News from Gaza Part 2

So you're telling me that his comparing the Nazi's shooting his grandmother in her bed is not comparable to an IDF soldier shooting a Palestinian grandmother in her bed, if one actually committed such an act? He didn't "invoke" Nazism. He made a comparison to what some people are capable of, and it would seem, there are some in the IDF who would and do shoot and kill civilians without cause or pause.. something the Nazi's also did.. something many other killers or soldiers of armies in the past and present do on a daily basis.

He invoked a comparison to killers for those in the IDF who are killers. He also said that his family did not die to allow the IDF the right to slaughter so many civilians in Gaza. A fair enough comment in my opinion. Did they die to allow Israel to indiscriminately kill so many Palestinians? Is that the right you think they died for? No. Did they die so you could bomb yet another school where refugees had sought shelter, killing two small children? No. Did those victims die so that the IDF could bomb hospitals? No.

He is comparing the IDF to previous killing regimes and at present, the IDF is living up to that comparison.. not only in its actions, but also in the manner in which it is conducting itself (denials.. lies.. then say oh yeah.. was a stray shell.. etc).

He has as much right to "invoke Nazism" as any relative of victims or victims themselves, be they Jewish or non-Jewish. And just because he is speaking out against Israel and her actions and conduct in Gaza, does not make him any less Jewish, does not make his argument or statement any less relevant and does not somehow mean that he is not allowed to make a comparison to previous killing regimes of the past. Had he said Pol-Pot, you wouldn't have batted an eyelid. So really, get off the high horse. He's allowed to compare the IDF to whatever or whoever he so chooses. His family died to give him that right.

 

I am sure Israel will be screaming that for years to come.. Especially in light of the sheer volume of incidents that could amount to war crimes that will be investigated.. Yes, the UN have been keeping scores.. Here is what UNRWA commented to a BBC reporter after yet another UN school, sheltering 1600 civilians, took a direct hit from the Israelis, killing two children...

Israel may have the right to defend herself, but she has not done so in a manner that complies with the very convention you are attempting to slip by, not realising I am well acquainted with International Law and am very well acquainted with the Geneva Convention that you are completely misrepresenting..

Article 48.-Basic rule

In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives. ​

I guess hospitals, schools, UN compounds, safe houses are military targets and objectives now? No, they are not. Ergo, Israel has breached Article 48 of the Convention.

Article 51.-Protection of the civilian population

1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in circumstances.

2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.

3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.

4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:

(a) Those which are not directed at a specific military objective;

(b) Those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or

(c) Those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.

5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:

(a) An attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and

(b) An attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

6. Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited.

7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.

8. Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57.
​

You do realise that Israel has also violated this, as well as Hamas, don't you?

Lets have a look at the Article 57 of the Convention, which funnily enough, you failed to actually provide anything aside from the title of the Article.. I'll provide it for you..

CHAPTER IV.-PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES

Article 57.-Precautions in attack

1. In the conduct of military operations, constant care shall be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects.

2. With respect to attacks, the following precautions shall be taken:

(a) Those who plan or decide upon an attack shall:

(i) Do everything feasible to verify that the objectives to be attacked are neither civilians nor civilian objects and are not subject to special protection but are military objectives within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 52 and that it is not prohibited by the provisions of this Protocol to attack them;

(ii) Take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods of attack with a view to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects;

(iii) Refrain from deciding to launch any attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated;

(b) An attack shall be cancelled or suspended if it becomes apparent that the objective is not a military one or is subject to special protection or that the attack may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated;

(c) Effective advance warning shall be given of attacks which may affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not permit.

3. When a choice is possible between several military objectives for obtaining a similar military advantage, the objective to be selected shall be that the attack on which may be expected to cause the least danger to civilian lives and to civilian objects.

4. In the conduct of military operations at sea or in the air, each Party to the conflict shall, in conformity with its rights and duties under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, take all reasonable precautions to avoid losses of civilian lives and damage to civilian objects.

5. No provision of this Article may be construed as authorizing any attacks against the civilian population, civilians or civilian objects. ​

I'd highlight everywhere that Israel violated Article 57 and/or the Geneva Convention in total, but frankly, I would be here all night and I have a life.

But thank you for attempting to mislead this discussion yet again. Your dishonesty is noted.

And just so we are clear, here is the definition of "Civilian Objects" under the Convention:

CHAPTER III.-CIVILIAN OBJECTS

Article 52.-General protection of civilian objects

1. Civilian objects shall not be the object of attack or of reprisals. Civilian objects are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 2.

2. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military of advantage.

3. In case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used.

Article 53.-Protection of cultural objects and of places of worship

Without prejudice to the provisions of the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict of 14 May 1954, and of other relevant international instruments, it is prohibited:

(a) To commit any acts of hostility directed against the historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples;

(b) To use such objects in support of the military effort;

(c) To make such objects the object of reprisals.

Article 54.-Protection of objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population

1. Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited.

2. It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive.

3. The prohibitions in paragraph 2 shall not apply to such of the objects covered by it as are used by an adverse Party:

(a) As sustenance solely for the members of its armed forces; or

(b) If not as sustenance, then in direct support of military action, provided, however, that in no event shall actions against these objects be taken which may be expected to leave the civilian population with such inadequate food or water as to cause its starvation or force its movement.

4. These objects shall not be made the object of reprisals.

5. In recognition of the vital requirements of any Party to the conflict in the defence of its national territory against invasion, derogation from the prohibitions contained in paragraph 2 may be made by a Party to the conflict within such territory under its own control where required by imperative military necessity.

Article 55.-Protection of the natural environment
1. Care shall be taken in warfare to protect the natural environment against widespread, long-term and severe damage. This protection includes a prohibition of the use of methods or means of warfare which are intended or may be expected to cause such damage to the natural environment and thereby to prejudice the health or survival of the population.

2. Attacks against the natural environment by way of reprisals are prohibited. ​

Thus far, Israel have bombed homes, hospitals, Mosques, schools as well as the UN site which housed and contained not only civilian refugees from the conflict, but was also their main stores for food, medical supplies and fuel that were to be distributed to the civilian population of Gaza. I won't bother to remind you of the fact that the IDF were at one point, stationed within metres of domestic dwellings where bodies of civilians were discovered having suffered from starvation and injuries, which were caused by Israel's incursion into Gaza. Nor will I bother to point out the numerous times Israel has indiscriminately bombed places of worship, houses, schools, hospitals as well as the UN's main site in Gaza, all of which contained innocent civilians.

So before you tell me to get my head out of my backside and dare cite Article 57 of the Convention, I'd suggest you actually read what you are citing before you make a bigger arse out of yourself.

 

Learn to read..

 

Such as? Bombing hospitals, schools, the UN's relief site, mosques, houses.. Israel directing civilians to safe houses, only to bomb it 24 hours later?

I did state that if an IDF did shoot a grandmother in her bed, whether Kaufman would be wrong in making such a comparison..

There was of course this from 2006..

And this from the latest incursion.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Gaz? Or Gas?

Firstly, Australia would not build gas chambers to slaughter Jews, Gypsies, disabled people, dissidents, homosexuals, etc. If she were to, then yes, Australia could be compared to the Nazi's.

Kaufman made a comparison to the manner in which the IDF conducts itself and he saw it as being akin to the manner in which the Nazi's sometimes conducted themselves. He is allowed to make such a comparison if he sees the situation warrants it.