The Goldstone Report submitted to the UN Human Rights Council determines that Israel committed war crimes in Gaza during operation Cast Lead in late 2008/early 2009. Based on what you have read so far, and your understanding of what war crimes are, do you agree with that statement? Is there more than one way to view Israel's operation in the Gaza Strip?
Without saying that Israel is completely at fault, I think that accusing Israel of war crimes is too extreme. The Goldstone Report stated that Israel’s blockage of the Gaza Strip was negatively impacting the lives of innocent civilians in the territory and not just the Hamas aggressors. Naturally, the blockage is going to affect the community as a whole but this blockage had been active for about one year prior to Operation Cast Lead, and before that Israel held economic sanctions against Gaza after the 2006 elections. The issue of withholding supplies from the territory was specifically initiated to make Gaza suffer during the operation. Granted, restrictions on the flow inside and outside of the country heightened but it is difficult to blame Israel for putting its national security first. On the charges of civilian causalities, I do not believe it was the Israel’s intention to specifically target civilians or public buildings. If anything, Hamas should be held accountable for the victimization of the civilians in Gaza. The group consciously decided to use noncombatants as a human shield when it placed its resources and command posts under public structures. Also, as stated in Hamas vs. Fatah by Schanzar, while Hamas fought to take control of Gaza during the Six Day Palestinian Civil War, it racked up several Palestinians causalities- 7 children and 11 women were a few in the 116 found dead, along with at least 700 wounded. It has also been noted that Hamas governed through violence, authoritarianism and Islamism leading to the abuse of human rights and victimization of the Gaza population. Lastly, condemning Israel for using disproportional force is slightly irrelevant. Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005 yet rockets were still launched into Israel from Gaza. Why was Israel continuing to be hit by rockets? In my opinion, one can only poke a dog so many times before the dog bites back. Now I am not condoning the destruction or innocent lives lost, but Israel had put up with attacks for about three years before taking action. Hamas knew the military capacity of Israel and it still decided to provoke the country.
ReplyDeleteI think that there is multiple ways to view Israel’s operation in Gaza, it just depends on which side of the fence one sits. In the beginning, Israel did not receive criticism for taking action against Hamas, but as the operation continued foreign opinions changed. However, it is the Palestinian and Israeli citizens that have suffered the most because of the decisions of a few.
I have to disagree with with what Amy says; criticizing Israel's use of disproportional force is highly relevant. It is true that Hamas continued launching rockets into Israel after the Gaza pullout in 2005. However, the withdrawal was a unilateral decision, i.e. there was no agreement made between Israel and the Palestinians to that effect. Technically Hamas didn't violate any agreement because there was in fact no agreement.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, the rocket attacks into Israel caused little damage whereas the Operation Cast Lead caused a lot of damage. The 2,700 Qassam rockets into Israel between 2005-2007 killed a grand total of 4 Israelis killed and injuring 75 others. I don't want to exonerate the actions of Hamas; the Six Day Palestinian war between Fatah and Hamas clearly demonstrates that that the leaders of Hamas are tyrannical and do not bode well for any future settlement.
However, the disparity between the casualties of Qassam Rockets and the military might of the IDF clearly demonstrates where the true power lies and that in reality Hamas is not much of a threat to Israel. I'm sure that if they did have the weapons and resources to destroy Israel as stated in their charter they would do it. However, I don't think they are anywhere near capable of doing that. The Gaza Strip is overcrowded, poor, and for the most part sealed off; Israel has a GDP around 200 billion dollars and significant amount of military aid from the United States.
Once again I do not pardon Hamas, but that does not mean Israel, or any other nation that possesses and uses such a substantial amount of firepower, should simply be let off the hook.
It is true that Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza. It is also true that there was not an agreement between Israel and Hamas because in order for that to have occurred: 1) Hamas would have to recognize Israel and negotiate with the country, both of which Hamas refuses to do and; 2) Hamas would have had to been the ruling faction in Gaza at that time. However, it wasn't until 2006 that Hamas won the majority and 2007 that it gained control in Gaza. As for the Qassam rockets, it is also true that the weapons did significantly less damage than the material used by the IDF. Despite the ineffective weapons, Hamas' intention was to cause as much destruction to Israel and its population as possible. This mentality is reprehensible and, needless to say, concerning to the State of Israel. Unlike Hamas, Israel only wanted to remove the opposition not the whole Palestinian population.
ReplyDeleteLike I mentioned earlier in my previous post, I am not condoning the violent actions taken by Israel. In an ideal world, diplomatic means would have been the best way to sort out the issues. But what was Israel supposed to do? How does the State “fight” back diplomatically with Hamas, who condemns Fatah for negotiations with Israel, and ultimately seeks the annihilation of the country?
I believe that Israel tried to prevent as many civilian causalities as possible; the Goldstone Report even mentioned that Israel warned the general public in Gaza before it carried out a strike. Hamas endangered Palestinians by dressing up in civilian clothes and confusing the distinctions between civilians and combatants. The accusation of disproportional use of force is a slippery slope because the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is asymmetrical and it is not going to change anytime soon. Therefore, it is easier to portray Israel, who is militarily stronger, as the aggressor and forget that the country is simply just trying to defend itself.
Again, I am not in favor in the violence used by either party. But in a realist view, (the paradigm most associated with war,) is not the point of war to try to defeat one’s opponent?
I do not think that Israel committed war crimes in Gaza during operation Cast Lead in 2008 and 2009. I also think that the Goldstone Report exaggerated the extent to which the effects of Cast Lead on the population of Gaza were more harmful than the effects in all other armed conflicts; for example, paragraph sixty nine talks about how Israel’s confrontation will increase the number of people “suffering from mental health problems” due to witnessing “the killing of loved ones.” Paragraph seventy ones says that the military operations affected women by increasing “the feeling of inability to provide children with the care and security they need.” While the situation for Palestinian women is less than ideal, it is still better than the situation facing the female populace in other contemporary conflicts such as in Congo. The Report also tries to place guilt onto Israel in matters where guilt is not normally placed directly onto an opposing force’ in paragraph sixty eight, Israel is blamed for the drastic measures went to by hospitals in Gaza. The Report talks about the maritime blockade of Gaza set up by Israel; in my opinion, the manner in which Israel has set up this blockade is not a war crime. Israel still allows the transportation of “foodstuff, medical and hospital items and other goods to meet the humanitarian needs of the population of the Gaza Strip without qualification” (paragraph twenty eight). The purpose and logic behind the blockade are clear; Israel does not want to allow arms and munitions to reach Hamas. Why else would Israel set up a blockade? Does it want to increase the resentment of the Palestinian population? The blockade may lessen the quality of life for the people in the Gaza Strip, but this is a sacrifice Israel is willing to make in exchange for the increased security of the Israeli population.
ReplyDeleteSome people may think that there is more than one way of viewing Israel’s operation in the Gaza Strip. Some may think that Israel was there to eradicate targets that were part of the assaults on Israel. Others may think that Israel was trying to intimidate the local population. In my opinion, there is no difference in between these reasons. How can there be, when the militants are indistinguishable from the innocent populace?
I absolutely believe that Israel committed war crimes during the operation Cast Lead. First, Israel launched attacks that DIRECTLY targeted the civilians of Gaza. The problem is that Israel never discontinued the attacks when they saw the damage they were doing. The goal was clearly to do as much damage as possibly without distinction between combatants or noncombatants. After reading the report, and despite Israel's "warning" to Gaza that there would be attacks, no strong effort was made to A) give civilians time to prepare themselves, or B) find an alternative to solve the crisis diplomatically. Tiegan mentions the purpose of blockades; in reality, though, blockades and sanctions are designed so as to prevent goods from entering a country, thus weakening the infrastructure via the citizens of a country. However, it isn't the government that's directly harmed: it's the people. Somehow civilians always end up being the targets even though they aren't the ones involved. Setting up a blockade becomes a war crime at the point where absurd amounts of people, locally and abroad, are affected. Tiegan again says "the blockade may lessen the quality of life for the people in the Gaza Strip, but this is a sacrifice Israel is willing to make in exchange for the increased security of the Israeli population." The biggest problem with this statement is that it obviously points out how the blockade was a bad idea: it lessened the quality of life for the people in the Gaza Strip. Good for Israel for securing their own people, as they seem to constantly do, but that doesn't warrant them harming another population to save their own. This utilitarian mindset is a large part of the reason that Israel has so many enemies.
ReplyDeleteIf there’s one thing that America has particularly influenced Israel in, it’s the notion that they ought walk with a big stick. One can’t help but note the irony in the fact that the “promised land” is also a state that seems to enjoy taking military action more than most. In this case, Israel did little more than whisper to a rowdy crowd that they planned to take action in response to the rockets being launched from Gaza. I agree with what Shelby said in that there was no official (or even unofficial) agreement between Israel and Hamas, so Israel seemed to be operating under unrealistic expectations of cooperation. Yes, Israel “overreacted” to the rockets, but I believe that Hamas was hoping for this sort of drastic action. Hamas has never concerned itself with fairly representing the Palestinian people nor have they made an attempt to reach any sort of diplomatic agreement with Israel. If they had hoped to do significant damage to Israel, they would’ve saved their funds for explosives that actually cause harm. Instead, they prodded at Israel just enough to incite a very strong reaction. The drastic measures of Israel military forces allowed for the Palestinian people to gain public sentiment as “helpless victims.” I do not believe that Israel committed war crimes because they merely took steps to protect their people. The fact that their people were in little danger is irrelevant because ultimately they were provoked. Everyone seems to be more concerned with the blockade than with the number of casualties but because Israel voluntarily withdrew from Gaza, does that not give them the right to go back in if they so desire? The events of this were certainly tragic but it's unfair to place all of the blame in Israel's hands.
ReplyDeleteAmy – In your first post you stated that Hamas’ utilization of Islamism led to the “abuse of human rights…” Could you please explain how this religious leadership is responsible for such?
Tiegan - I do not believe that the situation of the Congo is particularly applicable here. Someone always has it worse, but why should we lead with that precedent? To do so undermines the very basis of suffering. Also, there are many incentives that Israel could have for setting up the blockade. Israel and Palestine both relish in the opportunity to play the victim, so to assume that Israel has pure intentions ignores a large part of the history between the two nations.
While Israel’s disproportional use of force in Operation Cast Lead was avoidable, I do not believe Israel’s actions amounted to war crimes. Parker and Amy both raise valid points. Despite withdrawing from Gaza, Hamas continued to target Israel with rockets, thus it is not unreasonable for Israel to respond to such attacks with a military operation. However, as Israeli’s withdrawal was completely unilateral no ceasefire or any type of agreement was reached—although Hamas’ refusal to negotiate with Israel would prevent any type agreement from taking place. Israel did not intend to target the civilian population, however, Israel’s overwhelming use of force resulted in hundreds of civilian deaths that could have been avoided had more restraint been exercised. Hamas is also responsible to great extent for the number of civilian casualties. By dressing in civilian clothing, using human shields, Hamas recklessly endangered the Gazan population. In this situation, Israel had to no desirable options. The blockade only stoked anger among the Palestinian community towards Israel, further strengthening support for Hamas. While many of the Palestinians in Gaza may not agree with Hamas’ ideology, Hamas provides essential social services. Thus, by attacking Hamas, Israel was attacking the right of Palestinians to have access to basic social services. Deprivation of basic social service to a group of people poses significant humanitarian concerns, however, Israel has the right to protect its citizens.
ReplyDeleteNo, Israel did not commit war crimes during Operation Cast Lead. I do not even believe the Goldstone report should be a credible source to answer this question. In a very recent article in the Washington Post Richard Goldstone is quoted saying, “If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document…the allegations of intentionality [of killing civilians] by Israel were based on no evidence.” Yet, everyone knows that Hamas intentionally fires rockets at civilians, without any care. Regardless of how many Israelis were killed in the rocket attacks by Hamas, no nation can let that kind of action go on without consequences. The Goldstone Report hardly recognized Israel’s right to defend itself. If someone wants to talk about war crimes, let us discuss Hamas hiding behind its own people. Hamas knows it cannot beat Israel in real war, and also recognizes that the media is a more useful weapon than the petty rockets they possess. It is like a little brother picking on his older brother. Hamas does little, stupid things to start the fight, then Israel goes in and makes them stop. Why do journalists not criticize Hamas more from the start? Israel has to go in to defend itself, and in the end everyone makes Israel look like the bad guy. Overall, yes terrible things happened in Operation Cast Lead, but Israel has a right to defend itself, as does any nation.
ReplyDeleteLauren- In response to your question about how Hamas’ utilization of Islamism led to the abuse of human rights, I was referencing Jonathan Schanzer’s work, Hamas vs. Fatah: the Struggle for Palestine, as I mentioned in my post. In his book he goes into greater detail and provides examples of human rights abuses carried out by Hamas, which is an Islamic resistance movement, during the Six Day Palestinian Civil War. One example is Hamas’ selective attacks against Christian institutions. After Hamas gained control of the Gaza Strip, it publically announced that there would be an “end of secularism and heresy,” and then proceeded to attack the Rosary Sisters School and the Latin Church with grenades. The group also kidnapped and coerced Professor Sana al-Sayegh to convert to Islam as well as assaulting an elderly Christian woman outside her home (109-111). The people of other religions were not the only ones whose rights were undermined, however. Schanzer goes on to express the grievances of women, men, demonstrators, media, even Muslims who felt the strong hand of Hamas. Whether or not the individual members of Hamas claim their operations to be religiously motivated, the Hamas entity’s basis is Islam, thus a representation of the religion it heralds. In Hamas’ 1988 Charter, it referred to Islam as its means to justifying its violent actions against other religions and peoples that “…stand in its way in order to disturb its moves or to frustrate its efforts” (Laqueur and Rubin, The Israel-Arab Reader 346). Hamas also stated that Palestine “…has been an Islamic Wakf throughout generations,” and that Palestinian nationalism is inseparable from Islam (Laqueur 341-42).
ReplyDeleteI am not asserting that the religious teachings of Islam condones the group’s crimes but the specificity of Hamas’ declaration as an Islamic movement consequently becomes a reflection of the religion regardless of the true portrayal of Islam.
I agree with a lot of points that the "Goldstone Report" mainly the point it brings up that Israel committed human rights violations. That being said, Israel's enemy: Hamas, also committed human rights violations and much worse ones in terms of committed them deliberately.
ReplyDeleteHamas' main goal is to annihilate Israel. Hamas states over and over again the points: no recognition of Israel, no negotiations and no two state solution. Hamas has constantly destroyed Israeli homes, businesses and schools with its rocket attacks. This is surely constitutes some human rights violations. Furthermore, Israel has not tried to target civilians but Hamas consistently targets Israeli civilians every time it launches an attack.
All this does not mean that Israel is free some crime. In fact as Lauren Kerner stated earlier, both Israel and Hamas are guilty. In fact during the Gaza War of 2008/2009 Palestinian and Israeli civilians were killed. Hamas killed Israeli civilians and the IDF killed Palestinians. Does that mean that both are equally guilty of human rights violations and war crimes? YES, ABSOLUTELY! The fact that both try to play the victim says it all: both try to blame the other as being the aggressor and "the bad guy."
Israel most likely did not commit as many war crimes as the report suggests but we will truly never know as long as the information is kept behind wraps. Hamas committed as many war crimes as Israel, if not more. But BOTH PARTIES COMMITTED WAR CRIMES AND HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS. NEITHER is innocent from blame.
The truth is: both are the bad guy. The IDF has killed, kidnapped or interrogated numerous Palestinians over the years and Hamas and Hezbollah have done the same with Israelis. Both are guilty, both have blood on their hands, both have committed war crimes and human rights violations. There is absolutely no point to keep blaming and pointing fingers. Both Israel and Hamas need to bare responsibility for their attacks and their actions. If they do not the peace process WILL NOT TRULY move forward and wars will continue to rage between Israel and its enemies: Hamas, Hezbollah and others in the region.
Alas, both Hamas and Israel see each other as misguided infidels and as an illegitimate entity committing terrorism. For as long as the two continue their present attitudes their will continue to be wars such as the one in Gaza in 2008/2009.
The Israeli military did commit war crimes during the operation. Innocent civilians not engaging in combat were killed by Israeli actions in large numbers. Some were unavoidable, however many were not.
ReplyDeleteTheir key failure is lack of discretion. In a situation where Hamas militants may have been hiding in a small building, instead of taking the risk to tactically move through the house and use precision to identify and engage hostile targets, the IDF would choose to use heavy weaponry of the structure itself, injuring any non-combatants inside and those nearby while eliminating the threat.
This is understandable. That course of action keeps your people alive and in the least amount of danger possible, however it is not ethically justifiable. The invading soldiers are aware of the danger and accept it for the purpose of defending their homeland. They therefore must bear the burden to protect civilians. The IDF is still obligated to follow all of the articles in the Geneva Convention without regard to the actions of their enemies.
In agreement with Laura's post, the Israeli excuse of warning the Palestinian and expecting a reaction from Hamas is unrealistic. Their lack of concern for their people doesn’t justify innocent casualties.
Many of the post here seem to compare the injustices committed by Hamas as an excuse to Israeli actions. Failures from one party do not excuse the failure of another, regardless of how vile. That is the responsibility of the righteous.
Anyone think that Israel actually committed WAR CRIMES? or did what they do necessary to getting their mission accomplished?
ReplyDeleteHamas uses any means necessary to accomplish there goals and they do not mind it whatsoever. Israel does not use any means necessary to accomplish its goals, but what about when try to capture Hamas operatives...would it be ok to use any means necessary then?
Hamas is a tough enemy for Israel because Hamas will fight until the very end and use any means to win, be it legal or illegal. So would can Israel defeat an enemy like Hamas or Hezbollah or other Islamic extremist groups that will stop at nothing? Would it be fair to fight an enemy that Hamas in the say way that Hamas fights? Where should Israel draw the line when Hamas does not seem to have any limits when it comes to fighting?
It is true that both Israel and Hamas have done lots of harm to each other but where should the lines be drawn? "All is fair in love and war" TRUE?
Shamim, what do you think about Judge Goldstone recently reporting that several of his findings were biased and he regrets putting them in the report? How can you find the Goldstone Report a valid source now? I do not believe it is. One thing I found while researching the first intifada is that the Palestinians executed about 1,100 of their own people. They claimed the Palestinians they killed were collaborating with Israel. If someone wants to discuss war crimes or human rights violations, that should definitely be something to look into. Both sides have committed war crimes at some point in history. I do not understand why Israel is in the constant spotlight for this. Someone discuss how Palestinians killed 1,100 of their own people, how Hamas fires rockets aiming at civilians, or how Hamas steals medical equipment from city hospitals for their own use, yet Israel gets blamed for other issues... It doesn't seem right.
ReplyDeleteAs I was reading the responses to the weekly question, I came across Tiegan's response. I disagreed with much of what he said, but I found the following statement inflammatory at best: "While the situation for Palestinian women is less than ideal, it is still better than the situation facing the female populace in other contemporary conflicts such as in Congo."
ReplyDeleteHow can this possibly used as a justification of the poor treatment/discrimination/maltreatment of women? That's like saying, "Hey, it sucks that you just got raped here in America, but at least you don't live in Africa, where you may have been subject to genital mutilation!" This does nothing to explain nor address the plight of Palestinian women, but rather condemns this demographic for mourning their situation, arguing that others have it worse. So buck up!
Tiegan later quotes the Goldstone Report saying that "Israel still allows the transportation of “foodstuff, medical and hospital items and other goods to meet the humanitarian needs of the population of the Gaza Strip without qualification,"' yet in Paragraph 46 in Section 7 discussing "Deliberate Attacks the Civilian Population," the Report states, "In the majority of these incidents, the consequences of the Israeli attacks against civilians were aggravated by their subsequent refusal to allow the evacuation of the wounded or to permit access to ambulances." So during the blockade in general, medical supplies were allowed, but not when they were imperatively needed.
There seems to be a dichotomy in the blog posts. I see a common thread with persons stating that, "No, Israel did not commit war crimes... BUT! HAMAS ON THE OTHER HAND!" Could it not be that both committed war crimes? I believe so.
ReplyDeleteWhile I understand the legitimacy of the Goldstone Report was recently called into question by Judge Goldstone himself, if we operate under the assumption that it is factual, there are numerous instances in the Report that reference IDF abuses of Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip. Section 7 names several including firing upon civilians waving white flags, mosques during prayers, and even a condolence tent. The IDF has a responsibility to pursue its attackers and avoid loss of civilian life to the best of its ability. Instead, there are documented cases of the exact opposite: IDF hostilities against civilians and surrendered parties.
I similarly condemn the deplorable tactics of Hamas. It is appalling, though effective, behavior for a military to dress as civilians and hide behind those it should seek to protect. This demonstrates that perhaps Hamas has only Hamas' interests in mind, which should come as no surprise to those studying in this course.
Both parties have taken part in war crimes. Both are, and should be held, responsible for their part in the perpetuation of war and oppression in this area of the world.