The question of what happened in Gaza during the Israeli military operation there in December and January, Operation Cast Lead, is not going away, and it is a matter of concern not just to Palestinians and UN investigators, but to Israeli soldiers as well. Twenty-six soldiers have now come forward to talk about their combat experiences during the war in a collection of testimony just published by Breaking the Silence, an organization of veteran Israeli soldiers that collects testimonies of soldiers who served in the Occupied Territories.
The soldiers who spoke about Operation Cast Lead came from diverse backgrounds and political perspectives. Some signed up for combat units right after high school. Others were drafted for the operation and left their families to fight. Some came from a religious background, while others were second -- or third -- generation secular kibbutzniks.
Still, they have two things in common. All of them feel there were things that happened in Cast Lead that were highly problematic morally. And according to the Israeli military's official line, all of these soldiers -- who gave their testimonies in separate interviews, mostly anonymously, sometimes at risk of prosecution if their identity is exposed -- are liars.
The spokesperson for the Israeli Defense Forces presents a radically different version of the Gaza operation than do these combatants who participated in it. The spokesperson claims that Israel did not use the "neighbor procedure" in Cast Lead -- the practice of forcing Palestinian civilians to open doors and search buildings so as not to endanger Israeli troops, which the Israeli Supreme Court banned in 2004. But a soldier from the Egoz unit said that the military did use human shields in exactly this way in Gaza, with the operational support of the unit commander.
The spokesperson claimed that the Israeli military only used white phosphorus munitions as an obscurant, to provide a cover for troop movements, in rural areas, but a soldier saw troops in the Zaitun area fire white phosphorus into "suspicious" buildings to detonate explosives inside of them. White phosphorous can cause severe burns and toxic injuries if it touches a human body.
The spokesperson claimed that buildings were destroyed only for security reasons, but soldiers described massive destruction of civilian property, which they said their commanders justified on the grounds that Gaza would be easier to control "the day after" Israeli forces withdrew.
Most important, the spokesperson claimed that all soldiers received precise rules of engagement when they entered the operation, with an emphasis on avoiding injury to civilians. Many soldiers testified that in their units there was total disregard for civilian safety and a permissiveness they had never encountered in previous operations. "If you are not sure - shoot. If there is doubt then there is no doubt," one combatant said he was told.
Of course, the stories of twenty-six combatants do not represent everything that happened during Israel's military operations in Gaza. And differences appear within the testimonies themselves, including the details about the rules of engagement depending on the unit involved. But these stories make clear that a thorough investigation is needed to bring the full story to the Israeli public, and that it would not be appropriate for the Israeli military to run this investigation.
The military is not interested in opening its doors to Israeli researchers. What could be easier than saying, "Everything went according to protocol"? But soldiers on the ground have been asking questions. Reservists who served in the 1990s and were called back to fight during Cast Lead have been wondering, where is the Israeli military they used to know? When did our army's belief in the "purity of arms" and our "code of ethics" morph into the slogan that "in the jungle everything is allowed"?
Soldiers experienced a huge disconnect between what they saw and did on the ground, and the claims, made by senior officers, that Israel has the most moral army in the world. As long as commanders continue to deny or dissemble about what happened, Israel's troops are left with two options: not to speak about what they saw, doing what is possible to shield those who gave the orders, or to break their silence and be accused of lying and betrayal.
Why is it that soldiers are required to face this reality alone? Is it possible that senior officers have forgotten their responsibility toward their soldiers?
If the Israeli military thought it logical not to give rules of engagement to the soldiers on entering the battlefield, they should admit it. If there is some operational logic in firing white phosphorus on a house, the military should explain it. If "in war all is permitted," the Israeli Defense Forces spokesperson should explain this new approach. Something happened in this operation, not only in Gaza, but inside the military. It is the military's responsibility to its soldiers, and to the Israeli citizens whose security it is meant to safeguard and whose ethical rules it is meant to follow, to let us in on this change.
Behind Gaza Operation, An Uneasy Triumvirate - washingtonpost.com
U.N. report condemns Israel for Gaza operation - CNN.com
Gaza operation weakens Palestinian Authority - Los Angeles Times
Students protest Gaza operation - Israel News, Ynetnews
Israeli soldiers reveal the brutal truth of Gaza attack
UK hits Israel with partial arms sanctions over Cast Lead
Israel/Gaza: Operation 'Cast Lead' - 22 Days of Death and ...
General: Anonymous testimonies are unworthy
Israeli soldiers say reckless force used in Gaza
Breaking The Silence: Former Israeli Soldiers Call Gaza War Reckless
Why is it so hard for the palestinian side of the argument to be made?
http://alfrankenweb.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=43607
“The Arabs rejected the UN partition plan, 1947, and by doing so gave up any claims or rights to any of the mandate territory. It is simple, black letter law. If you are not a signatory of a contract, the partition plan was a contract; you cannot participate in the benefits of that contract.
Bubba?????
If you hold a law degree you will know that the first element of a contract is an agreement between two parties. Since there was no agreement there was no contract.
There are 3 basic elements to a contract
1.Intention – the parties must intend that their promises create legally enforceable obligations
2. Agreement – An offer by one party and an acceptance by another
3. Consideration – Something of value passing from one party to another in return for a promise to do something.
Now that’s Black letter law.
What exactly was the consideration offered to the Palestinians that they did not already own? The Jewish agency had purchased land that amounted to 7% of the total.
As far as Israel's right to the captured land. It has none. Under international law captured territory may not be re-settled by nationals of the occupying country. Nor may they Annex the land, nor may they expel the population. Israel is guilty of all three of those crimes, and more, including collective punishment and resources theft.. I refer you to the Book CLAIMS TO TERRITORY IN INTERNATIONAL LAW AND RELATIONS (Hill, Norman) Oxford University Press, 1945, reprinted by Congressional Information Service, 1976, to gain some insight regarding the proper treatment of captured territory.
Israel legally has a right to only that part of Palestine that was partitioned to Jews in 1948. Even the so-called 1967 borders are unjustified.
“Extinctive prescription is the allowing idea for the Israeli annexation of the West Bank. But this is what you and others have totally disregarded with this issue.”
Extinctive prescription
"A mode of acquiring a right by continuous, uninterrupted, peaceable, open and unequivocal possession for a time specified by law."
OH MY GOD!!!!!!
Are you seriously claiming squatter’s rights?
You cross your borders with troops. Occupy a territory; place it under military occupation for over 40 years. Then you argue that since we have had control of it for the last 40 years it’s ours. Lets put this to bed really quick.
1. In order for extinctive prescription to be applied in property law. The house or land needs to be vacant. The west bank is occupied and was at the time it was invaded
2. The acquisition is required to be peaceful. Do I need to define the term military occupation?
Further the forcible removal of residence and bulldozing of their homes implies acquisition by force.
This is just a further example of the lie “A land with no people”
The question of annexation by Israel can be brought forth, but only by Jordan. IN case you've forgotten Jordan held the West Bank and never thought to create a Palestinian state. Given the lack of a dispute by Jordan Israel can annex the territory.
Good try, but surely you understand the use of this concept on a local basis is quite a bit different on an international basis.
The idea of extinctive prescription in property law on a local basis is far different from its application in international law. The land must be held for a certain length of time before its annexation, how it came to be held is important.
Note:
The UN Charter and Geneva Conventions make this explicitly illegal. Relevant passages can be quoted, if desired.
The US war in Iraq is allegedly defensive, there is no way it is ethical or legal for the US and it's citizens to "settle" there on land forcibly taken from Iraqis.
It would not be acceptable in any of our defensive wars, not in Germany, Japan or Afghanistan. Your claims to Palestinian land are absolutely ridiculous, legally and ethically.
According to George W Bush the Invasion of Iraq was an action of self-defence. Thus according to the proposition of some here the United States could keep Iraq and make it the 51st state of the union. That this would all be acceptable under international Law. U.S. Citizens could be transported to Iraq to set up settlements around the oil fields and remove Arabs from their homes presumably to protect the national resource.
I think we have shown this to be an error in Law. The nations that conduct a military occupation of another’s land are caretakers. Eventually the land is returned and the people granted self-government. The west bank is not considered part of Israel. It is described as an occupied territory. It is not Israel’s to keep. Some areas may be ceded to Israel as part of a final negotiated treated. Such agreement has not yet been reached. To create a Fait accompli before such an agreement is reached is Annexation and illegal under international law.
The West Bank has never been the property of the Palestinians. Prior to the 1967 war the West Bank was owned by Jordan. Jordan, the Arab nation that refused to create a Palestinian homeland during the almost 20 years it controlled/owned the West Bank.
My daughter was born in Israel as were the kids in her 4th grade class. What rights are you going to deny they have?
1.The 1948 U N Patrician called for the establishment of 2 states One Jewish the other Arab
Under that patrician plan the Palestinians were to get the West Bank as part of their state.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/UN_Partition_Plan_For_Palestine_1947.png
2. Abdullah, king of Jordan, had an informal and secret agreement with Israel, negotiated with Golda Meir, to annex the portions of Palestine allocated to the Palestinian state in the West Bank, and prevent formation of a Palestinian state.
http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm
3 A branch of my Family tree can be traced back to Jerusalem of the early 1600’s my mother was born there. Since in your statement you claim right of birth for your daughter and not for yourself. I will assume that you were not. Why do you have more rights and privileges than my mother who was not allowed to return to the place of her birth?
Historically, what has happened to the Palestinians is a travesty based on expulsion and annexation of territories.
http://www.uwm.edu/Library/digilib/Golda/records/biography.html
"Abdullah never wanted the other Arab armies to intervene in Palestine. Their plan was to prevent partition; his plan was to effect partition. His plan assumed and even required a Jewish presence in Palestine although his preference was for Jewish autonomy under his crown. By concentrating his forces on the West Bank, `Abdullah intended to eliminate once and for all any possibility of an independent Palestinian state and to present his Arab partners with annexation as a fait accoinpli."
The War for Palestine
By Eugène L. Rogan, Avi Shlaim
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=h3EOJGiBBpQC&pg=PA87&lpg=PA87&dq=Golda+Meir+and+secret+deal+with+King+Abdullah&source=bl&ots=yyFYA1kGAj&sig=O3wD0av-7Y4OQtli6kEzflKhQdM&hl=en&ei=v8tfSpLiMZ-G6AOSv9yVCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4
http://www.meforum.org/92/a-totalitarian-concept-of-history
And several people's take on it:
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2009/07/10/the-israel-projects-secret-hasbara-handbook-exposed/
http://zionism-israel.com/issues/Adocating_Zionism_Israel_Wujs.html
http://my.opera.com/salventura/blog/the-hasbara-handbook
http://www.muzzlewatch.com/2009/03/19/hasbara-handbook-how-to-pretend-to-debate-while-smashing-your-opponent/
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2007/01/13/p13653
57. The basic normative foundation upon which tile lCJ and the Supreme Court in The Beit Sorrrik Case based their decisions was a common one (see Watson "The `Wall' Decisions in Legal and Political Context" 99 AN 6 (2005); hereinafter- lfmtsou). The ICJ held that Israel holds the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) pursuant to the law of belligerent occupation. That is also the legal view at the base of The Beit Sorrrik Case. The ICJ held that an occupier state is not permitted to annex
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=NrONN5PlYQoC&pg=PA285&lpg=PA285&dq=Under+international+law+all+annexation+is+illegal.&source=bl&ots=KG86VCFd9U&sig=88MbPK35-ZhdZOAabL9wuLP97SE&hl=en&ei=4kRfSom-HIzq6gOVoemSCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5
Under international law all annexation is illegal. Basically that means the west bank is not yours to keep.
P.S. "Put up or shut up is a well accepted term that means provide your evidence. If i truly intended for you to shut up I would not have concluded part 3 of my response with "I wait your response."
Excellent work.
Oh wait, it WASNT ok.
Well if it was ok for germany to invade poland - oh wait.
Surely there must be SOME recent example of a country invading or taking over another and that being ok with everybody?
Of course once the former German residents of Danzig/Gdansk left, they were resettled in Germany. The Arabs of course lock up their refugees in camps for decades to keep them poor and angry. Ever wonder why there are no German suicide bombers in the streets of Poland or Japanese suicide bombers in Moscow?
The pro-Israeli propaganda floating around this blog tonight is astounding!
"Twenty-six soldiers have now come forward to talk about their combat experiences during the war in a collection of testimony just published by Breaking the Silence,"
Actually 26 soldiers have come forward to talk about what they heard, what they were told. Many of these soldiers were NOT in the field at all. There are no names and no evidence that can be followed up on.
Similar to the testimonies published by the Rabin Academy several months ago, the allegations raised in the Breaking the Silence report were based on hearsay and anonymous testimonies that lacked identifying details such as rank, the first letter of the name, the name of the unit, the place and the date.
Hamas MP Fathi Hamad openly admits that women, children, the elderly and the fit are used as human shields. Hamas MP and clerlic Yunis al-Astal openly states that the goal is to conquer Israel, then Rome then all of Europe and America. But there are no calls for investigations not even a mention of it.
There is an implicit proviso in every statement and every policy made by anyone, anywhere, anytime, from individuals all the way up to the UN. That proviso is: "Except for Jews."
Matan Vilnai said Palestinians risked a "shoah", the Hebrew word for a big disaster - and for the Nazi Holocaust. (Feb 2008)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7270650.stm
GZLives' Shoah Denial Tactics:
Apparently verified.
Yeah right ... whatever you say genuis
http://www.shovrimshtika.org/oferet/news_e.asp
The military rebutted the report, saying the accounts were anonymous and impossible to verify. The accounts of 26 veterans were collected by "Breaking the Silence," an organization of Israeli army reservists critical of Israeli treatment of the Palestinians.
That the IDF is denying that it committed war crimes that lead to the destruction of tens of thousands of civilian structures and the deaths of hundreds of children.
Query:
Are we surprised?
We should let all alleged criminals investigate themselves. Thing of the savings in the justice system!
Name one incident in Afghanistan or Iraq where the US used WP in densely populated areas.
Answer:
"It was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants," spokesman Lt Col Barry Venable told the BBC - though not against civilians, he said.
The US had earlier said the substance - which can cause burning of the flesh - had been used only for illumination.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4440664.stm
Recommendation:
We need to stop cooperating with Israel for military policy.
The idea that Israel is morally and legally entitled to any piece of land simply because it was taken by force of arms is absurd on the face of it. To pretend otherwise flies in the face of common sense logic.
That there are Israelis who are willing to come forward and admit that what they did in Israel's latest war against the indigenous peoples was immoral and criminal is heartening, but it does not erase the crime that was committed.
Until the Israeli people abandon the notion that they are entitled to do whatever they want to do so long as they are militarily capable of doing it, the Western World will continue to be held hostage by the lack of peace in the Middle East.
Israel is also entitled to additional land because those who rejected Israel in 1947 tried again to exterminate her in 1967 and again failed.
Had they succeeded I highly doubt you'd have much to say.
However, the Arabs failed miserably and as a result LOST much land. To the victors go the spoils as it were.
And despite Israel trying to reach a land for peace agreement as they did with Egypt, the Arab hatred for the Jews goes so deep it just doesn't permit them to accept coexistence.
So be it.
The U.N Security Council with a U.S. Veto available told Israel that it was inadmissible to acquire land through war and did not make a distinction between aggressive of defensive, it was inadmissible to acquire land through war.
Now I and most other people would accept the U.N. Security Council as a legal authority. You got another, I will be happy to be educated. I wait your response.
In July 2004, The International Court of Justice delivered an Advisory Opinion on the 'Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory'. The Court observed that under customary international law as reflected in Article 42 of the Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land annexed to the Fourth Hague Convention of 18 October 1907, territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army, and the occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
The State of Israel raised a number of exceptions and objections,[8] but the Court found them unpersuasive.
The Court ruled that territories had been occupied by the Israeli armed forces in 1967, during the conflict between Israel and Jordan, and that subsequent events in those territories, had done nothing to alter the situation.
'All these territories (including East Jerusalem) remain occupied territories and Israel has continued to have the status of occupying Power.'
Case closed.
The full title of the book is "The Law of Nations: An Introduction to the International Law of Peace"
While I haven't read the book, I truly doubt that any legitimate book that claims to be a handbook for laws leading to peace can possibly include such notions, otherwise Israel would be the most peaceful nation on Earth. Not even to mention that it just doesn't make logical sense from a practical viewpoint.
So please, let's see some quotes. You made an outrageous claim, the burden of proof is on you.
The Security Council,
Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,
Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,
Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,
1. Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
o Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
o Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;
http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1967/scres67.htm
look to part 3
BubbaC33 wrote
“I don;t care what you read, according to international law a nation, through cession and others principles, can hold land taken in the course of a defensive war. Each war Israel has fought has been defensive.”
Firstly allow me to point out the obvious error here. “Each war Israel has fought has been defensive.”
Suez 1956. Britain, France and Israel attacked Egypt because it was about to nationalize the Suez cannel. The U.S. told Israel to get out of there and it did.
Secondly the question as to whether 1967 was a defensive action is still up for debate, we can however agree to disagree on that matter. Finally you are wrong on the law.
This is where the put up or shut up part of the discussion comes in, cite the law or shut up.
For my part the law is clear according to the Articles of the UN charter and Resolution 242 of the U.N. Security council. Which I will cite in part 2 of this comment.
I did cite one provision Israel can use to hold the West Bank and the Golan. Another is the idea of extinctive prescription. Add to all that is this explanation of i-law that is relevant to the discussion. A state is entitled, not only to the lands actually inhabited and brought under its immediate control, but to all those which may be needed for its security. Which is to say the West Bank and the Golan serve to provide Israel with the strategic depth a US Pentagon study determined Israel requires.
UN 242 also calls for the Arab entities to recognize the right of Israel to exist, only Jordan and Egypt have done so.
I wrote the folks who run this site and was told you don;t own this site and cannot tell folks to cite or shut up.
"On April 7, 1967 a skirmish on land turned into a major air battle during which Israel shot down six Syrian MiG aircraft over Mount Hermon on the Golan Heights. This led President Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt immediately offered to assist Syria in the event of a future Israeli attack.
On May 13, Nasser received a secret message from the Soviet Union, which supplied both Egypt and Syria with weapons, informing him that Israel had massed troops on the Syrian border. ..... Nasser then closed the Straits of Tiran on May 21 to all shipping both to and from Israel." http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/ea/97187.htm
However the Straits of Tiran were only closed to Israeli flagged vessels or those caring strategic goods. So ships flagged for other nation could and did get to Eilat. In the 2 1/2 years prior to the closing Eilat had not seen an Israeli flagged vessel. The only essential commodity imported through Eilat was oil which could have been imported through Haifa. When we know the whole picture we can say that the closing of the Straits where not an act of war.
http://books.google.ca/books?id=VaUvqHNd6m0C&pg=PA161&lpg=PA161&dq=straits+of+tiran+1967&source=bl&ots=Q37lR4MOU4&sig=-NEPVjXPU2TJKrqz-e1Y91YlGzw&hl=en&ei=BsFfStXTDJuUtgfn9JngAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1