The Language and War Crimes

[newcomer]

I'm reading this article from Canadian The Globe and Mail http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...rnational/home and it starts with the following:

Originally Posted by G&M Article

Israel's defence minister promised to investigate soldiers' claims that some troops opened fire too hastily on Palestinian civilians during the recent Gaza war and killed them, believing that they would not be held to account under relaxed rules of engagement.

Further on in the article clear-cut war crimes are described.

So the question up for debate is how is it possible that a country, a nation, an army that commits such an outrageous war crimes out in the open end up with such a blunt explanation and everybody goes – yeah, it makes perfect sense.

Why doesn’t this provoke more outrage and punitive action?

What am I missing by interpreting this article as de facto war crimes written prosecution while overwhelming majority of others – it seems – sees it as an elegant and thoughtful elaboration of the events and are not moved by it at all?

[t-bonham@scc.net]

Originally Posted by newcomer

Further on in the article clear-cut war crimes are described.

So the question up for debate is how is it possible that a country, a nation, an army that commits such an outrageous war crimes

First, could you specify the war crimes you are referring to -- they didn't seem so "clear-cut" to me in that article.

Secondly, you seem to have jumped rather quickly from crimes "are described" to "army that commits...crimes", without much evidence.

Seems to me that somewhere in between those 2 sentences there should be a bit of investigation of this. But wait, isn't that what the first sentence of the story says, that a criminal investigation has been started? You appear to have jumped to the conclusion that some soldiers are guilty of committing crimes without waiting for any investigation.

[newcomer]

Did you notice anywhere in the article that soldiers who took part in the most recent offensive talked about their crimes and views on Palestinians openly?

The only "investigation" that will be performed is the one that will either rephrase their statements or develop the context within which the acts committed are no longer war crimes.

Did you perhaps search other media outlets to see what language they used to describe the same event? Didn’t think so.

With a public this eager to find out the truth looks like language experts are not needed.

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by newcomer

The only "investigation" that will be performed is the one that will either rephrase their statements or develop the context within which the acts committed are no longer war crimes.

So the fact that they're conducting an investigation is proof that they're not really conducting an investigation.
And you base this objectively valid claim on the fact that they're Israelis. Naturally.

Here's a suggestion. Why don't you find out how the investigations are being conducted and what their conclusions are and, gee I dunno, only then talk about how they're being conducted or what their conclusions are?

And while you're at it, are you going to define what actions you are claiming are war crimes and what statutes they violate? Or is this going to be another round of "My post is my cite! It's a war crime if I think it it!"

[newcomer]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

So the fact that they're conducting an investigation is proof that they're not really conducting an investigation.
And you base this objectively valid claim on the fact that they're Israelis. Naturally.

Here's a suggestion. Why don't you find out how the investigations are being conducted and what their conclusions are and, gee I dunno, only then talk about how they're being conducted or what their conclusions are?

And while you're at it, are you going to define what actions you are claiming are war crimes and what statutes they violate? Or is this going to be another round of "My post is my cite! It's a war crime if I think it it!"

You see, I think that the only reason there is announcement of the investigation is because soldiers actually talked about it. Many external organizations and Palestinians themselves were talking about the crimes and one would think that would be sufficient for inquiry but it wasn't.

As for definition of the war crime - that's the trap I wont fall for because any discussion on that subject becomes a never-ending saga of points and counterpoints until any sense and reason is removed from it.

However, I would suggest reading the cites including this one - http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2009/...lestinians.php - and then come back and tell us is there anything there that might remotely be categorized as war crime. And here's another prediction - you will not find it.

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by newcomer

You see, I think that the only reason there is announcement of the investigation is because soldiers actually talked about it. Many external organizations and Palestinians themselves were talking about the crimes and one would think that would be sufficient for inquiry but it wasn't.

No, one should not expect a sovereign government to conduct an investigation just because their enemies claimed something, or because organizations which have been shown to have a track record of deliberate dishonesty said something. Should Israel have hopped to it and spent millions on an investigation when Palestinians claimed that Israel was specially breeding super-rats to attack them? They should have leapt at the chance and done a complete sweep of all of their biomedical firms, top to bottom?
Further, cite that these specific claims about these specific events, rather than idiotic and false-to-facts claims that the entire operation itself was a war crime, were ever made.

Of course, by your standard, since pretty much every single Israeli defensive action is called an act of aggression by the predictable Anti-Israel Brigade, Israel should conduct in depth, intensive interviews each and every single time its troops do anything. Go figure.

Originally Posted by newcomer

As for definition of the war crime - that's the trap I wont fall for because any discussion on that subject becomes a never-ending saga of points and counterpoints until any sense and reason is removed from it.

So you cannot and will not even attempt to define your own terms. Your post is your cite. An event is a war crime because you've decided it is. It doesn't matter what international law actually says, newcomer is now in charge.

Why am I not surprised?

[t-bonham@scc.net]

Originally Posted by newcomer

You see, I think that the only reason there is announcement of the investigation is because soldiers actually talked about it. Many external organizations and Palestinians themselves were talking about the crimes and one would think that would be sufficient for inquiry but it wasn't.

Well, just talking isn't enough -- you have to go to the authorities and file a report of a crime.

But that does seem to be what happened here. The teacher at this military prep course went to the authorities, and reported a possible crime. So they have started an investigation. That seems like a pretty normal course of action to me. It's what happened when my house was robbed a few years ago.

What do you suggest should have been done instead of this?

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

No, one should not expect a sovereign government to conduct an investigation just because their enemies claimed something, or because organizations which have been shown to have a track record of deliberate dishonesty said something. Should Israel have hopped to it and spent millions on an investigation when Palestinians claimed that Israel was specially breeding super-rats to attack them? They should have leapt at the chance and done a complete sweep of all of their biomedical firms, top to bottom?
Further, cite that these specific claims about these specific events, rather than idiotic and false-to-facts claims that the entire operation itself was a war crime, were ever made.

Of course, by your standard, since pretty much every single Israeli defensive action is called an act of aggression by the predictable Anti-Israel Brigade, Israel should conduct in depth, intensive interviews each and every single time its troops do anything. Go figure.

Let's get real here. It sounds like you're saying that the only party that has raised concerns about Israel's rules of engagement in Gaza was Palestinians, or more specifically, Hamas. That is simply not true. Unless you call the International Committee of the Red Cross an organization that has "a track record of deliberate dishonesty," one cannot help but note that the ICRC criticized (although in their own exceedingly mild mannered way) the IDF for hampering relief efforts for civilians. Such a statement by the ICRC certainly warrants an investigation, especially when the ICRC itself had objected to being blocked from reaching a particular home where several children were left for days without aid after their building was attacked with artillery.

Furthermore, if one were to take the ICRC's complaints seriously, one would have to be exceedingly narrowminded to examine only the issue of whether ambulances are getting to civilians, and not spend a moment of time to investigate whether the rules of engagement are having consequences that were not intended by the command authority.

It is analogous in some ways to the way that the Bush administration signaled that it would allow harsher interrogations, and some soldiers did not understand the orders correctly and went off and started doing terrible things at Abu Ghraib, under the impression that they were doing what their commanders wanted, when, in reality, they were not. (I realize some may argue that Bush ordered the abuse at Abu Ghraib, I don't intend to re-litigate that debate, I'm only using it as an analogy.)

If a country wants to have a reputation for respecting the most basic human rights and the laws of war, it damn well better be prepared to investigate complaints of wanton destruction and unjustified killings of civilians. Why? For several basic reasons: one, because it is the moral thing to do; two, to insure that soldiers are behaving like soldiers with proper discipline, not murderous thugs; and three, to win the information war against those who would make up terrible lies about you. To ignore serious charges simply because of the source of the charges is irresponsible and stupid.

And let's get real: an investigation into the specific incidents mentioned in the linked article isn't going to take millions of dollars, no more than it takes millions of dollars for the US military to investigate what went wrong when a US jet bombs a house in Afghanistan that results in a number of civilian casualties. First, it isn't that expensive, and second, even if it is, it's worth spending the money. It's not like countries go to war and suddenly become penny-pinchers.

So you cannot and will not even attempt to define your own terms. Your post is your cite. An event is a war crime because you've decided it is. It doesn't matter what international law actually says, newcomer is now in charge.

I agree that newcomer has made an extraordinarily lazy attempt to support his OP, which I could just barely understand in the first place. When the thread was opened, I nearly chimed in with a comment to the effect of, "Sadly, just because civilians are killed does not mean that a war crime has been committed; there must be some element of intent or gross disregard for the safety of innocents, neither of which I found self-evident in the cites, even though a further investigation absolutely appears warranted." But I didn't think this debate was actually going to go anywhere.

To the heart of the question: were war crimes committed in the invasion of Gaza? I don't know. The investigation must proceed and allow the facts to fall where they may. It is certainly a very concerning situation when it is clear that the civilian population suffered heavily during the war. I think Israel would be well advised to seek the intervention of a United Nations Special Rapporteur to lend greater legitimacy to the investigations.

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

Let's get real here.

I am. You'll find that you've distorted my argument far beyond what I said.

Originally Posted by Ravenman

It sounds like you're saying that the only party that has raised concerns about Israel's rules of engagement in Gaza was Palestinians, or more specifically, Hamas.

No. I stated that Israel should not be expected to launch an investigation due to every claim they receive, like the PA (not Hamas) sponsored claims that Israel is using super, poison resistant rats that know to only target Arabs.
Now, remember, the claim under discussion is the deliberate targeting of civilians. You've just linked to a source which does not make that claim. You want to discuss the other claim? Fair enough. Just don't assume that my response to the first claim applies to a totally seperate other claim.

Originally Posted by Ravenman

Furthermore, if one were to take the ICRC's complaints seriously, one would have to be exceedingly narrowminded to examine only the issue of whether ambulances are getting to civilians, and not spend a moment of time to investigate whether the rules of engagement are having consequences that were not intended by the command authority.

You're conflating two wildly separate issues.
1. Do the ROE need to be reevaluated so as to safeguard IDF troops in combat and balance that against the needs of the civilian populace more efficiently?
2. Should every claim that the IDF is deliberately targeting civilians lead to a full inquiry?

I responded to claim number two. You've brought up claim number one... which I couldn't have responded to largely because you're the first person to bring it up in this thread.

Originally Posted by Ravenman

If a country wants to have a reputation for respecting the most basic human rights and the laws of war, it damn well better be prepared to investigate complaints of wanton destruction and unjustified killings of civilians.

Again, who should it listen to? Falk, who without even being there says that Israel isn't entitled to self defense and that it's heading towards exterminating the Palestinians? Because that was the claim, that anybody who made such allegations should be cause for a full investigation. You need to clarify what exactly you're claiming should be investigated, because numerous people and organizations have claimed that any and all acts of Israeli self defense are, in fact, acts of aggression. Surely you'll admit that it's unreasonable to expect Israel to, then, launch a full investigation of every single bullet that's fired, right?

Originally Posted by Ravenman

To ignore serious charges simply because of the source of the charges is irresponsible and stupid.

Actually, it's irresponsible and stupid to investigate every charge regardless of the source. That's why "credibility" exists as a valid concept. So when someone like Falk claims that Israel is heading towards exterminating the Palestinians, it's irresponsible and stupid to then perform a time consuming and costly investigation to determine if there really is a secret plan to enact vernichtung.

Originally Posted by Ravenman

And let's get real: an investigation into the specific incidents mentioned in the linked article isn't going to take millions of dollars, no more than it takes millions of dollars for the US military to investigate what went wrong when a US jet bombs a house in Afghanistan that results in a number of civilian casualties.

Credible sources have raised valid concerns about specific events, and they're being investigated. There's no problem with that, at all. But, that also wasn't the OP's contention, but that all of the claims that have been made should have sparked investigations. And since many claims were made that the entire war itself constituted war crimes, every single time a soldier fired his or her weapon, it would have required a full investigation.

Originally Posted by Ravenman

To the heart of the question: were war crimes committed in the invasion of Gaza? I don't know. The investigation must proceed and allow the facts to fall where they may.

Sure, along the lines of credible claims.

Originally Posted by Ravenman

It is certainly a very concerning situation when it is clear that the civilian population suffered heavily during the war.

Actually, the combat saw an amazingly small ratio of civilian casualties to military targets, by the Palestinians' own numbers. Of course there will always be problems fighting in dense urban environment, but all the data we have shows a war that was prosecuted by remarkably humane methods. If it hadn't been, we'd have seen much more than 1:2 military to civilian casualties. Which doesn't mean that credible allegations shouldn't be investigated and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. They should. But that's why the sources' credibility is at issue.

Originally Posted by Ravenman

I think Israel would be well advised to seek the intervention of a United Nations Special Rapporteur to lend greater legitimacy to the investigations.

I can't disagree more strongly. Using the UN is a recipe for failure. Remember the investigation they tried to launch into Jenin, where they didn't even want to have military experts sufficient to investigating whether or not military necessity had properly been balanced with civilian welfare?

If you want an international team to investigate the situation, that's fine. Make sure that they have experts in counter-terrorism and urban combat among them, ideally from Arab, eastern and western nations. But the UN? The same organization which declared that the desire for the state of Israel to exist, at all, was "racism"?
No.

P.S. I'd agree, 100% with the statement "Sadly, just because civilians are killed does not mean that a war crime has been committed; there must be some element of intent or gross disregard for the safety of innocents, neither of which I found self-evident in the cites, even though a further investigation absolutely appears warranted." They should absolutely investigate these situations, and see whether or not the ROE ended up contributing to civilian deaths which could have been avoided without unduly endangering soldiers. And they should absolutely throw the book at anybody who willfully and maliciously killed a civilian because they thought they could get away with it. Same for wanton destruction of property rather than necessarily clearing out a house so as to provide freedom of movement within it, or what have you.

[FinnAgain]

I'll add, Raven, that if you'd like to have a reasoned discussion about the laws of war and how credible reports should be investigated, I'll happily oblige.

But up until now, I was responding to newcomer, a person who's on record as saying that even though occupation is specifically authorized by the 4th GC, it is an "utmost crime". That Israel's defensive operation in Gaza was, in fact, not defensive and calling it defensive was "the oldest trick in the book" and that further, the truce was broken by Israel because they didn't allow Hamas to launch another kidnapping operation... never mind that Hamas deliberately chose not to renew the truce and started launching rockets at Israeli civilians.

So when he says that "many external organizations and Palestinians themselves were talking about the crimes", it's most likely that he means the entire invasion of Gaza, in toto, including each and every single shot fired. Which was my point.

If you'd like to argue a different position, I'd be happy to play ball.

[Ravenman]

I probably shouldn't have started in on this when it is so late here and I'm going to be on the road for the next few days!

Suffice it to say, whatever newcomer's views on the whole invasion constituting a war crime, I don't see that being addressed in the OP at all. He linked to two reputable news sources covering specific incidents and said he thought everything in there was a war crime. If you have a bone to pick with those who call the whole event a war crime, then you appear to be arguing a point that nobody but you has raised so far, and that view wasn't raised in either of the linked articles.

But I must raise one other point:

Using the UN is a recipe for failure. Remember the investigation they tried to launch into Jenin, where they didn't even want to have military experts sufficient to investigating whether or not military necessity had properly been balanced with civilian welfare?

Even the Bush Administration criticized Israel for attempting to dictate the terms of how the investigation was to proceed. It seems to me the only people who thought the UN investigation was unfair were those who were in a position of possible culpability for wrongdoing. Is that what you call credibility?

In any case, perhaps we shall continue a serious discussion when I return next week.

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

If you have a bone to pick with those who call the whole event a war crime, then you appear to be arguing a point that nobody but you has raised so far

Someone has a history of stating that the entire situation is a war crime in its entirety. He started a thread about war crimes, stating that numerous people and organizations have been commenting on the crimes. Note, numerous people and organizations have not been commenting on the allegations that are being investigated, since they were just brought to light several days ago.
So, then, what did he mean when he was talking about "the crimes" that many organizations and people have been talking about?

I hold to my previous statement: when he says that "many external organizations and Palestinians themselves were talking about the crimes", it's most likely that he means the entire invasion of Gaza, in toto, including each and every single shot fired.

And please note his OP was not only about those events under investigation, but "a country, a nation, an army that commits such an outrageous war crimes out in the open" and "punitive action" that should be taken against same. I contend that my reading of the OP was correct.

Originally Posted by Ravenman

But I must raise one other point: Even the Bush Administration criticized Israel for attempting to dictate the terms of how the investigation was to proceed.

You've shifted the goalposts. The issue I raised was not that Israel should be able to dictate the terms of the investigation, but that not having sufficient military experts to determine to what extent military necessity justified certain tactics, invalidated any possible results of the investigation.

Originally Posted by Ravenman

It seems to me the only people who thought the UN investigation was unfair were those who were in a position of possible culpability for wrongdoing.

The 4th GC makes clear that military necessity is the metric that should be balanced against potential civilian harm. Are you claiming that only those who might be found culpable would say "Hey... you can't honestly investigate this situation if you refuse to look at the entire military necessity side of the equation."

I think that's a fairly objective and accurate statement. You disagree?

Originally Posted by Ravenman

In any case, perhaps we shall continue a serious discussion when I return next week.

Sure. Bump the thread when you get back.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

Sure. Bump the thread when you get back.

Actually, given the way the OP poisoned the well, I would prefer to see any reasonable discussion of the topic opened in a separate thread--particularly if this one will have died a merciful death by then.

[FinnAgain]

Fair enough. No bumpage.

And simply for the record, of course any and all credible reports of war crimes should be investigated to the utmost extent of a nation's ability to probe them out. Perpetrators should have the book thrown at them and, if necessary, governments should change their SOP in order to prevent such events in the future. And that goes for Israel, the US, Micronesia and the lost kingdom of Atlantis while I'm at it.

As for the specifics of investigating these allegations, and perhaps the role of the UN as an honest broker, I'll happily wait for Raven to start a new thread or something of the sort.