Beste Israëlsupporters,

Het gaat hier om argumenteren en op vele sites is het kinderlijke “Ja, maar jij …”, “Ja, maar hij … “Ja, maar hullie – repressieve inderdaad schering en inslag (‘rife’ in het Engels). Bij Mondoweiss las ik het volgende over deze argumentatiefout: a fallacy called ‘whataboutery.’: whataboutery is ideologically neutral description of anyone seeking to change the subject of a criticism by pointing out far better targets of the criticism. (Obvious) example: Why are you criticizing our kind of warfare when you could be criticizing the warfare of Syria. Als er oorlogsmisdaden zijn begaan, dan helpt dit ‘hullie’ – argument uiteraard niet. Over ‘menselijke schilden’ bestaan misverstanden. Bij nader onderzoek destijds inzake operatie Cast Lead bleek niet dat Hamas doelbewust mensen dwong om zich als schild in te zetten, wat het tot een ernstige misdaad zou maken. Wel zijn er bewijzen dat Israëlische strijdkrachten juist wel die ernstige misdaden bedreven. Er is veel bewijs dat e.e.a. nu precies verloopt/verliep zoals gedurende operatie Cast Lead. Daarom een precieze uitleg door een aantal juristen:

ISRAEL’S INVASION OF GAZA IN INTERNATIONAL LAW
http://djilp.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Bisharat-Final.pdf

p102, 103:

The Israeli government has alleged that Hamas fighters have committed warcrimes by using Palestinian civilians as “human shields.” This accusation has been used both as an indictment of Hamas’s conduct during the ongoing hostilities, as well as a defense for the high numbers of Palestinian civilian casualties and civilian structural damage caused by the Israeli military assault. However, the use of Palestinian civilians and civilian objects as human shields by Hamas fighters in the current conflict has been largely unsubstantiated and in some cases openly refuted and disproven.

In order to establish that Hamas fighters are in fact using civilian areas and persons as shields, it must be shown that Hamas militants’ intent is to use those areas or protected persons in order to immunize themselves from attack. As a Human Rights Watch report explains, “[i]ndividuals responsible for shielding can be prosecuted for war crimes; failing to fully minimize harm to civilians is not considered a violation prosecutable as a war crime. To constitute shielding, there needs to be a specific intent to use civilians to deter an attack.”

[…..]

Furthermore, there are tens of thousands of Gazan residents who have been displaced from their homes because of Israeli bombings and attacks, indicating that many civilian areas have been emptied of their residents perhaps before Hamas fighters arrived. In assessing Hamas’s culpability, due attention must also be paid to the possibility that Hamas fighters had been forced to retreat into densely populated areas in the face of an onslaught from an overwhelmingly superior military force, merely in order to survive.

[ … (bla bla van de zijde van Tzipi Livni) …]

Further investigation of Hamas’s battlefield practices is no doubt due. But the evidence that Hamas fighters exploited Palestinian civilians as human shields is, at this point, scant. Rather, the accusation seems more likely a part of Israel’s calculated “spin” operation that attempts to shift responsibility for civilian deaths from Israel to Hamas.

In datzelfde rapport wordt het IDF WEL beschuldigd van het gebruik van menselijke schilden:

p.79:

There is evidence to suggest that Israeli troops in some instances used Palestinian civilians as human shields. This practice has something in common with the offenses described in the prior section, in the sense that each unjustifiably exposes civilians to injury and death.

p.80 81:

There is increasing reason to suspect that Israeli forces used Palestinian civilians as human shields in their ground offensive in Gaza …

…. IF SO, THIS WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH LONG IRAELI PRACTICE IN THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES; ….

The IDF has repeatedly been brought before the Israeli High Court and its well-documentedb uses of human shields have been consistently criticized by that court. Human Rights Watch workers are reporting that consistent with previous practice by the Israeli army, they have documented cases in which Israeli troops have entered civilian homes and forced the inhabitants to remain on the ground floor while the rest of the house was used by Israeli military personnel as a base and a snipers’
position. In a report from the ravaged southern Gazan village of Khuza’a, Israeli snipers allegedly shot at civilians from inside a house, while holding the Palestinian inhabitants hostage during the assault.

[…]

These incidents closely track humanitarian law’s definition of human shields, in which there is a clear and knowing use of civilian persons and areas with the intent of immunizing the Israeli forces from attack or harm.

(N.b. de getuigenissen van Isr. soldaten in ‘Cast Lead’ van org. Breaking the Silence leveren in deze meer bewijzen op – A.F.)

Dan nog iets over de ‘waarschuwingen’ die het IDF geeft voordat het gaat bombarderen (knocking on the roof):

p.78 79:

Israeli military lawyers advised commanders and troops that any Palestinian civilians who failed to head these warnings were acting as “voluntary human shields,” (sic A.F.) and therefore, were partaking in hostilities and could be legally treated thereafter as “combatants.” Did these warnings in any way relax or alter Israel’s duty of distinction in Operation Cast Lead? The probable answer is: “no.” In principle, such warnings would tend to indicate an effort by a warring party to minimize civilian casualties, and thus, to respect the principle of distinction. The difficulty in actual application, however, is that civilians in the midst of battle often would not be aware of, or actually have, safe routes of escape to a place of sanctuary. As a practical matter, then, if there is no refuge, the warnings would only amplify the suffering of civilians by adding to their fear and confusion. In the particular case of Gaza, it should be recalled that Israel fenced the entire region beginning in 1994, and that during the fighting, all exit points from the Strip were virtually sealed. Thus the vast majority of its 1.8 million residents was unable to flee outside the Strip, and with bombardments occurring throughout it, had no effective refuge within it. Indeed, the Samouni clan, whose terrible ordeal was described above, had obeyed orders by Israeli troops to assemble in a family compound–and then was attacked despite its compliance. Apart from the ineffectuality of the warnings, it strikes us as particularly egregious to argue that mere failure to adhere to an evacuation warning would, ipso facto, render a civilian a combatant–a notion that rests on a severely twisted understanding of “voluntariness.”

Lees ook de conclusie aan het eind van het rapport

(n.b, gebruik de zoekterm ‘human shields’)

Al die drogredenen zijn kennelijk nodig, omdat men in tegenstelling tot zo’n zeventig jaar geleden, nu wèl de beschikking heeft over media die gruweldaden soms tot in detail toont of beschrijft. Zelfs bewijzen van flagrante volksmoord moeten worden verpakt als noodzakelijk kwaad, gerechtvaardigd omdat de ander er om zou vragen. Het niveau van beschaving wordt teruggebracht tot de ontmenselijking van de ander, terwijl men zelf niet inziet daar zelf ook mee ontmenselijkt te raken. Als er al een weg terug is naar een beschaving waarvoor de rest van de wereld wel empathie kan opbrengen, zal deze gepaard moeten gaan met eerlijkheid over de eigen gedragingen. De daarvoor noodzakelijke zelfreflectie lijkt heel ver weg, getuige de trieste poging om het ultieme kwaad als iets onontkoombaars te presenteren.

Voor de zoveelste keer, IEDEREEN MET EEN BREIN IS PRO-ISRAËL!
WTF mankeer je!? SICK FUCK palliegekkie!
Stereotiepe oost-europese/roemeense jodenhatende religieus gehersenspoelde relitard!
DONDER OP NAAR JE EIGEN LAND DAN!
Waarom ben je in niet-bestaande-godsnaam hier naar toegekomen dan!?
Als je op joden wil haten vanwege je eigen SICK FUCK kutreligie!? Smerige kut nazi! DIAF!