Britain has pledged to change its laws for Israelis to be able to visit without the risk of being legally pursued for their actions in the ME conflict areas.
Using civilians as human shields is a common tactics - happens in Chechnya, did happen in Yugoslavia between 1998 and 1999 and yes, way to common in all conflicts of Middle East. Usually a terrorist tactic.
But there is one unique thing in the Middle East, not present anywhere else. In all cases elsewhere bitter enemies do not deny reason to exist to each other. Except insane nut cases the fight is usually about certain limited territory.
The unusual "features" of the Middle East conflict:
1) One of the sides totally denies the other the right to exist. Given the power (what they luckily do not have) they would not mind to exterminate the opponent till last sign of life.
2) That activity is being pursued world-wide and widened on enemies-by-proxy.
We also have to consider, "politicians" (in the reality: nut cases) like Ahmadinejad & Co. really need that conflict - because for their aspirations if it wouldn't be, it should be invented.
IHL, the benchmark for the treatment of war crimes, as well as the obligations of a country at war and its military, was developed for classic warfare between nations -- symmetrical shows of strength between two national armies that are essentially well-matched and clearly recognizable. But the conflict in the Gaza Strip was obviously asymmetrical. Israel's enemy is a group of terrorists that fights while in hiding and uses the civilian population as human shields. This alone is impermissible under the rules of the Geneva Conventions.
In war, say most legal experts, each side must have the right to seek victory. Is Israel, for example, required to spare the bakery of a good citizen of Gaza who pulls out his bazooka from behind his oven at night to secretly take part in the fighting? It is not, because international law defines this citizen as an enemy. But how can this be verified? And who should make that decision before an attack?
First there needs to be a valid case of war crimes and not some trumped up charges, real proof and not paliwood productions.
Britain has pledged to change its laws for Israelis to be able to visit without the risk of being legally pursued for their actions in the ME conflict areas.
B92
How kind of the British foreigh secretary to change the laws and allow Israelis
accused of war crimes to roam the country freely.It reminds me the Thatcher goverment which refused to carry out an international arrest warrant against the Chilean dictaror Pinochet because he had placed some generous orders with British defence industries.
Now on the Israeli-Palestinian issue Hague mentioned again the two-state
solution which of course is not on the Israeli agenda.
My advice to Palestinians will be to call for and implement an independent state, call the bluff of the US and the EU, after all they recognised the Kosovo breakaway and their claim to independence which was never on the cards.But as usual Abass and his sellout merchants will carry on with pointless talks and allow themselves to carry the blame when the talks fail, as they will.
Britain has pledged to change its laws for Israelis to be able to visit without the risk of being legally pursued for their actions in the ME conflict areas.
B92
How kind of the British foreigh secretary to change the laws and allow Israelis
accused of war crimes to roam the country freely.It reminds me the Thatcher goverment which refused to carry out an international arrest warrant against the Chilean dictaror Pinochet because he had placed some generous orders with British defence industries.
Now on the Israeli-Palestinian issue Hague mentioned again the two-state
solution which of course is not on the Israeli agenda.
My advice to Palestinians will be to call for and implement an independent state, call the bluff of the US and the EU, after all they recognised the Kosovo breakaway and their claim to independence which was never on the cards.But as usual Abass and his sellout merchants will carry on with pointless talks and allow themselves to carry the blame when the talks fail, as they will.
IHL, the benchmark for the treatment of war crimes, as well as the obligations of a country at war and its military, was developed for classic warfare between nations -- symmetrical shows of strength between two national armies that are essentially well-matched and clearly recognizable. But the conflict in the Gaza Strip was obviously asymmetrical. Israel's enemy is a group of terrorists that fights while in hiding and uses the civilian population as human shields. This alone is impermissible under the rules of the Geneva Conventions.
In war, say most legal experts, each side must have the right to seek victory. Is Israel, for example, required to spare the bakery of a good citizen of Gaza who pulls out his bazooka from behind his oven at night to secretly take part in the fighting? It is not, because international law defines this citizen as an enemy. But how can this be verified? And who should make that decision before an attack?
First there needs to be a valid case of war crimes and not some trumped up charges, real proof and not paliwood productions.
Using civilians as human shields is a common tactics - happens in Chechnya, did happen in Yugoslavia between 1998 and 1999 and yes, way to common in all conflicts of Middle East. Usually a terrorist tactic.
But there is one unique thing in the Middle East, not present anywhere else. In all cases elsewhere bitter enemies do not deny reason to exist to each other. Except insane nut cases the fight is usually about certain limited territory.
The unusual "features" of the Middle East conflict:
1) One of the sides totally denies the other the right to exist. Given the power (what they luckily do not have) they would not mind to exterminate the opponent till last sign of life.
2) That activity is being pursued world-wide and widened on enemies-by-proxy.
We also have to consider, "politicians" (in the reality: nut cases) like Ahmadinejad & Co. really need that conflict - because for their aspirations if it wouldn't be, it should be invented.
Britain has pledged to change its laws for Israelis to be able to visit without the risk of being legally pursued for their actions in the ME conflict areas.
B92
How kind of the British foreigh secretary to change the laws and allow Israelis
accused of war crimes to roam the country freely.It reminds me the Thatcher goverment which refused to carry out an international arrest warrant against the Chilean dictaror Pinochet because he had placed some generous orders with British defence industries.
Now on the Israeli-Palestinian issue Hague mentioned again the two-state
solution which of course is not on the Israeli agenda.
My advice to Palestinians will be to call for and implement an independent state, call the bluff of the US and the EU, after all they recognised the Kosovo breakaway and their claim to independence which was never on the cards.But as usual Abass and his sellout merchants will carry on with pointless talks and allow themselves to carry the blame when the talks fail, as they will.
IHL, the benchmark for the treatment of war crimes, as well as the obligations of a country at war and its military, was developed for classic warfare between nations -- symmetrical shows of strength between two national armies that are essentially well-matched and clearly recognizable. But the conflict in the Gaza Strip was obviously asymmetrical. Israel's enemy is a group of terrorists that fights while in hiding and uses the civilian population as human shields. This alone is impermissible under the rules of the Geneva Conventions.
In war, say most legal experts, each side must have the right to seek victory. Is Israel, for example, required to spare the bakery of a good citizen of Gaza who pulls out his bazooka from behind his oven at night to secretly take part in the fighting? It is not, because international law defines this citizen as an enemy. But how can this be verified? And who should make that decision before an attack?
First there needs to be a valid case of war crimes and not some trumped up charges, real proof and not paliwood productions.
Using civilians as human shields is a common tactics - happens in Chechnya, did happen in Yugoslavia between 1998 and 1999 and yes, way to common in all conflicts of Middle East. Usually a terrorist tactic.
But there is one unique thing in the Middle East, not present anywhere else. In all cases elsewhere bitter enemies do not deny reason to exist to each other. Except insane nut cases the fight is usually about certain limited territory.
The unusual "features" of the Middle East conflict:
1) One of the sides totally denies the other the right to exist. Given the power (what they luckily do not have) they would not mind to exterminate the opponent till last sign of life.
2) That activity is being pursued world-wide and widened on enemies-by-proxy.
We also have to consider, "politicians" (in the reality: nut cases) like Ahmadinejad & Co. really need that conflict - because for their aspirations if it wouldn't be, it should be invented.
IMAGE SOURCE
4 Komentari
Sortiraj po: