UN Officials DEBUNK Israeli Lies - No Weapons Found In UN Facilities

[BlueMTexpat]

88. There are quite a few international legal scholars who take issue

with just that point.

In its Advisory Opinion in the Nuclear Weapons case, the ICJ stated that the principle of distinction, which requires belligerent States to distinguish between civilian and combatants, is one of the “cardinal principles” of international humanitarian law and one of the “intransgressible principles of international customary law”.

The principle of distinction is codified in Articles 48, 51(2) and 52(2) of the Additional Protocol I of 1977 to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, to which no reservations have been made. According to Additional Protocol I, “attacks” refer to “acts of violence against the adversary, whether in offence or in defence” (Article 49). Under both customary international law and treaty law, the prohibition on directing attacks against the civilian population or civilian objects is absolute. There is no discretion available to invoke military necessity as a justification.

Contrary to Israel’s claims, mistakes resulting in civilian casualties cannot be justified: in case of doubt as to the nature of the target, the law clearly establishes that an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes (such as schools, houses, places of worship and medical facilities), are presumed as not being used for military purposes. During these past weeks, UN officials and representatives have repeatedly called on Israel to strictly abide by the principle of precaution in carrying out attacks in the Gaza Strip, where risks are greatly aggravated by the very high population density, and maximum restraint must be exercised to avoid civilian casualties. HRW has noted that these rules exist to minimize mistakes “when such mistakes are repeated, it raises the concern of whether the rules are being disregarded.”

http://richardfalk.wordpress.com/2014/07/28/joint-declaration-by-international-law-experts-on-israels-gaza-offensive/

It is a bit strong to state that I am "in error" when I am in comparatively good company.

And while, yes, there are likely a great many people on both sides who are at fault here, there is also a huge difference between the actions of a comparatively small group of radical zealots, however reprehensible, and a State, with its full might, power and authority, in addition to its literally overwhelming financial and military superiority, that has been treating a dispossessed and disenfranchised population concentrated in a tiny geographical area like ghetto inhabitants for years.

If you really cannot see that, you truly disappoint me, Sir. I am heartily sorry for that.