It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


HRW accuses IDF of shooting 11 civilians waving white flags

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 05:15 AM

IDF: HRW report on 'white flags' based on unreliable witnesses

The Human Rights Watch report which claims that IDF soldiers killed eleven Palestinian civilians holding "white flags" in the Gaza Strip is "based on unreliable witness reports," the IDF said in a statement released Thursday.

"Moreover," the statement continued, HRW "didn't bother to give the report to the IDF before releasing it to the public via the media, in order to allow for in-depth investigation."

Source: JPost

The HRW report can be viewed here

posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 05:22 AM
Now then. As most people who've read my posts regarding the Middle East know, I am a supporter of Israel. I think the Jews deserve a land of their own, where they can govern themselves and be free from persecution, and they have the right to defend that land.

However, this report makes a disturbing read. The evidence seems credible, and contrary to the claims by the IDF, HRW claims that they have attempted several times to arrange meetings with the IDF to discuss these issues but have been ignored.

I sincerely hope that these allegations turn out to be false, but I also find myself wishing that the IDF would take them seriously and assist in a thorough independent investigation. From their reaction to previous allegations, however, I find myself doubting that will happen. The IDF views HRW as corrupt and biased, and I doubt they will give any credence to this report, which is a bit sad.

If these allegations turn out to be true, then there is something seriously wrong with the IDF's procedures and discipline and this needs to be addressed and fixed.

posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 05:29 AM
I am a supporter of Israel. I think the Jews deserve a land of their own, where they can govern themselves and be free from persecution, and they have the right to defend that land.

do you call this being free of prosecution..or prosectute others? you call this deserving your own land or deserving land of others? you call this having the right to defend that land or having the right to expand that land?

i will help you out my friend...what I want from you is what your reactions would be as a palestinian farmer

Hope it helps

posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 05:37 AM
reply to post by heineken

This map is misleading propaganda.

1946: The British governed the land, there was no such thing as Israel or Palestine.
1947: This is the UN partition plan which never came into effect - the Jews agreed to it, the Arab states voted against it then proceeded to invade in 1948.
1949-1967: The "Palestinian land" highlighted in green was occupied by Jordan (in the case of Judea/Samaria) and Egypt (in the case of the Gaza Strip).

Let's stick to the facts shall we?

posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 05:53 AM

posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 06:45 AM
Heineken - Unlike you I can see both sides of this conflict. I can understand why Palestinians are angry and feel disenfranchised. I can also understand why Israelis are defensive and reluctant to make unilateral concessions. They get attacked a lot. At the moment they have a status-quo through military superiority which gives Israelis security but inflames the sectarian strife and will not work in the long term.

And the fact that hundreds of thousands of people still, to this day, live in refugee camps from a war that was over 60 years ago is a travesty, and a lot of different groups are responsible for perpetuating that situation including the people that are supposed to represent the Palestinians.

If you want to change the situation, you have to think of ways which help everyone and you have to engage people that have a different opinion than you. Acknowledge the problems on both sides and find solutions through rational discourse. Brow-beating does not change opinions, it just causes resentment and fans the flames.

The Hamas takeover of Gaza and the subsequent troubles have demonstrated what happens when Israel concedes land without first fixing the fundamental problems that exist in Palestinian society - war, death, destruction, things that no lover of peace and freedom wants.

The cold hard facts are that Israel will be very reluctant to give more land away without security guarantees. Accusing them of land theft and simplifying history does not further your argument and does not help to make peace.

posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 12:27 PM
This may be a minor point to some, but.....

Being accused of something and having it proven are two different things.

posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 04:49 AM
reply to post by mrmonsoon

I agree. And this won't be the first time HRW has made this accusation against the IDF, I remember something similar in the 2006 Lebanon war which turned out to be a Hezbollah propaganda exercise. Probably why the IDF is so dismissive of the report.

I'm not 100% sure that non-cooperation is the best policy though.

posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 05:50 PM
Oh my, Saudi Rights Watch is making a fuss over alleged war crimes in Israel. Guys, get a different organization to do it that isn't funded by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, of course your little reports are going to accuse Israel of war crimes. Its your shtick. Without it you wouldn't be able to pay for advertising spaces and the generous salary your head honcho makes.

This is another case of Jenin Massacre Syndrome, everyone zeros in on the words "war" and "crime." Amnesty International (aka Anti-Israel) said there were possible signs of a massacre but with absolutely no concrete evidence. What happens of course is that every journalist in the land picks up on the massacre aspect even when it did not occur.

posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 06:05 PM

Originally posted by mattpryor
reply to post by heineken

This map is misleading propaganda.

1946: The British governed the land, there was no such thing as Israel or Palestine.

Let's stick to the facts shall we?

Yes, let's stick with the facts. It's a lie of misrepresentation to say that there never was a Palestine. The map should read Mandate of Palestine, that's what it was. It was comprised of two area's. Palestine, and Trans-Jordan to the east of that.

People that lived and grew up in the British Mandate of Palestine identify as being Palestinians.

To say that it never existed is a lie. Even worse, it's a lie in the face of history.

posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 06:34 PM
reply to post by SpacePunk

Well the British painted themselves into a corner since they promised the Jews that land as well as the Arabs. So what did they do? They divided 80% of the Mandate to become Jordan. To keep it all good, they divided up the remaining 20% between the Jews and Palestine, of course they had to mix them both together. So in reality, Palestine of promise is actually Jordan and Palestine currently is just a detached misguided form of Jordan that sits on arid scrub land.

Fun Fact: Roughly 0.6% of the Middle East is Israeli territory.

posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 07:50 PM
may I suggest .

you can play the " it was mine once game" for ever and never settle anything .

you can play the " MOM!... he touched me ... she touched me first ... MOM! ... she touched me... well you touched me first !"
game forever , and never settle anything .

the simple fact is... Isreal is where it is , the non-isrealis need to either get over it , or get out .

excuse me , when you lose the war... ( get a clue ) ... that means you didn't win . derr !

when and if the Isrealis are nuked by the saudi's , it will be a irrational act , done by throw back neo primitive nut cases , and nothing on earth will ever grant them justification .

but Isreal will still glow in the dark , and nothing will ever change in the middle east .
the best answer is to do our best to keep all these wacko , neoprimitives in their sand box , and away from the civilized popluations of the earth .

any one who beleives that anything in the middle east makes the tiny'est bit of logic or sense is deillusional .

from my point veiw . the isrealis are the only civil people , living in a bad part of town , and they need to sell out and move .

the better answer , have another war... take more real estate and build or force a larger buffer zone around their tiny country .
a isreal of 10 times its current size would be easier to manage with just the same problems they currently have .
but at least the camps would be removed by bomb's from both sides , and the number of wacko's would be smaller .

the simple answer of course , that will never happen , if the suadi's are so dead set about doing something...
follow the british plan.. buy a country...and give it to the cretons that pout about ' their noble and great country stolen by the jews '...

honestly , the only way to win is not play , we need to embargo the whole middle east , shut off immagration , shut off trade , shut down travel , shut down banking ....

what we need , we take by force of arms .

civilized people should not be exposed to these animals , and by every passing day , they make it more clear , we are fools taking a side , justifing any act as reasonable ....

I am not a jew ,or muslim ... and have no dog in the fight .
but I suspect , my fellows will force it to be my fight regardless of my personal protests .

and please don't say , don't butt in to other peoples business.
no one wants to have less to do with this than me .

if the Isrealis gunn'd down white flagged militia ... I will stand with the guys who were fighting to stay alive against bad guys that show no intrest in doing much more than useing the honor of soldiers as a weapon against in a life or death combat .

frankly speaking , if the roles was reversed would or do current muslim fighter honor white flags ?

what comes around , goes around ... don't cry about honor when they have none to show as exsamples of wrong doing .

top topics


log in