Gaza Aftermath Raises Question of War Crimes:
Obama Must Overcome Initial Muslim Distrust
The Israeli assault on Gaza has drawn to an end, now that its Great Enabler (W.) is no longer in the cockpit of the Calamity Machine, and its architect, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, is the lamest of lame ducks.
Those hawks who proclaimed so loudly that Israel had no choice but to just fall upon the Gazans, and that the Palestinians of Gaza were unalterably dedicated to war-making on Israel, have fogotten a mid-December poll that showed 74% of Palestinians wanted to see the truce extended, and 51% of Israelis did. Let me just repeat that. In calling Hamas's bluff to break off negotiations, and massively punishing Gaza civilians, the Olmert government was ignoring the majority view among Israelis and the vast majority of Palestinians who wanted a truce. Of course, once hostilities began, people rallied around their flag. But if Olmert had been forced to hold a referendum among Israelis on whether to do this horrible thing, he would have lost.
The last Israeli troops left Gaza on Wednesday. The three week long shooting-fish-in-a-barrel exercise killed, on the Palestinian side, 280 children and minors, 111 women, and 503 male noncombatants. Gaza police accounted for 167 of the dead; can you just read off Gaza police as "Hamas militants"? Or were they traffic cops & etc.? The Palestinian Center for Human rights estimated that the Israelis killed 223 Hamas guerrillas. In other words, if this count is correct, the Israelis managed to kill more children than real militants.
So what is the outcome of this dirty little war?
The fundamentalist group Hamas is reasserting itself in Gaza as Israeli troops withdraw, and now has a new pretext to target members of the Fatah group, secular nationalists loyal to Palestine Authority president Mahmoud Abbas. So the Israelis may have actually politically strengthened Hamas and further weakened Fatah, which is already notorious for corruption, political repression, inefficiency, and, increasingly collaboration with Israel.
Although Israel claimed to have destroyed 60 percent of the tunnels whereby Gazans bring food, medicine, and sometimes explosives into the Strip via the Sinai Peninsula, reports Wednesday indicated that the tunnels were already active again. Even if only 40 percent of them are operational, it is hard to see what was achieved. The others can be redug, and anyway a lot of materiel can be brought in with the 40 percent surviving tunnels.
Israeli politicians and military commanders are being urged to consult counsel before they travel in Europe, where some courts assert universal jurisdiction and where war crimes cases are being filed against Israeli leaders. In 1998, a London court ordered the arrest of Chilean dictator Gen. Augustino Pinochet, who had butchered thousands of community activists, asserting universal jurisdiction. Governments have attempted to reduce the prerogative of courts in this regard, but apparently there are loopholes in the current British legislation that would allow an Israeli leader or officer to be arrested if they journey to the UK. Ynet observes, "The Israeli. . . claim that Hamas has been using women and children as human shields never really took, said a source. Whenever it was used the response was the same: If you know that . . . women and children [were] there – hold your fire."
Defense Minister Ehud Barak is setting up a legal defense of Israeli troops from potential war crimes prosecutions. Barak pledged that Israeli soldiers would not have to worry about prosecution: "The soldiers did not embark on a private operation . . .We will give them out full support." It is ironic that an Israeli defense minister seems unaware that the Nuremberg trials established the principle that following orders is no defense for a soldier charged with atrocities.
Even as Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni visited Brussels, human rights organizations in Belgium were (wholly unrealistically) petitioning a court to have her arrested. However impractical the legal move, it was a humiliation for Tzipi.
The right-Zionists are always asking why Israel is held to a different standard. It isn't. it appears to be being held to the same standard as Augusto Pinochet and Slobodan Milosevic. It isn't very nice company to be in, and many Israelis are deeply ashamed of what was done and demanding Israeli investigations of war crimes.
UN Secretary-General Ban ki-Moon visited Gaza and was reported absolutely appalled at the scenes of human destruction he witnessed there. He demanded that nothing like the Gaza campaign ever be undertaken again (i.e. by Israel) and he said he would do what he could to establish accountability.
Amnesty International is accusing Israel of using white phosphorous in such a way that it constituted a war crime. The New York times clearly takes the charges seriously, underlining my thesis that what the government of Ehud Olmert disturbed many American Jews.
Aljazeera English reports on the aftermath of the Israeli assault on Gaza, including questions about the use of white phosphorous on densely populated civilian areas, producing burns and destroying food warehouses in the midst of a famine. Many Gaza civilians are camped on the rubble of their former homes, searching frantically for loved ones who may no longer be among the living.
Aljazeera English reports that the Muslim world has been disappointed in Obama's silence on Gaza, and that he needs to do some fence mending.
End/ (Not Continued)
posted by Juan Cole @ 1/22/2009 12:46:00 AM
|
Facebook
20 Comments:
In your latest posting (22nd Jan) you say: "The right-Zionists are always asking why Israel is held to a different standard. It isn't. it appears to be being held to the same standard as Augusto Pinochet and Slobodan Milosevic". Its not the first time you've compared Israeli actions to the actions of Slobodan Milosevic but I can't think of anything that can reasonably be attributed to the direct responsibility of Milosevic that begins to compare to what has been done in Gaza (or in Southern Lebanon). Dreadful things were done in the Yugoslav wars but Milosevic's control over, say, the Bosnian Serbs, was considerably less than, say, Bush's control over the Israelis. And there can be no comparison between the treatment of Muslims in Serbia under Milosevic and the treatment of Muslims under Israeli rule in mandate Palestine. Please don't keep on using Milosevic's name as if the case against him has been proved. His death in custody conveniently excused the Hague war crimes tribunal from having to reach a verdict on the matter.
Likud (Netanyahu) is set to win the Israeli election next month by a large margin. This is in fact good news. His extraordinary posturing and delusions will make it easy for Obama to "order" Israel to abide by UN resolution and relinquish Gaza and the West Bank, as well as the Golan.
The negotiations track is dead, and has always been a way to avoid the end of occupation. Israel, like any other country, must earn peace. The Arabs do not owe Israel peace. Any settlement must be based on law and justice with absolutely no veto from Israel. If they do not like it, international laws have plenty of mechanisms to force the savage Israeli nation to end the occupation promptly.
Olmert's arrogance is mind boggling. To commit war crimes and further impoverish a captive people before Obama, a law professor and champion of inner city poor, takes office is worse than lame duck stupid.
I just want to note that BBC reported yesterday on the Israeli pull out...
"After reports that the Israeli navy had continued to fire shells at Gaza from the Mediterranean, in what the military has described as a deterrent measure."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7841902.stm
Well, random firing of shells is now a deterrent? I thought that constituted an attack on civilians and a war crime, as in IJ and Hamas shelling of Sderot.
And, pursuant to my previous comment, it seems the random firing at Gaza's beaches have already injured someone.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1057758.html
Well said Juan, thanks.
The dulling of morality of US elected officials will go into history as an extraordinary example of the fragility of the human spirit.
Actually, Prof. Cole, if compared to the American military or the British, the IDF would come off better - and I'm refering to the military practice of those two nations in this decade, not in their wars of the 20th Century, where their practice would be construed as horrendous using your criteria.
What is additonally curious in your post is the total absence of any comparision with Israel's adversary, the Hamas. The ones shooting from schools at schools, storing weapons in mosques, and torturing, maiming and executing fellow Palestinians even as they hid from the advancing Israeli troops.
Dr. Yaacov Lozowick
Jerusalem
.
The world changes so fast, I just can't keep up.
The NY Times article says that the 1980 "Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons" bans making civilians “the object of attack” by Willie Pete incendiary rounds.
I went through Basic Combat Training in 1972,
before that Convention went into effect,
and I'm pretty sure I was taught that civilians couldn't be targeted at all, with any weapons,
under the Geneva and Hague Conventions;
and that White Phosphorus couldn't even be used against enemy troops in an anti-personnel role because is was an inhumane weapon when used for that purpose.
It could be used to set materiel on fire, and if enemy soldiers were killed in the process, incidentally, then it might be OK.
I specifically remember Drill Sergeants joking that they would call Willie Pete incendiary fire in on "8 sets of LBE (load bearing equipment) in the open,"
meaning the web belts and canvas harnesses soldiers wore to carry packs and such.
The fact that enemy soldiers happened to be wearing the LBE at the time was only incidental, the joke went;
they claimed they were were calling in artillery on the equipment, not the personnel.
So, in 1972 American policy was that it was inhumane to use WP against enemy soldiers, but today it is used against civilians.
This came up during the November 2004 Battle of the City of 100 Mosques, Fallujah. It was being used against Resistance fighters, and could have been a violation of some US policy, depending on how it was used.
At the time I thought the issue was, at least in part, that White Phosphorus is a CHEMICAL WEAPON.
Bush accused Saddam of violating some ban or other against all chemical weapons.
I don't think he was referring to the "Chemical Weapons Convention," because the US refuses to sign that treaty. But once we deposed him, we cavalierly violated that same rule ourselves.
I'm hoping the NY Times article is wrong about it being OK to target civilians with small arms fire, flechettes or HE mortar rounds. These are "conventional" weapons because they kill by ripping a person's body apart, or blasting it to pieces. Far more humane.
Avid Student
.
There was overwhelming support in Israel and in America for the savage decimation of Palestinians and Gaza, and that needs to be made clear. This was not the doing of leading Republicans but of Democrats just as well. Barack Obama uttered not a word against the savagery, even simply asking for a ceasefire, Democrats and Republicans and foreign policy analysts applauded the decimation, while the minor protests in Israel were indeed minor and squashed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/world/middleeast/22phosphorus.html?ref=world
January 22, 2009
Outcry Erupts Over Reports That Israel Used Phosphorus Arms on Gazans
By ETHAN BRONNER
Militaries use white phosphorus widely to obscure the battlefield but it is also limited under an international convention that bans targeting civilians with it.
[A savagery completely beyond disgrace, but supported by leading Democrats and Republicans and overwhelmingly supported by American foreign policy analysts.]
Why are there no accounts of Hamas being charged with war crimes? Is firing a rocket into a city not a war crime?
I just saw Obama on TV saying that Hamas must renounce violence to be accepted.
Where did Obama study law? Occupied peoples have the right, under international law, to use violence. The occupation itself, a major crime by itself, is not considered a problem?
So, under US "ideals", occupiers have the right to use violence against true resistance fighters, not the other way around?
The best slant that Obama may have is that by rehabilitating Hamas he will lower himself to talking to them. Well, Fatah did renounce violence and did acknowledge the rights of the state which has for decades occupied, murdered, held hostage, destroyed homes and anything they want, blockaded, and anything else they fancied. What exactly did Fatah get in return? More perpetual talks? More settlements in the West Bank? Rampaging lunatic settlers? Wall splitting farms and towns? Check points suffocating the population?
At least the Gazans have earned a little bit more freedom by using violence to force the Israelis out of the strip. As did the Lebanese.
Obama just announced (22 Jan, 12:30 US Pacific Time) that the United States government will negotiate with Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority exclusively. He did not mention Hamas at all. There's a non-starter for you. I wonder if he's just going to pretend that Hamas does not exist. He's getting off on the wrong foot with the Palestinians but he is dutifully taking direction from the israelis.
.
The Israeli professor has made an excellent point regarding the establishment of the U.S. Though many Americans will deny it, the fact is that the U.S. was responsible for a genocidal campaign against the Native Americans, though the technology available at the time did not allow for “efficient” extermination. The process was much more gradual as the U.S. committed more and more atrocities as it obtained more territory in the West.
However, if the colonial U.S. had a modern day press as we have today, I believe that many—thought not all—Americans of European descent would object to the treatment of the Native Americans. Information was difficult to disseminate at that time. Transportation was slow. Distances were large between towns. Many European Americans were unaware of what was going on during the westward expansion. Today, we have the benefit of 24 hour, instant access news. No one can deny what happened in Gaza today. Just look at the horrifying pictures coming out of Gaza, which is why there is so much world outrage.
In regards to Hamas firing into Israeli cities, no one disputes that indiscriminate firing at civilians is criminal. But as usual, the American press provides no context as to why Hamas was firing into Israel in the first place. After the Hamas won the elections in 2006 (or was it in 2007? Someone correct me here please.), Israel with U.S. complicity imposed an embargo on the people in Gaza. The Israeli government deliberately withheld food and medical supplies from the people of Gaza, with no moral outrage from the Israelis—or from the Americans. As a means of resisting this collective punishment, Hama’s starting firing rockets into Sderot. Hama’s crime was a response to a far greater crime by the Israelis. The Israelis were making life unlivable for ALL Palestinians, both civilians and militants. The tit-for-tat firing actions started taking place. Eventually a ceasefire was made, which successfully reduced the violence. Then Israel violated the ceasefire by killing 6 Palestinians in Gaza, on Nov. 4th, knowing full well that the attention of most Americans would be on the elections. Hamas starting firing back in response. And so the Israelis, with full U.S. support, put into action this tragic invasion which was already pre-planned before, since the other methods such as embargo and an attempted coup did not dislodge Hamas.
Some commentators seem to want Hamas held to the same accountability - claiming they are not.
But they are. Are they not listed as a terrorist group by major Western powers? Are they not denied the right to rule their people - even though they were democratically elected - because of their record on terrorism? Is this not a true definition of "isolating pariahs that don't abide by mutually accepted rules?
Prof. Cole said..."The right-Zionists are always asking why Israel is held to a different standard. It isn't. it appears to be being held to the same standard as Augusto Pinochet and Slobodan Milosevic. It isn't very nice company to be in, and many Israelis are deeply ashamed of what was done and demanding Israeli investigations of war crimes."
...A powerful statement. Well put.
P.S. - We have a chief of the UN? I had no idea.
I thought when Kofi Annan stepped down, the world decided to not to replace him, since I hadn't heard or seen anything from any other "leadership" in the UN.
Note to Bush & Bolton: Mission Accomplished. You've completed castrated the UN.
Anonymous said:
"Why are there no accounts of Hamas being charged with war crimes? Is firing a rocket into a city not a war crime?"
Yes. It is. The difference is that Israel obtains justice not through war crimes tribunals, but extrajudicial assassinations of those firing the rockets and making the decision to do so. Where as Palestinians have no recourse for the war crimes committed against their civilians because they are on the wrong end of the power quotient.
Obama seems to be continuing the failed approach of the past that sides with Israel but punishes Hamas. His concern was that Hamas not be able to fire at Israel, but he expressed no concern about Israel changing its brutality.
To be successful in mediating peace, we must be seen to be even-handed and neutral. We are not and will not be. Thus we can not mediate peace. Siding with Fatah will unfortunately only make them appear to have sold out. They will become an arm of the occupation, despite our best intentions.
It is truly sad for all who love Palestine and indeed for those who love Israel. This approach will not work and will only help to continue Israel's pariah standing in the world.
Also, the UN seems to have been relegated to impotence. When people it protects can be targeted with no accountability, it is shown to be toothless. It is sad.
To my knowledge, the only ones punished for their war crimes are those who have little power. The Nuremberg trials only proved that Germany lost the war. It was hoped to do much more. But where is the world order that holds the powerful accountable for their deeds? It does not exist. Only the emergence of new power crushing the old power leads to punishment, and that has been the way life has proceeded for eons.
You make all the same claims against Hamas that the Nazis made against the French, Polish, Nordic, Jewish, etc. resistance fighters. You also make the same justifications for your atrocities against civilians that the Nazis made for their atrocities against civilians.
The war crimes of the past are the war crimes of the present are the war crimes of the future.
Evil knows no time or place or person.
Evil is evil wherever or whenever or whomever it is.
Do not deceive yourself that you can deceive others about your evil.
You only deceive yourself.
That is the Truth.
davr
.
Putting Fatah in charge of Gaza relief is stupid. How stupid you ask?
Douglas Feith stupid, that's how stupid.
Here is a short course on Gaza's politics.
1) Fatah thought they were in control.
2) There was an election, but
3) Hamas kicked their buts.
4) Then, Hamas kicked them out.
Capice?
Saying Hamas will not be negotiated with effectively destroys any chance of success for former Senator Mitchell. I'm surprised he agreed to the positionn knowing he was gowing to be hamstrung from day 1. And until the US ends its status as co-belligerent with Israel against the Palestinians, it has no place and should not be accepted as any sort of agent in negotiations. I also suspect the Holbrooke appointment will fail too as his personality is wrong for the cultures he will be dealing with.
Post a Comment
<< Home