War crimes, committed by the 'free world', happening NOW!

BillieTheBot

And what do we do about it?

Fuck all as usual...

Some passages from the Geneva Convention:

"The civilian population is protected under the Geneva Conventions and these protections are not affected by the presence of combatants in the population. (Protocol I, Art. 50, Sec. 3)

These protections include the right to be free from attacks, reprisals, acts meant to instill terror, and indiscriminate attacks. Civilian populations must not be used as civilian shields

civilian property

Combatants must distinguish between civilian and military property and attack only military property. (Protocol I, Art. 48)"

Source


And yet...

Israel to step up demolitions of Palestinian houses

Yet another missile attack on civilian population kills 13 Palestinians

being just the very latest in a long and 'distinguished' list of war crimes committed by the Israeli Government and the IDF during the last 3 decades.

And our fair and free governments continue to watch all this, including mass house demolitions that are nothing more than collective punishment and revenge attacks, and all they manage to do is to mutter their "concern" with the Israeli actions.

What the fuck is it going to take for someone to put a stop to all this???

Former Member

read this in newspaper, complete whitewsh of it on tv news though, its like this doesnt happen, thats what shocks me more than israelis doing it cause i think nothing is unexpected of ariel sharon and hardline israelis, apart from actually following internation law

Former Member

But I guess the convention doesn't go both ways...

Former Member

The US gives how much to Israel each year in aid, it was $3Bn last time I heard a figure.

If they wanted to put pressure on them they easily could.

Obviously there are two sides to it, but do they really think these tactics will help?

So you've knocked down someones house, your family is out on the streets again with no home, job, money...

Your thoughts are going to be nice towards Israel?

Former Member

Yes it does. Then again, there is only one set of people here being labelled terrorists; and only one set of people here being punished for it (assassinated, another war crime incidentally).

Whereas the other set of people is actually regarded in some quarters as an 'example' to the region :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: , and given unconditional support and absurdly high economical and military aid.

Not to mention the total and absolute military superiority of the said people, and their ability to put an end to the conflict any time they want. Or the fact that they are the ones who are illegally occupying other people's land.

Spot the difference yet?

Former Member

Yes I spot the difference in the fact that not long ago, I heard the organisation which more than 80% or something like that of the "opressed" people support, saying they wouldn't finish with their tactics until the "opressors" where all gone. While the "opressors" who as you say could end the conflict any day, have yet to show their "superiority" by doing so.

Former Member

Well the answer is within your post isn't it? "Until they're gone".

And that's exactly what the Israelis are 35 years overdue: to get the hell out of the West Bank and Gaza once and for all.

But instead they continue with their odious, disgusting beyond words house demolitions (I won't even mention the daily trickle of murders), no plans to finish their illegal occupation, and not a word of condemnation from people who should know better.

Former Member

Whatever you think of the conflict and either side surely you can see that this isnt going to help!

Former Member

Of course it isn't. But then again it has always been clear that Sharon isn't interested in ending the conflict. Not as a first priority anyway. Sharon and his ultra right wing government partners are primarily interested in appropriating as much Palestinian land for good as they can get away with. The 'conflict' in fact serves nicely the purpose of Sharon & co, who cite "security" as the reason to ever demolish more Palestinian homes near borders and to build more sections of the Apartheid Wall well inside Palestinian land.

And thus he will carry on for as long as the international community allows him and the Israeli electorate keeps voting the fat murdering war criminal bastard into office.

Former Member

I strongly beluieve that if Israel moved itself back to 1947, or even 1967, borders then there wouldn't be this mess in the first place.

For all the Isrealis complain about suicide bombers, the only difference between the IDF and HAMAS is the fcat that the IDF have tanks, helicopter gunships and fighter jets, whilst Hamas do not. Both sides are terrorists, but Israel are in the wrong when it comes to occupying foreign territory.

I also believe the United Kingdom are wrong for occupying Northern Ireland, and the people of Northern Ireland should have the right to vote on independence.

Former Member

Originally posted by Kermit
I also believe the United Kingdom are wrong for occupying Northern Ireland, and the people of Northern Ireland should have the right to vote on independence.

is that as in independance or as in a united ireland? the loyalists don't want independance and niether do they want to be part of the republic.

Former Member

I also believe the United Kingdom are wrong for occupying Northern Ireland, and the people of Northern Ireland should have the right to vote on independence

It's a legacy of history. I know catholics who wouldn't want any severance from UK as the unemployment benefit is better on UK side of border. There's been massive unemployment in Ulster, it couldn't fend for itself economically, no-one wants that

Former Member

Originally posted by Kermit
I also believe the United Kingdom are wrong for occupying Northern Ireland, and the people of Northern Ireland should have the right to vote on independence.

if i believe rightly, northern ireland is trhere cause we had elections in every county on whether they want to be part of ireland or uk, and the northern counties slightly in majority of being with uk

and what would we do about wales and scotland then, or dont they count especially wales (/joke)

Former Member

Actually the most effective way of holding Israel to account for its decades of refusal to comply with international law and to end the question of its right to exist once and for all and upon its own merit would be to cease all financial support from the US, every last penny, and let them fend for themselves.

Why should US tax payers be forced to bear the burden for a wholly uncooperative state?

After that if they go under then obviously they were not the "restoration" promised by God and will have no legitimate economic argument for continuance. If they do manage to support themselves then they can claim the right to ignore human rights and take their chances like their Arab neighbours in incurring punishment or international censure for their brutality.

Former Member

No mixinmusic, I would not advocate war on Israel to tackle the conflict (by the way I see that my depiction of the concept of war has made an impact on you. Perhaps I should email it to Dubya to see if he gets it as well-whatchda reckon?). But there are many other things that could be done, starting with an immediate stop to all military and economic aid and a trade embargo. That in itself would be likely to produce results fairly quickly.

And by the way you say you don't know enough about the situation in Israel to comment? About the most documented and longest running conflict of the last half century? And yet you would appear to approve of the war on Iraq?

Er...

Former Member

Not holding my breath waiting for any illegal settlements in the Gaza Strip to be demolished...

Former Member

Originally posted by lukesh
totally agree. there were enough changes for peace, saddam choose the war route.

Do you actually watch the news with your eyes open?

Saddam chose the war route? Care to explain that one to me, given that Saddam couldn't "hand over" WMDs he didn't have and doesn't have to step down as a sovereign leader just because some tin-pot dictator says he does...

Former Member

Protesters have been shot at in Gaza in what is becoming the most deadly conflict since 1967 there.

Heres the story;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3728681.stm

How can anything justify this?

Former Member

thats fucking apalling jsut how can they get away with it - im sure theyinvestigate it and blame it on a soldier of the IDF when really it the people up above them who are to blame for wanting to do an operatio like this!

Former Member

Lets not forget the US might say "oh er, we dont think thats very good of you....here have some more money"

Former Member

and tony blair will say "its some progress" :rolleyes:

Former Member

A decisive end to the conflict is needed.

It cant be tit for tat all the time, Israel needs to end the conflict in a shocking way to send a message to the Palestinians and Terror groups.

Former Member

There ya go, advocate that they stop pretending to remeber what was perpetrated on them during the holocaust and just go and perpetrate the very same thing. Zionists have long proved themselves no better than Nazis in many other ways, so why hold back eh?

Former Member

And yet we have established terrorists and war criminals in the Israeli government, starting with its prime minister, and I don't hear certain people say anything about them...

Here's a fresh war crime for you:

Israelis open fire on civilian protesters- at least 10 dead

And an ongoing and well reported one:

"Unprecedented levels" of house demolitions "a war crime"

I look forward to your comments...

Former Member

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3730709.stm

Former Member

Precisely because Washington stands in the way of any meaningful involvement by the UN, as demonstrated by its refusal to ever condemn Israel for its barbarism.

Even with the latest resolution the US has abstained, showing tacit approval of whatever brutality Israel wishes to unleash on a comparatively defenseless populace. Meanwhile the US financial gravy train continues to ensure that Israel need NOT be accountable to the world community.

Former Member

Originally posted by The Matadore
A decisive end to the conflict is needed.

It cant be tit for tat all the time, Israel needs to end the conflict in a shocking way to send a message to the Palestinians and Terror groups.

Do you honestly believe that?

What kind of decisive action would you do? Maybe a nuke, that would send a strong message wouldnt it.

Do you really think Hamas can be crushed? Do you think terror groups will stop because of one decisive action?

So, maybe we should kill 1000, 10,000 or even 100,000 Palestinians, that would send a strong message wouldnt it. I'm sure it would really help.

Former Member

Originally posted by The Matadore
A decisive end to the conflict is needed.

It cant be tit for tat all the time, Israel needs to end the conflict in a shocking way to send a message to the Palestinians and Terror groups.

God you are so biased and clueless is fucking frightening...

In fact you're not any different whatsoever from the Hamas leaders and militants you so despise.

How sad.

Former Member

Originally posted by lukesh
why doesn't the UN get it's self invloved more and sort the problem out? Or even the wider community?

This is why Lukesh:


U.S. Vetoes of UN Resolutions Critical of Israel
(1972-2002)

Palestine: Syrian-Lebanese Complaint. 3 power draft resolution 2/10784 9/10/1972 Bush 13-1, 1

Palestine: Examination of Middle East Situation. 8-power draft resolution (S/10974) 7/2/1973 Scali 13-1, 0 (China not partic.)

Palestine: Egyptian-Lebanese Complaint. 5-power draft power resolution (S/11898) 12/8/1975 Moynihan 13-1, 1

Palestine: Middle East Problem, including Palestinian question. 6-power draft resolution (S/11940) 1/26/1976 Moynihan 9-1,3 (China & Libya not partic.)

Palestine: Situation in Occupied Arab Territories. 5-power draft resolution (S/12022) 3/25/1976 Scranton 14-1,0

Palestine: Report on Committee on Rights of Palestinian People. 4-power draft resolution (S/121119) 6/29/1976 Sherer 10-1,4

Palestine: Palestinian Rights. Tunisian draft resolution. (S/13911) 4/30/1980 McHenry 10-1,4

Palestine: Golan Heights. Jordan draft resolution. (S/14832/Rev. 2) 1/20/1982 Kirkpatrick 9-1,5

Palestine: Situation in Occupied Territories, Jordan draft resolution (S/14943) 4/2/1982 Lichenstein 13-1,1

Palestine: Incident at the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. 4-power draft resolution 4/20/1982 Kirpatrick 14-1, 0

Palestine: Conflict in Lebanon. Spain draft resolution. (S/15185) 6/8/1982 Kirpatrick 14-1,0

Palestine: Conflict in Lebanon. France draft resolution. (S/15255/Rev. 2) 6/26/1982 Lichenstein 14-1

Palestine: Conflict in Lebanon. USSR draft resolution. (S/15347/Rev. 1, as orally amended) 8/6/1982 Lichenstein 11-1,3

Palestine: Situation in Occupied Territories, 20-power draft resolution (S/15895) 8/2/1983 Lichenstein 13-1,1



Security Council Vetoes/Negative voting 1983-present

Occupied Arab Territories: Wholesale condemnation of Israeli settlement policies - not adopted 1983

S. Lebanon: Condemns Israeli action in southern Lebanon. S/16732 9/6/1984 Vetoed: 13-1 (U.S.), with 1 abstention (UK)

Occupied Territories: Deplores "repressive measures" by Israel against Arab population. S/19459. 9/13/1985 Vetoed: 10-1 (U.S.), with 4 abstentions (Australia, Denmark, UK, France)

Lebanon: Condemns Israeli practices against civilians in southern Lebanon. S/17000. 3/12/1985 Vetoed: 11-1 (U.S.), with 3 abstentions (Australia, Denmark, UK)

Occupied Territories: Calls upon Israel to respect Muslim holy places. S/17769/Rev. 1 1/30/1986 Vetoed: 13-1 (US), with one abstention (Thailand)

Lebanon: Condemns Israeli practices against civilians in southern Lebanon. S/17730/Rev. 2. 1/17/1986 Vetoed: 11-1 (U.S.), with 3 abstentions (Australia, Denmark, UK)

Libya/Israel: Condemns Israeli interception of Libyan plane. S/17796/Rev. 1. 2/6/1986 Vetoed: 10 -1 (US), with 4 abstentions (Australia, Denmark, France, UK)

Lebanon: Draft strongly deplored repeated Israeli attacks against Lebanese territory and other measures and practices against the civilian population; (S/19434) 1/18/1988 vetoed 13-1 (US), with 1 abstention (UK)

Lebanon: Draft condemned recent invasion by Israeli forces of Southern Lebanon and repeated a call for the immediate withdrawal of all Israeli forces from Lebanese territory; (S/19868) 5/10/1988 vetoed 14-1 (US)

Lebanon: Draft strongly deplored the recent Israeli attack against Lebanese territory on 9 December 1988; (S/20322) 12/14/1988 vetoed 14-1 (US)

Occupied territories: Draft called on Israel to accept de jure applicability of the 4th Geneva Convention; (S/19466) 1988 vetoed 14-1 (US)

Occupied territories: Draft urged Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention, rescind the order to deport Palestinian civilians, and condemned policies and practices of Israel that violate the human rights of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories; (S/19780) 1988 vetoed 14-1 (US)

Occupied territories: Strongly deplored Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories, and strongly deplored also Israel's continued disregard of relevant Security
Council decisions. 2/17/1989 Vetoed 14-1 (US)

Occupied territories: Condemned Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories. 6/9/1989 Vetoed 14-1 (US)

Occupied territories: Deplored Israel's policies and practices in the occupied territories. 11/7/1989 Vetoed 14-1 (US)

Occupied territories: NAM draft resolution to create a commission and send three security council members to Rishon Lezion, where an Israeli gunmen shot down seven Palestinian workers. 5/31/1990 Vetoed 14-1 (US)

Middle East: Confirms that the expropriation of land by Israel in East Jerusalem is invalid and in violation of relevant Security Council resolutions and provisions of the Fourth Geneva convention; expresses support of peace process, including the Declaration of Principles of 9/13/1993 5/17/1995 Vetoed 14-1 (US)

Middle East: Calls upon Israeli authorities to refrain from all actions or measures, including settlement activities. 3/7/1997 Vetoed 14-1 (US)

Middle East: Demands that Israel cease construction of the settlement in east Jerusalem (called Jabal Abu Ghneim by the Palestinians and Har Homa by Israel), as well as all the other Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories 3/21/1997 Vetoed 13-1,1 (US)

Call for UN Observers Force in West Bank, Gaza 3/27/2001 Vetoed 9-1 (US),
with four abstentions
(Britain, France, Ireland and Norway)

Condemned acts of terror, demanded an end to violence and the establishment of a monitoring mechanism to bring in observers. 12/15/2001 Vetoed 12-1 (US)
with two abstentions (Britain and Norway)


http://www.action-for-un-renewal.org.uk/pages/isreal_un_resolutions.htm


Do you think there is a hope in hell of the UN and the international community being allowed to tackle the problem while the US persists in this policy?

Former Member

I'm maybe seeing a bit of a patern there.

Former Member

The French, supported by the entire world bar 3 poodles, voted against a UN resolution authorising force in Iraq last year because like the rest of us the could see what a immense farce the whole thing was.

One such action hardly compares with 35 years and dozens upon dozens upon dozens of vetoed resolutions does it?