| Submit your comments on this article |
| Israel-Palestine-Jordan |
| Israel's use of lethal force 'could amount to war crimes' |
| 2018-06-14 |
| [Al Jazeera] Israel's use of lethal force against Paleostinian protesters along the Gazoo Strip border in recent weeks could amount to war crimes, Human Rights Watch (HRW) said on Wednesday. The rights group accused Israel of repeatedly using live ammunition "with apparent lethal intent" against Paleostinian demonstrators who posed no imminent threat to life. "Israel's use of lethal force when there was no imminent threat to life has taken a heavy toll in life and limb," said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. "The international community needs to rip up the old playbook, where Israel conducts investigations that mainly whitewash the conduct of its troops and the US blocks international accountability with its Security Council veto, and instead impose real costs for such blatant disregard for Paleostinian lives." Paleostinians in the besieged coastal enclave have been staging protests demanding their right to return to the homes and lands their families were expelled from 70 years ago. Since the protests, dubbed the Great March of Return, began on March 30, Israeli forces have killed 124 Paleostinians and maimed more than 3,800 others. At least 40 Paleostinians have had to have their limbs amputated as a result of Israel's actions along the Gazoo border, according to the rights group. Israeli authorities allege that its soldiers were acting in self-defence and had adhered to the rules of engagement to deter protesters from breaching the fence. In a controversial ruling earlier in May, Israel's top court deemed the military's rules of engagement - and the use of live ammunition - compatible with domestic and international law, arguing that the protests fall into the category of a state of war. The HRW report came ahead of an emergency UN General Assembly meeting on Wednesday to vote on a resolution condemning Israel's "excessive use of force." |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #7 Just try to enforce your version of "war crimes", assclown. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2018-06-14 10:28 |
| #6 potato, potahto |
| Posted by: Frank G 2018-06-14 09:41 |
| #5 Ref #3: So essentially, she's a communist. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2018-06-14 09:03 |
| #4 YOU don't determine 'war crimes'. The word is bandied about without context to actual law and history. Remember to be very careful on its use. If you say its a war crime, then war is in effect. If war is in effect, then using civilians or those in civilian clothes without proper military markings constitutes a violation of one of the Conventions. Who's the real criminal? |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2018-06-14 07:50 |
| #3 All the Usual Suspects: Sarah Leah Whitson: Early life and education Whitson was reared by an Armenian American mother, Ashi Whitson, who was born in the Armenian Quarter of Jerusalem's Old City and immigrated to the United States in 1960. Her father was from Texas. Whitson was a student at Rose and Alex Pilibos Armenian School for 12 years in Los Angeles and spent childhood summers with family in Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan.[1][2] In 1988, Whitson graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of California, Berkeley, located in Berkeley, California, taking time to study abroad in Egypt.[1] In 1991, she graduated with a Juris Doctor degree from the Harvard Law School,[3] where she was a classmate of Barack Obama's.[4] Career Early career After completing law school, Whitson worked for Goldman Sachs, the investment banking firm, and the law firm of Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2018-06-14 07:42 |
| #2 Maybe it's just me, but I think attempting to invade is an act that can morally be met with lethal force. As is the random arson of the incendiary life campaign. |
| Posted by: Rob Crawford 2018-06-14 06:29 |
| #1 "Israel's use of lethal force when there was no imminent threat to life Speaking as your Legal Advisor, "immanent threat to life" isn't the only legal doctrine in play here. There is also "If you do that, I'll shoot you" which is an implicit contract between parties. And a hint that maybe you shouldn't. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2018-06-14 01:28 |