BF2S Forums No war crimes trials for Israelis

AussieReaper wrote:

The U.N has already accused the Israeli's of committing such a war crime. The Israeli's respond by saying yes it was used, two men have been reprimanded. If you're trying to argue that technically a war crime might not have occurred, you don't have much evidence to support it.

The Israeli govt has offered nothing other than blatant denial for months until this final admission. And expects the punishment of two men to suffice.

They call for tougher action against Hamas and their war crimes yet treat their as a trivial matter.

What I'm saying is that the UN accused without an investigation into whether a war crime actually occurred. And IIRC, it wasn't the UN that accused, but rather the guy at that location that tossed around the term war crimes and that non-binding report that alluded to war crimes--no official accusations of war crimes by any UN body have been made. Unless I've missed something...it has been a while.

What I'm getting at is that

1) what has been done to date by both sides is insufficient to prove or disprove war crimes accusations

2) if war crimes have been committed, clearly the punishment is inadequate and should extend beyond just those two senior officers

If you're trying to argue that a war crime has been committed, you don't have much evidence to support it, either. That's the whole point. WP =/= war crime. Even in this case. There must be clear negligence or intent. Neither of those can be just assumed, they must be proven by investigation. Israel has done an investigation...what does it say WRT those two attributes?

All we have is news reports that don't provide the level of detail needed to have a meaningful, informed discussion on the topic.

When it applies to the Israelis

FEOS wrote:

If you're trying to argue that a war crime has been committed, you don't have much evidence to support it, either. That's the whole point.

But when it comes to Palestinians

FEOS wrote:

Since when does every killing have to involve a trial? If it's a state-sponsored thing (everyone seems to assume it's Israel), why does it have to have a trial associated with it? Maybe they've already tried him in absentia and found him guilty.

Pretty well sums up FEOS' warped attitude to the two sides, Israelis are always innocent however much evidence there is otherwise, Palestinians can be summarily executed on the say-so of the Israelis.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-02-02 04:21:39)

AussieReaper wrote:

FEOS wrote:

What I'm saying is that the UN accused without an investigation into whether a war crime actually occurred. And IIRC, it wasn't the UN that accused, but rather the guy at that location that tossed around the term war crimes and that non-binding report that alluded to war crimes--no official accusations of war crimes by any UN body have been made. Unless I've missed something...it has been a while.

Yes, it is the UN which has accused and called for a full war crimes investigation.

The U.N. report, authored by veteran war crimes prosecutor Richard Goldstone, has accused Israel of using disproportionate force and deliberately targeting civilians. It also accused Hamas of firing rockets indiscriminately at Israeli civilians.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100201/ap_ … lestinians

FEOS wrote:

What I'm getting at is that

1) what has been done to date by both sides is insufficient to prove or disprove war crimes accusations

2) if war crimes have been committed, clearly the punishment is inadequate and should extend beyond just those two senior officers

If you're trying to argue that a war crime has been committed, you don't have much evidence to support it, either. That's the whole point. WP =/= war crime. Even in this case. There must be clear negligence or intent. Neither of those can be just assumed, they must be proven by investigation. Israel has done an investigation...what does it say WRT those two attributes?

All we have is news reports that don't provide the level of detail needed to have a meaningful, informed discussion on the topic.

Well:

The Goldstone report, issued in September, accused Israel and, to a lesser extent, Hamas, of possible war crimes. Israel rejected it as biased and distorted, saying that while mistakes were made in what was a complex battle zone, they were not intentional and did not constitute war crimes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/world … deast.html

I somehow doubt that the Israeli military is exactly fair and unbiased in investigating itself, either.

And the Goldstone report is the non-binding report I was referring to. Again, no "official" accusations of war crimes. Otherwise, the UN would be bringing Israelis before the Hague for trial.

FEOS wrote:

And the Goldstone report is the non-binding report I was referring to. Again, no "official" accusations of war crimes. Otherwise, the UN would be bringing Israelis before the Hague for trial.

Both sides reject the charges. They have until Friday to respond, but have signaled they would not meet the central demand of allowing credible, independent probes. That could lead the way to formal war crimes proceedings, though Israel's ally the United States is expected to block any efforts to prosecute.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100201/ap_ … lestinians

Oh look, the US is likely to block the war crimes tribunals taking place...

Wouldn't have anything to do with the fact Israel bought those munitions from the US, would it?