Israeli human rights organization accuses Israel of war crime

[SNOWBALL]

Israel murders a family of nine.

[Cyrus]

Killing of 9 members of the Abu Selmiyeh family in Gaza bombing [ QUOTE ]
At about 4:00 a.m. on July 12, an Israeli air force plane bombed a three-story building in the Sheikh Radwan neighborhood in Gaza city. The bomb caused the building to collapse and killed Nabil and Salwah Abu Selmiyeh , who lived in the building that was bombed, and seven of their children: Nasrallah, age 4; Aya, age 7; Yihya, age 9; Ayman, age 12; Huda, age 14; Sumayah, age 16; and Basma, age 17. Another son, 'Awad, age 19, was moderately injured.

[/ QUOTE ] I predict a short and violent future for 'Awad. He is 19 years old and will probably seek revenge for his wiped-out family. A potent future terrorist. But who in his right mind would blame 'Awad if he blows himself up tomorrow in a busy Haifa bus stop?

They better go back and finish the job like professionals.

[theblitz]

A couple of small problems with the post:

1. "Betzelem" is known as a radical left-wing body. They object to any Israeli actions at any times. In addition, they are funded by left-wing group in the US and by some governments in the EU (note the ones that are coming out against Israel today).

2. The use of the Geneva Convention is nice except that it does not say anything like that. This is what it actually says:
This is what the Geneva Convention has to say about using civilians as shields:

(Part III Article 28)

"The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations."

See the full details of the Geneva Conventions here:
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/y4gcpcp.htm

See PART III - Article 28.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
"Betzelem" [sic] is known as a radical left-wing body.

[/ QUOTE ]You mean ..they are communists?? Phew. Thanks for the warning.

I hope none of the young and inquiring minds has checked out yet B'Tselem's website in order to find out for themselves. Don't do it, kids! You'll only see shameful, red propaganda like this:

<font color="red"> "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." </font>

[ QUOTE ]
This is what the Geneva Convention has to say about using civilians as shields:

(Part III Article 28)

"The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations."

[/ QUOTE ]Who are the "protected persons" exactly ?

Let's look up the link which you graciously provided :

"Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals."

Seems to me that the relevant text of the Geneva Convention Protocols is referring to prisoners or war, be they civilians or military, which a "Party to the conflict" has taken in and has the obligation to "protect".

And that the Protocols are simply refusing the status of "safe haven" for areas on which there are such "protected persons".

Am I missing something, sir ?

[C0pernicus]

"Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals."

Seems to me that the relevant text of the Geneva Convention Protocols is referring to prisoners or war, be they civilians or military, which a "Party to the conflict" has taken in and has the obligation to "protect".


Since the reference is to the Fourth Geneva convention, which is titled "Protection of Civilians", and the Third Geneva Convention deals with POWs, your interpretation that "protected persons" is a reference to POWs is nonsense. Search on "human shields fourth geneva convention" and you will find dozens of links that clearly show that they are interpreted to be protected persons.

One of your more feeble attempts at obfuscation.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Since the reference is to the Fourth Geneva convention, which is titled "Protection of Civilians", and the Third Geneva Convention deals with POWs, your interpretation that "protected persons" is a reference to POWs is nonsense.

[/ QUOTE ]Poster TheBlitz used that particular portion of the Prorocols in order to show that they excuse the Israeli actions causing death among civilians ("protected persons"). But the relevant portion of the text explicitly defines those "protected persons" as I quoted :
[ QUOTE ]
Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
link given by theblitz

[/ QUOTE ] Does this describe in any way the civilians on the other side of a military operation to you?? Does it cover, for example, the civilians of Dresden, when under Allied bombing in WWII?

What exactly don't you understand when we say "in the hands of" ?

[ QUOTE ]
One of your more feeble attempts at obfuscation.

[/ QUOTE ]I'll just leave this last quote of yours up, as a cheap mirror. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
But who in his right mind would blame 'Awad if he blows himself up tomorrow in a busy Haifa bus stop?

[/ QUOTE ]

you're joking, right?

[Fly]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But who in his right mind would blame 'Awad if he blows himself up tomorrow in a busy Haifa bus stop?

[/ QUOTE ]

you're joking, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

He really isn't.

[lozen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But who in his right mind would blame 'Awad if he blows himself up tomorrow in a busy Haifa bus stop?

[/ QUOTE ]

you're joking, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

He really isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]


Lets see how you feel if 9 members of your family are killed. Live in someone else's shoes before you judge them.

Correct me If I am wrong but did not a certain country loose 3000 people when terrorists flew planes into two of their towers and went and attacked a country that had nothing to do with it and has killed 10's of thousands innocent people?

[Yuv]

The notion that it is possible to avoid civilian casuaulties while fighting a guerilla warefare against a group that fires missiles from within villages in Southern Lebanon (and not from Military bases, obviously) is sadly a mistaken one.

Even if you hate Israel more than anything, you have to realize that these accidents, killing a family of 9, are something Israel are trying to avoid as much as possible. It doesn't even have to be because Israel care about arabs life, you can still keep that notion if you like, but any one with a slight political thinking will understand how much these events hurts Israel's chances to continue this operation.

I can assure you that the general feeling in Israel about these kind of events is pretty much "Oh, crap". Some of us deeply care for civilian casualties on both sides, some of us just understand how much those events are hurting our goals.

Go back to Operation Grapes of Wrath in Lebanon, 1996. The attack on Qana, which again, doesn't matter how much you hate Israel, you have to understand wasn't intend to do that kind of civilian damage, basically killed the operation. It had to be stopped due to pressure resulted from that hit.

It ISN'T in Israel best intrest to strike a van with 9 family members. Even if Israel are a hunger craving monster who wants nothing but more land and destroy all arab nations who has done nothing but offer Falafel to 'em, you still have to understand that these attacks are hurting Israel where it matters the moment, the international (and yes, mainly American) support.