- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Monday, January 26, 2009

Israel to hide and protect war criminals


Israel to protect troops from prosecution
International calls to investigate Israel over alleged war crimes in the Gaza Strip prompted Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to promise military personnel state protection from foreign prosecution.
"The commanders and soldiers sent to Gaza should know they are safe from various tribunals and Israel will assist them on this front and defend them, just as they protected us with their bodies during the Gaza operation," Olmert said. Last week, the military censor ordered local and foreign media in Israel not to publish names of army commanders in the Gaza war and to blur their faces in photos and video for fear they could be identified and arrested while travelling abroad. Israeli media reports said the military had been advising its top brass to think twice about visiting Europe. Speaking at a weekly cabinet meeting, Olmert said Israel's justice minister would consult the country's top legal experts and find "answers to possible questions relating to the Israeli military's activities" during the 22-day war. Some 1,300 Palestinians, including at least 700 civilians, were killed, medical officials said, in the offensive Israel launched in the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip with the declared aim of ending cross-border rocket attacks.

When the Vatican faced media attention over their child abusing Priests, the Vatican quickly hide as many as could be identified and secretly moved them around so no one could easily be prosecuted. Israel seems to be adopting a similar tactic, by hiding the identities of those involved in claims of war crimes Israel is trying to cover up its shameful incursion with blankets of legal suppression aimed at hiding the truth. The truth is that these claims of war crimes are quickly becoming identified now that the media are able to witness the utter destruction visited upon Gaza, should NZ hold any IDF members identifiable with war crimes in custody if visiting NZ?

28 Comments:

At 26/1/09 1:51 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ahh, the Nuremberg Defense, it never fails, as long as you win.

 
At 26/1/09 2:15 pm, Blogger Blair said...

Ummm... doesn't firing rockets across the border at civilians on a daily basis count as some sort of war crime? Or is that allowed?

 
At 26/1/09 2:43 pm, Blogger Brewerstroupe said...

As always, with Israel's crimes, the smoke has to clear before the truth emerges:

Israel, not Hamas, violated the truce: Hamas undertook to stop firing rockets into Israel; in return, Israel was to ease its throttlehold on Gaza. In fact, during the truce, it tightened it further. This was confirmed not only by every neutral international observer and NGO on the scene but by Brigadier General (Res.) Shmuel Zakai, a former commander of the IDF’s Gaza Division. In an interview in Ha’aretz on 22 December, he accused Israel’s government of having made a ‘central error’ during the tahdiyeh, the six-month period of relative truce, by failing ‘to take advantage of the calm to improve, rather than markedly worsen, the economic plight of the Palestinians of the Strip......
....The truce, which began in June last year and was due for renewal in December, required both parties to refrain from violent action against the other. Hamas had to cease its rocket assaults and prevent the firing of rockets by other groups such as Islamic Jihad (even Israel’s intelligence agencies acknowledged this had been implemented with surprising effectiveness), and Israel had to put a stop to its targeted assassinations and military incursions. This understanding was seriously violated on 4 November, when the IDF entered Gaza and killed six members of Hamas. Hamas responded by launching Qassam rockets and Grad missiles. Even so, it offered to extend the truce, but only on condition that Israel ended its blockade...
...Israel’s government would like the world to believe that Hamas launched its Qassam rockets because that is what terrorists do and Hamas is a generic terrorist group. In fact, Hamas is no more a ‘terror organisation’ (Israel’s preferred term) than the Zionist movement was during its struggle for a Jewish homeland.


http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n02/sieg01_.html#footnotes

Henry Siegman, director of the US Middle East Project in New York, is a visiting research professor at SOAS, University of London. He is a former national director of the American Jewish Congress and of the Synagogue Council of America.

 
At 26/1/09 3:23 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

No.

 
At 26/1/09 4:07 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice Brewer, the truth as ever is in whatever biased internet links you managed to dredge up.

Both sides wanted a war which is why Hamas rejected international calls for a ceasefire.

Your one eyed posts are an absolute hoot.

 
At 26/1/09 5:07 pm, Blogger Brewerstroupe said...

Ummm... doesn't firing rockets across the border at civilians on a daily basis count as some sort of war crime? Or is that allowed?

Wrong on two counts Blair.
1. Israel has no declared borders.

2. 92% of the land upon which Sderot is built is owned by Gazans who were driven from their homes in April 1948 - before the State of Israel was declared and before the Arab league moved, on 15 May, to stabilise the area. These people had nothing to do with the hostilities and they now exist, penned up in Gaza a few kilometres from the land on which they and their forefathers had lived since time immemorial.They were farmers, now they fire rockets and who can blame them.

 
At 26/1/09 6:09 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

so youd be fine with it if a family member was killed by one then?...

 
At 26/1/09 6:21 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hamas rejected international calls for a ceasefire

As per usual the ceasefire was dictated on Israel's terms, which is impossible for Hamas to accept.

 
At 26/1/09 7:00 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"As per usual the ceasefire was dictated on Israel's terms, which is impossible for Hamas to accept."

This is an idiotic assertion. If I was a member of Hamas I would take that as an insult. They wanted to lure the IDF in urban areas where its strengths would weakened and Hamas would have the advantage of local knowledge as well as having the ground prepared. Hamas wanted a replay of 06 in Lebanon but unfortunately for them the Israelis were smarter than that and declined to get themsleves involved in messy urban warfare.

 
At 26/1/09 8:23 pm, Blogger Brewerstroupe said...

the truth as ever is in whatever biased internet links you managed to dredge up.

I am content to allow the readers to judge whether the former national director of the American Jewish Congress and of the Synagogue Council of America is biased or not.

I rather think that they will probably give more credence to his words, published in the London Review of Books than to your incoherent ravings.

 
At 26/1/09 8:29 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the firing of rockets isnt a war crime, then its a crime.

I look forward to Hamas prosecuting those who fired the rockets, and those trials getting coverage on blog such as this

 
At 26/1/09 8:29 pm, Blogger Brewerstroupe said...

so youd be fine with it if a family member was killed by one then?...

Not much danger of that. I do not recommend my family to settle on land known to have been taken from it's rightful owners by force. Should they do so and be hurt, I could not find it in myself to blame those who, after 60 years of unrecognised protest, have taken to more effective resistance.

 
At 26/1/09 10:21 pm, Blogger James Karalus said...

When the Vatican faced media attention over their child abusing Priests, the Vatican quickly hide as many as could be identified and secretly moved them around so no one could easily be prosecuted.

What in the fuck does this have to do with Gaza this is a totally uncalled for comment. As for them hiding and protecting their own people this is rubbish but what do you expect the rest of the world just sat back and watched them kill all those people with out really doing anything to complain about this now seams pointless it won't bring the kids back to life.

 
At 26/1/09 10:48 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not much danger of that. I do not recommend my family to settle on land known to have been taken from it's rightful owners by force. Should they do so and be hurt, I could not find it in myself to blame those who, after 60 years of unrecognised protest, have taken to more effective resistance.

One assumes you don't live in Aotearoa then brewer.
If so, one assumes you wont complain if the local iwi decides to mete out some collective punishment to your family.

 
At 27/1/09 8:46 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

1. Israel has no declared borders.

So what are Palestine's borders Brewer? Why do you repeatedly avoid this question?

 
At 27/1/09 9:08 am, Anonymous Kerry said...

Oh the poor Israeli's...TUFF!!

If i had to contend with the shit the Palestinians have had to deal with (land stolen, rights trampled on) I would be firing missiles also.

The way the Jews have acted over the past few weeks only goes to show they are not decent people.

I think Israel has sowed the seeds of there distruction...and good job too!

 
At 27/1/09 9:28 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

One assumes you don't live in Aotearoa then brewer.
If so, one assumes you wont complain if the local iwi decides to mete out some collective punishment to your family


The treaty.... but unfortunately one sides takes more, far more than their fair share...

 
At 27/1/09 10:22 am, Blogger Brewerstroupe said...

So what are Palestine's borders Brewer? Why do you repeatedly avoid this question?

I do not avoid it, I ignore it as the question itself betrays a woeful or willful ignorance of what is at issue.

Given that the neither side ratified the U.N. plan for partition and that the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians predates the declaration of the Jewish State, The Palestinian position is simply this:

"Observe U.N. declaration 194 (which has been re-iterated every year since 1949) then allow the people to choose the Government. In other words, a single State in which the people get to vote, regardless of race."
Sorta like every other so-called civilised state in the World.

It is Israel who insists that it should have a race-based state. It is therefore incumbent on them to state where its borders might be. Their reluctance to do this indicates that their ambitions with regard to territory are not yet realised.

One assumes you don't live in Aotearoa then brewer.
If so, one assumes you wont complain if the local iwi decides to mete out some collective punishment to your family


As my family has bloodlines that reach back to the Mataatua Waka, somehow I do not think it is an issue. Nevertheless, if this were not the case, New Zealand has established the Waitangi Tribunal to deal with exactly this kind of land issue.

Perhaps you could describe for me what measures Israel has set in place to deal with the Palestinian land claims that are supported by the U.N.? Do you hold Israel to the same civilised standards as New Zealand or do you hold that the New Zealand should adopt the Israeli model? If so, which 20% of New Zealand should we set aside for the Maori Reservation and do you think we should build a fence around it?

 
At 27/1/09 12:26 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I do not avoid it, I ignore it as the question itself betrays a woeful or willful ignorance of what is at issue.

Given that the neither side ratified the U.N. plan for partition and that the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians predates the declaration of the Jewish State, The Palestinian position is simply this:

"Observe U.N. declaration 194( Eh? 194?) (which has been re-iterated every year since 1949) then allow the people to choose the Government. In other words, a single State in which the people get to vote, regardless of race."
Sorta like every other so-called civilised state in the World.


And pretty much every other "so-called civilised state" in the World has clearly defined borders, yet you've avoided telling us what you think Palestine's borders are again. Interesting that the same person who comes here week in week out, with countless weeks at the ready, all in support of Palestine and Palestinians, can't bring himself to tell us what the borders of this State of Palestine should actually be.

 
At 27/1/09 1:30 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

imwhy dosnt israel just do an aunty helen and ban rockets because we cant be trusted with them? that would solve the whole problem

 
At 27/1/09 1:32 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Brewerstroupe said...
so youd be fine with it if a family member was killed by one then?...

Not much danger of that. I do not recommend my family to settle on land known to have been taken from it's rightful owners by force. Should they do so and be hurt, I could not find it in myself to blame those who, after 60 years of unrecognised protest, have taken to more effective resistance.

26/1/09 8:29 PM

yep, someones never lost a loved one by anothers hand thats for sure!

 
At 27/1/09 6:08 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The colonisation of NZ is a totally flawed analogy. The Maori are a stone age race who should be grateful it was the English who colonised them and not anyone else.

 
At 27/1/09 10:13 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The colonisation of NZ is a totally flawed analogy. The Maori are a stone age race who should be grateful it was the English who colonised them and not anyone else.

Blah blah I have heard that one before. The wonderful english forced some Maori's live in concentration camp-like conditions, and idea which they took with them to South Africa. And wonderful chap called Adolf thought it was a good idea too.

 
At 28/1/09 8:55 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The treaty...

...which wasn't even signed by a majority of tribal leaders, which gave the colonisers free reign over New Zealand?

New Zealand has established the Waitangi Tribunal to deal with exactly this kind of land issue.

Really brewer?
And so if iwi asked for all their land back they would get it?
Or just parcels of land that the coloniser consideres superflous?
Pretty much like every coloniser, huh brewer?

Australia/USA ring any bells brewer,
or do you just not like Jewish colonisers?

 
At 28/1/09 6:19 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The possibilities for 18th century Maori weren't between colonisation and the status quo. It was either English colonisation or the French/Spanish/Portugese.

Most likely if any country other than England colonised NZ then Maori wouldn't even exist.

 
At 29/1/09 11:24 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It is Israel who insists that it should have a race-based state."

Judiasm are a religion not a race. There are Ethiopean jews and German jews so how can it be race-based.

Anybody can convert whatever their race and be considered a jew.

Can we take you seriously Brewer when you haven't got the basics right?

 
At 29/1/09 2:15 pm, Blogger Brewerstroupe said...

Judiasm are a religion not a race. There are Ethiopean jews and German jews so how can it be race-based.

So what they are setting up is a Theocracy? And the people who have an "Historical claim" to the land are not, in fact, even the same race as the Ancient inhabitants of the area?

Wow. I think you just dealt a death blow to two of the biggest rationales given for the legitimacy of the Jewish State.

PS.
Don't bother taking me seriously - I certainly do not consider you as such. What I write and link to is meant for rational readers.

 
At 29/1/09 3:57 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Judiasm are a religion not a race"

I think you will find that it is both...

 

Post a Comment

<< Home