Swiss Charge Israel With Violating Myth
The Swiss Foreign Ministry condemned Israel for violating "International Law" in it's Gaza incursion.
Switzerland said Monday that Israel has been violating international law in its Gaza offensive by heavy destruction and endangering civilians in acts of collective punishment banned under the Geneva conventions on the conduct of warfare.
"A number of actions by the Israeli defense forces in their offensive against the Gaza Strip have violated the principle of proportionality and are to be seen as forms of collective punishment, which is forbidden," the Swiss Foreign Ministry said in a statement.
"There is no doubt that Israel has not taken the precautions required of it in international law to protect the civilian population and infrastructure," it said. The statement did not name the Geneva Conventions, but it referred to provisions of the 1949 treaty, which is regarded as the cornerstone of international law on the obligations of warring and occupying powers.
There would be a lot more credibility to these words if the Swiss had bothered to rouse themselves to condemn something like the collective punishment of a Palestinian strapping on a bomb and walking into a fast food restaurant for a quick detonation. Or the proportionality of a bunch of Hamas-led, fun loving terrorists launching rockets at civilians. Or the protection of civilian population of a group of thugs sneaking over a border to kidnap an 18 year old student so they could murder him.
Oh well, the Swiss have spoken up. Time to go back to your chocolate.
There would be a lot more credibility to these words if the Swiss had bothered to rouse themselves to condemn something like the collective punishment of a Palestinian strapping on a bomb and walking into a fast food restaurant for a quick detonation. Or the proportionality of a bunch of Hamas-led, fun loving terrorists launching rockets at civilians. Or the protection of civilian population of a group of thugs sneaking over a border to kidnap an 18 year old student so they could murder him.
Oh well, the Swiss have spoken up. Time to go back to your chocolate.
War, World news | Gaius Tuesday, 4 July , 2006
By Donna, Tuesday, 4 July , 2006 @ 7:06 am
I absolutely hate that a grown person should get away with beating a child, just because the grown person is bigger. There is something similarly unconscionable about a powerfully militarized [by America] Israel using its much bigger military machine and bulldozers to blatantly destroy Palestinian homes, and aerial-bomb Palestinian people, just because they have that huge power advantage.
I would like to live in a world where those with the biggest power are held to a stricter standard, such as an adult being held to account for beating a child senseless because the child kicked him in the shins.
By Gaius, Tuesday, 4 July , 2006 @ 7:11 am
That’s a rather odd way to put it, don’t you think? A murder bomber killing dozens of civilians is much, much worse than a bulldozer knocking down a house, isn’t it?
By Donna, Tuesday, 4 July , 2006 @ 7:47 am
Gaius, there are ways to kill masses of people by denying them the very basics of life: food, shelter, jobs, medical care and so forth. That killing is slow and painful. Some time ago, I read about the Palestinians who moved back into Gaza not being able to even sell the produce they raised because the Israelis blocked the movement of that produce, which rotted on the trucks. What in the world is something like that about? Or, what about collecting taxes from and for Palestinians, then withholding those monies so that Palestinian workers were struggling without income for months? Something smells about this abuse that keeps heaping deprivation upon a whole occupied people.
I personally think that terrorism is fostered when there becomes nothing left to life except to ‘go out with some [warped] sense of personal honor’.
By FormerRighty, Tuesday, 4 July , 2006 @ 10:46 am
Gaius, if you want to play the game of judging sides in a conflict based on the number of civilians killed, you’ll find that the Israel comes off much worse than the Palestinians–approximately four times as many Palestinian civilians have been killed.
I don’t condone suicide bombings, by any means, but put yourself in the shoes of the Palestinians. They’ve had much of their land taken from them, and more continues to be taken from them today. Centuries old olive groves are being bulldozed. All of this is being carried out by the strongest military power in the region, with assistance from the strongest miliitary power in the world.
I think suicide bombing is wrong, but I can understand why some would think it’s their only choice. In the long term, I still believe that non-violent resistance is the most effective means. That’s why I oppose the use of military force in most cases.
If you say the Palestinians are wrong for killing Israeli civilians, are you willing to say the U.S. is wrong for killing Iraqi and Afghani civilians? Or is killiing certain civilians wrong, but others okay?
By Black Jack, Tuesday, 4 July , 2006 @ 1:13 pm
Well, you just can’t expect all that much from a culture which has only managed two contributions to civilization so far: chocolate and cuckoo clocks. But, they do have some very pretty lakes, and impressive mountains. Now, if they could only figure out the nature of the relationship between cause and effect, or in this case specifically between provocation and response.
By Gaius, Tuesday, 4 July , 2006 @ 1:52 pm
You’re trying to equate two different things. The real difference is who is being targeted. The Palestinians intentionally target civilians. World of difference and not morally equivalent.
By FormerRighty, Tuesday, 4 July , 2006 @ 1:54 pm
Black Jack,
Don’t forget the great knives.
There’s been over 50 years of multiple layers of provaction and response. Unfortunately, neither side is willing to take the steps to break the cycle.
By FormerRighty, Tuesday, 4 July , 2006 @ 6:04 pm
Gaius,
Are you saying that Israel doesn’t target civilians? Excuse me, but they have been bombing civilian targets in retaliation for terrorist attacks for years, at least since the Munich attack. Sometimes they get some terrorists, too, but they’re really just punishing Palestinians.
Israel has a long history of severe retaliation for terrorist attacks. Has it made them safer? It hasn’t stopped the attacks.
By Gaius, Tuesday, 4 July , 2006 @ 7:05 pm
Show me an example where they intentionally hit a restaurant full of everyday people. Or specifically targeted a bus full of civilians.
Hitting a putative “civilian” office where terror attacks are planned is not even remotely in the same league. There is no real case for moral equivalency here. When Israel tries to destroy houses that have smuggling tunnels in them - tunnels to bring more ordnance in to target Israeli civilians - do you honestly believe those are civilian targets?
Your moral compass needs a serious recalibration.
By FormerRighty, Wednesday, 5 July , 2006 @ 8:40 am
How about Israel shelling villages in Gaza?
They have a long history of shelling villages in retaliation for terrrorist attacks. There was the April 1996 shelling of Qana, which killed 106 civilians.
And then, or course, there was the Sabra and Shatila massacre. Yes, I realize that wasn’t Israeli forces doing the actual killing, but they stood by and watched while it happened.
Remember, too, that Israel invaded Lebanon.
Think of how white Americans would react if the U.N. said “we’re terribly sorry, but you have to give up your land so that the Native Americans can have it back. No, you won’t receive any compensation.”
At some point, both sides are going to have to forgive the other for all of the wrongs done to them (there are active projects working to do that, getting Israelis and Palestinians talking to each other, and talking about the wrongs they have suffered).
In order for peace to come to the region, both sides need to transcend the type of thinking that says one side is right and the other is wrong. There is plenty of right and wrong to go around on both sides.
By a_european, Monday, 10 July , 2006 @ 8:14 am
I’m sorry to disappoint Israel supporters but many over here in Europe see Israel as THE terror state.
The day the Israelis will start to show respect to Palestinians and stop to deal with them as if they were beasts, we will again consider their claims to a right of self-defense.
In the meantime, what we keep in mind that during the last Intifada only, 4’000 Palestinians were killed and 30′000 injured. 6′000 Palestinian houses got destroyed, some 10′000 to 17′000 Palestinians are kept in Israeli jails, mostly for political reasons.
46% of the West bank is occupied making the life for those virtually impossible. About 80% of the water resources in the West bank are plundered by Israelis. Travels abroad or visits to relatives in the other Palestinian territories are not allowed. And of course, there is no one available to collect complaints as there is no justice available against Israel’s Barbary.
Hey, those conditions are just not acceptable and many of the writers would become what they see as terrorists if they would be facing such living conditions In this case, they would call themselves resistant’s, wouldn’t they?
Let me take another typical example: you have those “funny” guys who pretend that Israel acted with restraint in the case of the captured soldier. How is that translated in the field? Some 40, 50 deaths, civil infrastructure destroyed. What would it have been if there was less “restraint”? It seems to me that most of the intervenients have lost their rationality…
And don’t tell me that Hamas was not authorized to take action against the IDF as the Israeli had kept doing the dirty work as usual by assassinating Hamas people and other innocents by dozens in recent time.