27 Israeli pilots to refuse missions in West Bank, Gaza

Mycroft: Here's some quotes from your pasting.

""Everyone should realize that atrocities lead to atrocities," said Nabil Sha'ath, the PA minister of planning and international cooperation. "This is the inevitable outcome of the accumulation of atrocities committed by the Israeli army against our civilians, the humiliation, the torment, the unmitigated persecution,""

Good point. Without the constant "accumulation of atrocities" against the Palestinian people, there would be no suicide attacks. (or very very very few)


"Willful killing, that is, intentionally causing the death of civilians, and "willfully causing great suffering or serious injury" when wounding victims, are war crimes.124 Persons who commit, order, or condone war crimes are individually liable under international humanitarian law for their crimes."

When commited by a Palestinian suicide bomber OR an IDF soldier. The Occupation is a war crime, fyi. Ask the UN or the rest of the world.

"Many Palestinians interviewed by Human Rights Watch said attacks on civilians were their only weapon with which to respond to repeated IDF use of tanks, attack helicopters, missiles, and warplanes. "

THEIR ONLY WEAPON, so they say. Other than rocks.

And you neglected some rather good ones on the other side of the fence.

Go to Human Rights Watch's Israel and the Middle East section to find gems like

hrw.org...


"Israel: Stop Using Flechettes in Gaza

(Jerusalem, April 29 2003) The Israeli army should immediately stop using U.S.-supplied flechette shells in the Gaza Strip, Human Rights Watch said today. The use of such antipersonnel weapons in densely populated areas makes the risk of civilian casualties intolerably high under international law. "

Both sides are guilty, Israel is guiltier because the Occupation is the CAUSE, suicide bombs are the EFFECT.



jakomo

Originally posted by Jakomo
""Everyone should realize that atrocities lead to atrocities," said Nabil Sha'ath, the PA minister of planning and international cooperation. "This is the inevitable outcome of the accumulation of atrocities committed by the Israeli army against our civilians, the humiliation, the torment, the unmitigated persecution,""

Media savvy, aren�t they?

Your reading is selective. That quote was an illustration of how PA officials legitimize attacks against civilians, as the following paragraph that you didn�t quote illustrates:

Public officials, because of the political authority they embody, should never legitimize attacks on civilians. Yet political leaders have made statements that appear to endorse attacks against civilians, both within the Occupied Territories and externally. These span the range from ambiguity to outright support, and undermine other statements condemning attacks against civilians.85 Political leaders such as President Arafat have repeatedly praised "martyrs," without distinguishing between those who die as victims of attacks or while attacking military targets and those who intentionally die in the course of a deliberate attack against civilians.86 Yasir Abed Rabbo, the PA minister of culture and information, reportedly defended the use of the term "martyr" with reference to suicide bombers. "You can call him a shahid and denounce what he does politically," he said.

Originally posted by Jakomo
"Many Palestinians interviewed by Human Rights Watch said attacks on civilians were their only weapon with which to respond to repeated IDF use of tanks, attack helicopters, missiles, and warplanes. "

Again, you forgot to quote the next paragraph:

Many conflicts, whether internal or international, take place between parties with radically differing means at their disposal. This is true of almost all wars that could potentially qualify under Additional Protocol I, article 4(1) as wars of national liberation, where one party frequently has vastly more sophisticated technical and military means than the other. Yet Protocol I reaffirms that all the basic rules of international humanitarian law still apply in those circumstances. Indeed, such a practice would be an exception that would virtually swallow the rules of international humanitarian law, since most wars are between forces of unequal means. The prohibition against intentional attacks against civilians is absolute. It cannot be justified by reference to a disparity of power between opposing forces.

The whole point is that as a government representative, he�s not supposed to be encouraging terrorist attacks. In the Oslo peace agreement, the Palestinian-Arabs agreed to put a stop to it, and here he�s encouraging it. Had they instead taken action to suppress terrorism, the second Palestinian-Arabic state in the West Bank would be celebrating its fifth anniversary this year.

Originally posted by Jakomo
And you neglected some rather good ones on the other side of the fence.

Go to Human Rights Watch's Israel and the Middle East section to find gems like

hrw.org...

"Israel: Stop Using Flechettes in Gaza

(Jerusalem, April 29 2003) The Israeli army should immediately stop using U.S.-supplied flechette shells in the Gaza Strip, Human Rights Watch said today. The use of such antipersonnel weapons in densely populated areas makes the risk of civilian casualties intolerably high under international law. "

The Romans in full view of the crowds in the Coliseum were going to feed a Jew to the lions. They dug a hole five feet deep, put in the Jew standing up and buried him to his neck, so that only his head was above ground. They then let out the lion that was starved for two days. The lion with his mouth drooling went straight for the Jew and circled his prey before eating it. When it got close, the Jew bit it. It yelped and ran away. From the stands of the Coliseum, someone screamed, "Jew, Fight Fair!"
www.emigrations.net...

Originally posted by Jakomo
Both sides are guilty, Israel is guiltier because the Occupation is the CAUSE, suicide bombs are the EFFECT.

Then explain to me how it is that the PLO was formed in 1964, three years before the West Bank and Gaza were taken in the �67 war. What were they going to liberate from who?

Israel took the land because they were had been attacked for twenty years by terrorist groups within the territory. In my opinion, they should have followed the examples set by Egypt, Syria and Lebanon, and expelled those troublesome Palestinian-Arabs into Jordan.

Mycroft: It's kind of funny how you dig up all the quotes that have to do with attacking civilians and yet you fail to realize that the IDF has attacked and killed FAR more civilians than suicide bombers have. And we're talking about professional soldiers here, not wack-job fundamentalists. Big difference.

I'm not defending suicide bombers, I'm defending Palestinians, they're two different things.

Since violence erupted three years ago, 2,477 people have been killed on the Palestinian side and 860 on the Israeli side. Interesting, no? And Israel plays it up as much as possible.

Remember that attack on Jewish "worshippers" on their way to synagogue that was reported by the Israeli government earlier this year? Then the world press found out that they were actually soldiers and not civilians that were attacked? Spin spin spin.

Quote as many parts from that specific article on Human Rights Watch that you'd like. Whenever I quote anything from their massive source of documented Israeli human-rights abuses, you just dismiss it.

(Oh and what the heck does Romans feeding Jews to the lions more than a thousand years ago have to do with the IDF using flechette ammo in the West Bank? Little bit of a stretch there.)

Check out the new article there today so you can dismiss it out of hand.

www.hrw.org...

"Israel: West Bank Barrier Endangers Basic Rights
U.S. Should Deduct Costs From Loan Guarantees "

"In a letter to U.S. President George W. Bush, Human Rights Watch said the barrier's path and operating arrangements violate the freedom of movement of Palestinians, endangering their access to food, water, education, and medical services. With every mile the barrier cuts into the West Bank, towns, villages, and residents become separated from their lands, crops, services, water, and jobs...

The Israeli government has failed to respond publicly to charges that it could adopt less intrusive and less restrictive alternatives to address the security of civilians. In fact, the Israeli State Comptroller published a report in July 2002 strongly criticizing the inadequacy of checkpoint procedures and the lack of army deployment in border areas...

Under customary international humanitarian law, Israel has a positive obligation to ensure the welfare of residents of the West Bank (1907 Hague Regulations on Land Warfare, Article 43). It is also obliged to ensure the passage of emergency medical services, to respect the sick, to allow the passage of foodstuffs and medical goods, and to facilitate education (Fourth Geneva Convention, Articles 16, 20, 25, 50, 55 and 59). Israel is prohibited under customary international law from making permanent changes to the West Bank that do not benefit the local inhabitants (1907 Hague Regulations, Article 55), and from transferring members of its own population into the Occupied Territories (Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 49 (6)). "

You picked the site because of that quote condemning suicide bombers (which I condemn too, who wouldn't). Read the rest about what they have to say about the Illegal Occupation if you have the cojones.

Oh and pursuant to the original topic, two more Israeli pilots have now been added to the list of 27.

www.haaretz.com...

"Since the initial publication of the pilots'
letter, two signatories have withdrawn their
support and four more pilots have added
theirs. "


jakomo



[Edited on 1-10-2003 by Jakomo]

Originally posted by Jakomo
Since violence erupted three years ago, 2,477 people have been killed on the Palestinian side and 860 on the Israeli side. Interesting, no? And Israel plays it up as much as possible.

A specious argument. If you try to kill me with a baseball bat, and I shoot you dead with a gun, am I in the wrong because the body count is 0-1 in my favor? Am I in the wrong because I was better armed? No, I�m in the right because I was defending myself. The blame falls on the ones who started the conflict.

Originally posted by Jakomo
(Oh and what the heck does Romans feeding Jews to the lions more than a thousand years ago have to do with the IDF using flechette ammo in the West Bank? Little bit of a stretch there.)

"Israel: West Bank Barrier Endangers Basic Rights
U.S. Should Deduct Costs From Loan Guarantees "

Nothing new. Jews get killed daily, and when they build a wall to stop it, someone from the Coliseum shouts, �Jew, fight fair!�

Of course shooting the terrorists isn�t fair, setting up checkpoints isn�t fair, asking the PA to arrest the terrorists isn�t fair�it seems that the only thing that guy in the Coliseum thinks is fair is for the Jews to sit back and die.