It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Israeli commander: 'We rewrote the rules of war for Gaza'

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   

A high-ranking officer has acknowledged for the first time that the Israeli army went beyond its previous rules of engagement on the protection of civilian lives in order to minimise military casualties during last year's Gaza war, The Independent can reveal.

The officer, who served as a commander during Operation Cast Lead, made it clear that he did not regard the longstanding principle of military conduct known as "means and intentions" – whereby a targeted suspect must have a weapon and show signs of intending to use it before being fired upon – as being applicable before calling in fire from drones and helicopters in Gaza last winter. A more junior officer who served at a brigade headquarters during the operation described the new policy – devised in part to avoid the heavy military casualties of the 2006 Lebanon war – as one of "literally zero risk to the soldiers".



Israel in Gaza: The soldier's tale

This experienced soldier, who cannot be named, served in the war room of a brigade during Operation Cast Lead. Here, he recalls an incident he witnessed during last winter's three-week offensive:

"Two [Palestinian] guys are walking down the street. They pass a mosque and you see a gathering of women and children.

"You saw them exiting the house and [they] are not walking together but one behind the other. So you begin to fantasise they are actually ducking close to the wall.

"One [man] began to run at some point, must have heard the chopper. The GSS [secret service] argued that the mere fact that he heard it implicated him, because a normal civilian would not have realised that he was now being hunted.

"Finally he was shot. He was not shot next to the mosque. It's obvious that shots are not taken at a gathering."


FULL ARTICLE

This is interesting.

It did seem that the civilian casualty rate seemed higher than in other conflicts. The Geneva Convention was drafted in response to the horrors of the previous world conflicts. Do you think that the Geneva Convention is "outdated" as some former US officials have stated? It certainly seems to have lost it's teeth as a humanitarian tool.

What are your thoughts?



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Not only do I think that the Geneva Convention is outdated, it was never followed by any sides in any war, it's not just outdated- it's useless.

War is just a useless, wasteful mess, and both sides know that they will always be immune to any kind of consequence for not following the Geneva Convention, because they are the ones with the guns and the bombs and nobody can tell them what they can or can't do.



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Here is what the Geneva Convention relates to the loose rules of engagement currently in favor with the IDF leadership:


In addition, international instruments exist that relate to the protection of civilians in time of war. These instruments should be considered as they may assist the Refugee Division in determining what constitutes permissible conduct by combatants toward non-combatants, and they may therefore assist the Refugee Division in determining whether the conduct constitutes persecution. These instruments include, but are not limited to:

1. Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of August 12, 1949 (the "1949 Convention")
2. Protocol II to the 1949 Convention ("Protocol II")

Article 3 of the 1949 Convention prohibits in relation to non-combatants certain acts including:

* violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
* taking of hostages;
* outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.

Article 4 of Protocol II prohibits in relation to non-combatants certain acts including:

* violence to the life, health and physical or mental well-being of persons, in particular murder as well as cruel treatment such as torture, mutilation or any form of corporal punishment;
* collective punishments;
* taking of hostages;
* acts of terrorism;
* outrages on the personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, rape, enforced prostitution and any form of indecent assault.

Article 13 of Protocol II provides that the "civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against the dangers arising from military operations." To give effect to this protection, certain rules, including the following are to be observed:

* the civilian population, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack;
* acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civil population are prohibited.

www.irb-cisr.gc.ca...

Again, I ask; Is the Geneva Convention outdated and why?



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by star in a jar
Not only do I think that the Geneva Convention is outdated, it was never followed by any sides in any war, it's not just outdated- it's useless.

War is just a useless, wasteful mess, and both sides know that they will always be immune to any kind of consequence for not following the Geneva Convention, because they are the ones with the guns and the bombs and nobody can tell them what they can or can't do.


If that is the case, should we throw out all international warfare treaties such as the ones pertaining to chemical, biological and nuclear weapons? Not everyone follows them anyways, right?

Or is that a different matter and why? Are these treaties only applicable as a tool to be used against western adversaries such as Saddam Hussein or should they apply equally to western powers and their proxies such as Israel?



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   
Well this is the whole thing. I mean Tony Blair has just stated that it wouldn't have mattered if he knew that Saddam Hussain did not have WMD's he would have gone in and got him anyway, just because he, TB, didnt like him and so in his mind that was good enough reason.

Its madness, you have to have rules otherwise anybody could start a war against anybody for any reason.

All this hoopla about Irans supposed nukes when Israel has hundreds of them and doesn't comply with any rules, they just make them up to suit their own needs.



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by bigyin
 


I still think the Geneva Conventions are here to stay. Violations of said conventions being a convenient justification for the big fish to go after the little fish.

Logically that's brilliant (in a NeoCon sorta way). I still find the policy morally bankrupt.



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 06:03 PM
link   
I guess it's a little like Adof Hitler bragging, 'We Germans re-wrote the Rules of Engagement for Homosexuals, Politcals and Jews' during WW II.

Wrong is wrong, doesn't matter what the scale of the atrocities are.

These Israeli monsters that sprayed Napalm on Palestinian children in january of 2009 (you hear pundits blithely chatting away about the use of 'white phosphorus' -- it sounds so clean and nice, doesn't it? that is, until you see the results of 'white phosphrous' on human flesh..) all need to be named, rounded up, arrested and prosecuted 'for Crimes Against Humanity' by an international Tribunal in open court, hiding nothing.

But fat chance of that ever happening.

The vile screamers and shouters within AIPAC and other monied organised Zionist criminals in the US will demand yet another VETO in the UN's Security Council...or else...




top topics



 
3

log in

join