Analysis: PA 'balking' at war crimes probe

[Jefferson23]

Human rights activists say the Palestinian Authority is using threat of war crimes investigation as a 'bargaining chip'.

Dalia Hatuqa Last updated: 12 Sep 2014

Ramallah, occupied West Bank - After a document obtained by Al Jazeera revealed the Palestinian Authority (PA) has stalled the launch of a formal investigation into alleged Israeli war crimes in Gaza, Palestinian legal and human rights experts remain dubious that the PA ever truly intended to join the International Criminal Court (ICC).

In a confidential letter obtained exclusively by Al Jazeera's Investigative Unit, the ICC's top prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, said she "did not receive a positive confirmation" from PA Foreign Minister Riad al-Malki that the request submitted for an international investigation had the Palestinian government's approval.

Palestinian officials have, on numerous occasions, threatened to head to the ICC to hold Israel accountable for possible war crimes and crimes against humanity. But their efforts so far, have proved fruitless.

In July, a French lawyer filed a complaint with the court on behalf of the Palestinian minister of justice, accusing Israel of carrying out war crimes in the Gaza Strip. This came after a 2009 call for an ICC investigation into Israel's three-week military offensive in Gaza that was later dropped when the prosecutor said Palestine was not a court member.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/09/palestinians-gaza-icc-probe-israel-201491273525819720.html

[Jefferson23]

1. Haniyeh urges Abbas to stop 'stalling' on ICC

GAZA CITY (Ma'an) -- Senior Hamas official Ismail Haniyeh on Friday urged the Palestinian leadership to sign the Rome Statute and hold Israel accountable for its crimes in Gaza at the International Criminal Court.

Haniyeh said in a statement that "signing the Rome Statute is the right for every victim and stalling is neglecting their rights and an offense to the image of Palestinians."

The Palestinian leadership must not "neglect" the rights of the victims of Israel's military assault on Gaza, Haniyeh said, urging President Mahmoud Abbas to sign the Rome Statute.

Hamas signed a proposal for the Palestinians to apply to join the ICC in August.

http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=727024

[Jefferson23]

2. Hamas acknowledges its forces fired rockets from civilian areas

Israeli army providing more evidence of attacks. Hamas spokesman says group had little choice because Gaza is a narrow and tightly spaced urban area.

By The Associated Press and Haaretz | Sep. 12, 2014 |

Two weeks after the end of the Gaza war, there is growing evidence that Hamas militants used residential areas as cover for launching rockets at Israel, at least at times. Even Hamas now admits "mistakes" were made.

But Hamas says it had little choice in Gaza's crowded urban landscape, took safeguards to keep people away from the fighting, and that a heavy-handed Israeli response is to blame for the deaths of hundreds of Palestinian civilians.

"Gaza, from Beit Hanoun in the north to Rafah in the south, is one uninterrupted urban chain that Israel has turned into a war zone," said Ghazi Hamad, a senior Hamas official in Gaza.

Increasingly, the discussion is not about whether the Hamas rockets were fired from civilian areas, but exactly how close they were to the actual buildings.

"The Israelis kept saying rockets were fired from schools or hospitals when in fact they were fired 200 or 300 meters (yards) away. Still, there were some mistakes made and they were quickly dealt with," Hamad told The Associated Press, offering the first acknowledgment by a Hamas official that, in some cases, militants fired rockets from or near residential areas or civilian facilities.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.615478

[Mosby]

3. they (hamas) committed war crimes

I'm surprised they admitted it frankly and this one reason why abbas stating he's going to the ICC is an empty threat, because all the leaders of Hamas and fatah could be charged with war crimes. Even if one believes that bibi and co. Over reacted the Israelis could claim self defense unlike the Palestinians who resort to terrorism when it furthers their goals.

Thanks for posting this.

[Jefferson23]

4. Abbas is looking for leverage and no one should underestimate their moves just yet.

Israel has the US at it's back, without it they'll be in deep trouble..so don't be too surprised
if Kerry uses the same tactic against Israel to get a deal out of it.

[Mosby]

5. that's true

IMO an election could go a long way to revitalize abbas's standing. I don't think the ICC and ICJ are going to pay much attention to what unelected leaders have to say. That only works on the UN general assembly and the UNHRC.

[azurnoir]

6. Hamas culpability does not absolve Israel as is implied

it simply means both are guilty nothing more nothing less

[Jefferson23]

9. The idea that Israel has no legal problems is amusing. n/t

[King_David]

12. Israel has had legal problems for hundreds of years

[Jefferson23]

17. Ya don't say..well, it's high time then they have their ass hauled to international courts. n/t

[King_David]

18. People been saying that about The Jewish State

For 2000 years

[Jefferson23]

20. It's 2000 now...best they get on with it. n/t

[Scootaloo]

7. Two wrongs don't make a right, Mosby

[FBaggins]

8. There aren't two wrongs in that case.

The first "wrong" makes the second action "not wrong".

It's wrong to drop a bomb on a civilian's home and kill the family. It isn't wrong to drop a bomb on a military target that happens to be in what would otherwise be a civilian home. If you fire an RPG at a tank from the window of a home and the tank fires back (killing you... but also the family that lived there)... there aren't "two wrongs". Just the one you committed by firing from the home.

If the enemy thinks there might be civilians inside the home, it should make every reasonable attempt to warn them away... but it's clear that the IDF did that - while Hamas told the civilians to stay put.

So yeah... I guess there are two wrongs in that scenario. But they both belong to Hamas.

[Scootaloo]

10. Thank you for demonstrating the Zionist lack of ethics

It absolutely is wrong to drop a bomb on a family, Fbaggins. There's no defense for doing so. And no matter how hard you pedal to try to conjure an excuse, a justification, something to salve your conscience, it will never be okay.

[hack89]

11. You cannot use human shields

International law is clear on the matter - deliberately colocating military troops or equipment with civilians does not turn those civilians into some magical shield.

[Scootaloo]

14. Which is it, Hack? "Morally justified" or "technically legal"?

So let's go with this. A guy is launching a rocket from the roof of a crowded apartment building.

You know he's there. You also know there's a couple dozen families in the building.

Now, legally, you are authorized under international law to fire on him. There's no restrictions on what you can use there - fire a single bullet, or pound it with bombs, the choice is up to you.

Now one school of thought, exemplified by your position, is that this is the only thing worth considering. if you can bomb the apartment building, killing or maiming everyone inside, and get away with it, then there is no conceivable reason to not bomb it. There's no ethical question, no moral thought. Pure reflex based on whether or not you might face some sort of prosecution. If you will face no repercussions, why not level the apartment building?

The other school of thought actually, well, thinks. Is that asshole on the roof worth the lives of the people inside? Is what he is doing so dangerous that those people must be written off as lost? Is there some way of dealing with the situation that does not put those people in immediate danger? If you bypass him as a target and opt for one with less risk to innocents, what will happen? None of the answers to these questions provides ethical justification for leveling the apartment building. Much less dozens of buildings around it as well.

But of course, Israel and its military aren't the least bit concerned with ethics. They're out to inflict as much pain, suffering, and degradation upon the "Amalek" as they can, while still maintaining a slip of legality to hide behind. Strange isn't it, that the same people who praise israel as the "most moral army in the world' are so fucking fast, as you are, to completely abandon any pretense of ethical or moral thought in favor of trite legalisms to defend the ethically indefensible.

[hack89]

16. You can warn with texts and phone calls

Last edited Fri Sep 12, 2014, 07:24 PM - Edit history (1)

You can "roof knock". But eventually you have to make a choice. I know your choice is to let Hamas wage war with impunity until enough Israelis are killed and it becomes a "fair fight". Israel sees it differently. Of course it would be moot issue if Hamas evacuated civilians or built bomb shelters in stead if tunnels into Israel. But then it is all about choices and their consequences.

[FBaggins]

13. Sorry... that's simply wrong.

The laws of warfare are confusing for some, but on that point they're pretty clear.

It is absolutely wrong to put a legitimate military target next to that family. Always and without exception - there's no defense for doing so.

It most certainly does not make you off limits as a military target.

[Scootaloo]

15. "It is absolutely wrong to put a legitimate military target next to that family."

Agreed. it's also absolutely wrong to go "well, their fault for existing within blast radius of the guy" and to turn them into flying meat.

Now, this may be legal. But legal arguments are not ethical arguments. All sorts of things are legal. and new things can be declared legal, or illegal, with the stroke of a pen. it's a pretty arbitrary standard to set yourself by - basically legality is at best the bare minimum of ethical behavior, and with alarming frequency, functions as protection for abusive, exploitative behaviors. One would imagine Israel's supporters would be keenly aware of that, but I guess supporting a state like that necessitates some precision forgetfulness.

[sabbat hunter]

19. since Israel

is not a signatory to the ICC treaty, what difference does it make if the PA goes to it, as Israel is not covered by it and thus does not have to respond to anything it does/says.

[Jefferson23]

21. Not quite true. They don't have to sign, but it becomes political. The UNSC can forward the case

without Israel signing. The US can protect them yet there may be another legal avenue as well.
Israel is a signer to other treaties, the Geneva Convention is one. As far as I understand it there
are very real possibilities they can be brought to the courts. Another issue is that the courts
generally look to see if the host country can legally deal with such crimes and that they be
managed appropriately through their justice system. B'Tselem has recently declared that Israel
is not able to do this in a manner that would be free of internal corruption. They are laying the
legal ground work for such an argument if need be.

[Jefferson23]

22. Bombing family homes of activists in armed Palestinian groups violates internat'l humanitarian law

Since the Israeli military launched Operation Protective Edge in the early hours of 8 July 2014, the IDF Spokesperson and media sources have reported deliberate attacks against the homes of senior activists in armed Palestinian groups. The IDF Spokesperson reported that 11 such homes were attacked. According to media reports, the defense establishment intends to continue attacking the homes of senior Hamas activists. The reports state that the bombings are being carried out with the “knock on the roof” procedure, whereby the military fires a small missile at the house it intends to bomb as warning, expecting inhabitants to leave the premises, and then bombs the house to destruction. In some cases, military representative call the family and instruct them to evacuate the house.

Even if uninvolved civilians are not injured, these houses are not legitimate military targets, and attacking them is a violation of international humanitarian law. The gravity of the violation is compounded when uninvolved civilians are injured. Until now, B’Tselem has documented one case in which civilians were in a house bombed after a prior warning missile was fired:

The Kaware’ family home in Khan Yunis

On 8 July 2014, at around 1:30 P.M., the military called the Kaware’ home, informed the family that the house was to be bombed, and instructed them to leave the premises. The three-story building, owned by Ahmad Kaware’, consists of seven apartments belonging to Kaware’ and his sons. One son, ‘Odeh Kaware’, is an activist in Hamas’ military wing. At first, the family members obeyed the instruction to leave the house, but they gathered outside it with dozens of other persons. At approximately 2:50 P.M., a missile fired from an unmanned aerial vehicle struck the solar water tank on the roof of the building. Several minutes later, family members and neighbors began to go up to the roof. At 3:00 P.M., a missile was fired at the building from an F-16 fighter jet. At that stage, four persons were on the roof and other people were in the stairway or in the courtyard, on their way to the roof. The roof collapsed under the bombing, killing eight people, six of them children. Another 28 people were injured, ten of them sustaining severe injuries.

http://www.btselem.org/press_releases/20140709_bobming_of_houses_in_gaza

[hack89]

23. You meant military commanders, right?

Hamas has a uniformed military wing. Those "activists" are really soldiers.

[Jefferson23]

24. Contact B'Tselem, they're the ones who wrote it and this is their area of expertise. n/t

[hack89]

25. Not capable of independent thought?

Can't figure out what activists who are members of military organizations really are?

[Jefferson23]

26. I try my best to recognize when someone is over reaching on a subject that gets mucked

up often. It's an important subject, the human rights groups have an excellent track record.

[hack89]

27. So tell me why

even though they have a uniformed military wing that routinely attacks Israel, Hamas has no soldiers or military commanders, just "activists"?

[Jefferson23]

28. Who is stating they only have activists?

[hack89]

29. People that belong to military groups are called soldiers

It is not complicated. Activist that are involved in military activities are soldiers.

[Jefferson23]

30. You don't know that. You're questioning their label ( B'Tselem's). That would be something

to counter, but I fail to see why they would do so and what evidence do you have
they have identified the bodies incorrectly?

[hack89]

31. Have you considered that they have a bias and an agenda? Nt

[Jefferson23]

32. They have no history of doing so. They are a highly respected group..internationally. n/t