the enemy for killing your Solider during a war, thats ****ing stupid learn the definition of war. Can you not tell the difference between Civilians and a Military force.
Also next time if you going to copy my post bar changing one word atleast make sure it makes sense in your context.

What's the ****ing Bible got to do with this?. Personally i think the Bible is full of bullshit for what it's worth.

Obviously we have different religions so we won't likely agree on much.

 

[PimpinPenguin]

What's religion got to do with this? What religion are you that says innocent people getting killed is ok?
I honestly can't understand your logic. Would you support Al qaeda? Because they are at war with the west and kill innocent people, so by your logic it's fine.

 

[unozero]

In the Bible God ordered the Jews to kill an entire people, women, children, everything. According to you, this is evil yes? The bible is evil, yes?

what's wrong with you?


did you bump your head or something?

 

[Officer Combine]

What's religion got to do with this? What religion are you that says innocent people getting killed is ok?
I honestly can't understand your logic. Would you support Al qaeda? Because they are at war with the west and kill innocent people, so by your logic it's fine.

No. I don't support Al Qaeda. They are evil, fighting the wrong people, and are fighting for the wrong reason.

 

[Emporius]

No. I don't support Al Qaeda. They are evil, fighting the wrong people, and are fighting for the wrong reason.

And what makes your reason any more 'right'?

 

[Officer Combine]

And what makes your reason any more 'right'?

I was responding to that quote I was quoting.

So, would more civilians have lived if we hadn't dropped the A-bomb on Japan? I don't think so.

 

[PimpinPenguin]

No. I don't support Al Qaeda. They are evil, fighting the wrong people, and are fighting for the wrong reason.

Why are they evil? Is it because the US and it's Allies say they are? To them we are evil and fighting the wrong people. It works both ways. Why are they evil, yet we are fine to kill them?

 

[Warped]

How can you say that killing soldiers is not wrong. If you were at war and someone wiped out your son/daughter, You'd just stand there and except it. I don't think so, you would be pissed off and you would more than likely want revenge and justice done. It's easy to sit there saying it morally ok when your not the one being attacked. Those men and women are innocent it's murder pure and simple, there is no difference to me shooting an unarmed man who is of no threat in a war than one on the street. Soldier deaths are never acceptable.

civilians don't carry weapons and fight back. the main point your missing is that when someone is threatening your side you can shoot back at them, but when someone isn't fighting you and they don't have a gun or weapon you leave them alone. thats a natural rule of war and if you were in my army and shot an innocent civilian i'd sure as hell put you in the brig for life. you just don't get it do you??

 

[Officer Combine]

Answer my A-bomb question. Civilian killing without stopping is a way to end the war quicker.

 

[PimpinPenguin]

So, would more civilians have lived if we hadn't dropped the A-bomb on Japan? I don't think so.

Are you talking about American civilians or Japanese civilians? Cause i'm sure a lot more would have lived if you didn't nuke them. And if you think nuking civilians make you safer you are wrong. Civilians are no threat to you, you are not at war with innocent people. Over 200,000 died in the A-bomb, the vast majority innocent people. How would you feel if someone detonated an A-bomb in a major city in your country?
I do hope you know that killing innocent people in a War is classed as a War crime. If a Solider kills an innocent person they would be banged up for murder pure and simple.

 

[Officer Combine]

Are you talking about American civilians or Japanese civilians? Cause i'm sure a lot more would have lived if you didn't nuke them. And if you think nuking civilians make you safer you are wrong. Civilians are no threat to you, you are not at war with innocent people. Over 200,000 died in the A-bomb, the vast majority innocent people. How would you feel if someone detonated an A-bomb in a major city in your country?

Both sides would have lost a whole lot more people.

How would you feel if someone detonated an A-bomb in a major city in your country?

Did America invade a neutral country (China) killing thousands mericlessly, then attempt to invade another country that had prompted them in no way?

 

[Warped]

Are you talking about American civilians or Japanese civilians? Cause i'm sure a lot more would have lived if you didn't nuke them. And if you think nuking civilians make you safer you are wrong. Civilians are no threat to you, you are not at war with innocent people. Over 200,000 died in the A-bomb, the vast majority innocent people. How would you feel if someone detonated an A-bomb in a major city in your country?

although they haven't detonated in a major city, thousands have been detonated in the US as tests and now practically every breath you take could contain some of the fallout from those tests so long ago. its in our food supply, the atmosphere, the ground, the water, you name it.

but to answer the question previously at war we dropped the bomb to save more lives. its the question of do we have a prolonged war that could take more years to fight and more lives lost both civilian and military or do we end this here and now. we chose the get out quick approach and it basically scared the shit out of everyone as well as ended the war for us

 

[Escaep]

Answer my A-bomb question. Civilian killing without stopping is a way to end the war quicker.

Have you ever taken a history class? The A-Bomb actually ended up saving millions of lives. The next stop to end the war in the Pacific was the invasion of Japan itself. And with the way the Japanese were holding islands to the very last man the citizens of Japan would most likely have been called upon to defend the homeland to the last man, woman, and child. Not counting the tens/hundreds of thousands of soldier deaths on each side. The population of Japan at the onset of the war was 71 million people. Do you have any clue to the amount of civilian deaths there would have been?

 

[Officer Combine]

Have you ever taken a history class? The A-Bomb actually ended up saving millions of lives. The next stop to end the war in the Pacific was the invasion of Japan itself. And with the way the Japanese were holding islands to the very last man the citizens of Japan would most likely have been called upon to defend the homeland to the last man, woman, and child. Not counting the tens/hundreds of thousands of soldier deaths on each side. The population of Japan at the onset of the war was 71 million people. Do you have any clue to the amount of civilian deaths there would have been?

What the hell that was my POINT!

 

[Maturin]

Ignore him, he's a psychopath.

Killing someone is always wrong, no matter the circumstances. Always and 100%.

But it's not like anyone is going to blame you for defending your family or yourself. If you're religious, God won't either. Something can be justified, yet wrong, as weird as that sounds. But you had damn well better not kid yourself into thinking that because it was expedient and understandable, it was right. It wasn't. In other words, repent, and I say this as an athiest.

The invasion of Japan would have been far bloodier. That doesn't stop Hiroshima from being one of the most horrendous acts of the 21st century, and people forget that the earlier campaign that had killed almost as many Japanese civilians and burned almost every city to the ground. Given the circumstances, I understand Truman's decision. I believe that with the benefit of hindsight and with full intelligence of what the respective sides were doing (the Emperor tried to surrender through the Soviets) the two cities could have been spared. But it was a desperate time, Stalin was paranoid and expansionist, and mistakes were made.

The worst part about Gaza is that Israel is shelling an internment camp. They forbid civilians to leave the war zone, even as they covered the tiny, densely-populated area in ordinance. I know everyone is going to blame it all on Hamas, and believe me, both the army and the terrorists have enough innocent blood to bathe it. I just think it's somehow worse when an industrialized, enlightened, moral democracy abuses human rights. Hamas is a terrorist group. Shouldn't we expect evil acts from them? You don't get to retaliate using the same tactics.

It also may be useful to remember that Israel helped create Hamas, as a way to hurt Fatah, just like the U.S. helped create Al Qaeda to attack the Societs. Israel did this because, like Hamas, they are not always interested in peace.

 

[Officer Combine]

Ignore him, he's a psychopath.

Killing someone is always wrong, no matter the circumstances. Always and 100%.

But it's not like anyone is going to blame you for defending your family or yourself. If you're religious, God won't either. Something can be justified, yet wrong, as weird as that sounds. But you had damn well better not kid yourself into thinking that because it was expedient and understandable, it was right. It wasn't. In other words, repent, and I say this as an athiest.

The invasion of Japan would have been far bloodier. That doesn't stop Hiroshima from being one of the most horrendous acts of the 21st century, and people forget that the earlier campaign that had killed almost as many Japanese civilians and burned almost every city to the ground. Given the circumstances, I understand Truman's decision. I believe that with the benefit of hindsight and with full intelligence of what the respective sides were doing (the Emperor tried to surrender through the Soviets) the two cities could have been spared. But it was a desperate time, Stalin was paranoid and expansionist, and mistakes were made.

If thats your opinion, okay.

 

[Warped]

someday nukes may save this planet but for now i hope no one has to use them forever

 

[Officer Combine]

someday nukes may save this planet but for now i hope no one has to use them forever

Nukes will probably save the world by blowing up all the other nukes.