Human Rights Watch: Israeli soldiers shoot and kill fleeing civilians.

originally posted by: gladtobehere
Gaza: Israeli Soldiers Shoot and Kill Fleeing Civilians.

(Gaza) – Israeli forces in the southern Gaza town of Khuza’a fired on and killed civilians in apparent violation of the laws of war in several incidents between July 23 and 25, 2014. Deliberate attacks on civilians who are not participating in the fighting are war crimes.

Israeli forces provided general warnings to Khuza’a residents to leave the area prior to July 21.

While the laws of war encourage “advance, effective warnings” of attacks, the failure of civilians to abide by warnings does not make them lawful targets of attack – for obvious reasons, since many people do not flee because of infirmity, fear, lack of a place to go, or any number of other reasons.

The remaining presence of such civilians despite a warning to flee cannot be ignored when attacks are carried out, as Israeli forces have done previously.

“Warning families to flee fighting doesn’t make them fair targets just because they’re unable to do so, and deliberately attacking them is a war crime,” Whitson said.

Whats there to say. Very very sad if true.

Can only hope that these leaders and their soldiers are held accountable for their actions.

Who reported this news, Hamas???

originally posted by: Puppylove
Ok I'm trying to understand something...

The Hamas invade people living space and shoot rockets at Israel...

Israel gives a warning that they're going to bomb an area...

Hamas leaves, probably telling the family if they attempt to flee, they'll shoot them. Or the people can't leave because they're infirm, or any number of reasons. Still plenty of time for Hamas to get their people out of there, while the innocent civilians are stuck. So as said Hamas leaves.

Israel bombs the area. Houses, schools, whatever, is destroyed, as are any innocents still stuck there for any reason. Chance that any members of Hamas were harmed, practically nil. Chances that Hamas made this attack using anything they probably couldn't leave with in under 7 hours, probably non existent.

So other than destroying schools, homes, and civilian infrastructure, as well as killing civilians who cannot flee. What exactly is this doing to combat Hamas?

I would really like to know, WHAT is this accomplishing?

The only way this works to eliminate Israel's enemies is when all of Gaza and everyone in it is dead.

Is slow systematic slaughter with only one possible end as long as this horrible inverse game of mine sweeper is being played.

Israel has a pretty good intelligence network...The terrorists live in many of these houses...They fire weapons from many of those houses that are filled with civilians because they know Israel will not knowingly fire on civilians...Can you even imagine how many civilians deaths there would be if the civilians were not warned ahead of time to leave???

Israel tells the citizens to leave so they can level the houses where terrorists shoot from to be able to deprive them from using the civilians as human shields, even tho the civilians are 100% supportive of the terrorists...

originally posted by: WhiteAlice

originally posted by: SUBKONCIOUS
a reply to: WhiteAlice

that panorama is crazy... it's almost as if they are trying to clear the land for new construction and possible occupation in the near future.

Probably are or at least, assuring that the residents who fled have nothing to return to. Can you imagine having 7 hours to pack up your family and life with the threat of death looming? Even if every person got out of there, they lost just about everything but their lives. War is so cruel.

That's what happens and what should happen when you harbor terrorists...

a reply to: Variable

not to derail the thread but,

huh? What law of war is that? You ever heard of a town in Germany named Dresden? How about Hiroshima or Nagasaki? Did Japan call Hawaii before it attacked on December 7th, 1941?

if i understand what your saying, your partly wrong about them not having a warning. the dresden bombing best i can recall was a screw up operation from the get go, i can't find it now but somewhere i read that they were suppose to warn them but it didn't happen.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki both did receive warnings.

Leaflet sorties were undertaken on August 1 and 4. It is very likely that Hiroshima was leafleted in late July or early August, as survivor accounts talk about a delivery of leaflets a few days before the atomic bomb was dropped.[88] One such leaflet lists twelve cities targeted for firebombing: Otaru, Akita, Hachinohe, Fukushima, Urawa, Takayama, Iwakuni, Tottori, Imabari, Yawata, Miyakonojo, and Saga. Hiroshima was not listed.[8
Leaflets

and the attack on Pearl although not a specific warning or very much time was allowed to pass, Admiral Yamamoto wanted to wait until 30 minutes after diplomats informed Washington the peace talks were over.

Japanese declaration of war See also: Japanese war crimes
The attack took place before any formal declaration of war was made by Japan, but this was not Admiral Yamamoto's intention. He originally stipulated that the attack should not commence until thirty minutes after Japan had informed the United States that peace negotiations were at an end.[68][69] The Japanese tried to uphold the conventions of war while still achieving surprise, but the attack began before the notice could be delivered. Tokyo transmitted the 5,000-word notification (commonly called the "14-Part Message") in two blocks to the Japanese Embassy in Washington, but transcribing the message took too long for the Japanese ambassador to deliver it in time. (In fact, U.S. code breakers had already deciphered and translated most of the message hours before he was scheduled to deliver it.)[70] The final part of the "14 Part Message" is sometimes described as a declaration of war. While it neither declared war nor severed diplomatic relations, it was viewed by a number of senior U.S government and military officials as a very strong indicator that negotiations were likely to be terminated [71] and that war might break out at any moment.[72] A declaration of war was printed on the front page of Japan's newspapers in the evening edition of December 8,[73] but not delivered to the U.S. government until the day after the attack.
en.wikipedia.org...

as for the rest of your post i agree, i would also like to add, that the destruction to the town seen is a strategic move. destroy all infrastructure, buildings and hiding places that hamas might have so they can't just move right back in without great effort.

this about Human Rights Watch.

The international non-governmental organization Human Rights Watch (HRW) has been criticized by various entities, such as national governments, other NGOs, the media, and its founder and former Chairman Robert L. Bernstein. Criticism falls into one of two general categories: first, of either poor research or inaccurate reporting; and secondly, and much more prevalently, of bias. The bias allegations include the organization being influenced by United States government policy, particularly in relation to reporting on Latin America; ignoring anti-Semitism in Europe,or being itself an anti-Semitic organization; the Arab–Israeli conflict; and reporting of human rights issues in Eritrea and Ethiopia. Accusations in relation to the Arab–Israeli conflict include claims that HRW is biased against Israel and that this bias in influenced by requesting or accepting donations from Saudi Arabian citizens. HRW has publicly responded to criticisms relating to its reporting on Latin America as well as the Arab–Israeli conflict.

did you see the founder and former CEO in the above doesn't think much of the now.
here is a bit more of what he has to say.

Robert Bernstein, founder of HRW, accused the organization of poor research methods, for relying on "witnesses whose stories cannot be verified and who may testify for political advantage or because they fear retaliation from their own rulers

Robert L. Bernstein, founder and former chairman of HRW, argued in October 2009 that the organization had lost critical perspective on events in the Middle East.[2] Bernstein argued that "[t]he region is populated by authoritarian regimes with appalling human rights records. Yet in recent years Human Rights Watch has written far more condemnations of Israel for violations of international law than of any other country in the region.

and the response from the london based branch. aunh aunh

Tom Porteus, director of the London branch of Human Rights Watch, replied that the organization rejected Bernstein's "obvious double standard. Any credible human rights organization must apply the same human rights standards to all countries.

there are many more condemnations of them, you can read them here. Criticism of Human Rights Watch

with so many credible people criticizing the group and a former founder and chairman doing the same, everything reported by them should be taken with a grain of salt.

originally posted by: Iscool

originally posted by: WhiteAlice

originally posted by: SUBKONCIOUS
a reply to: WhiteAlice

that panorama is crazy... it's almost as if they are trying to clear the land for new construction and possible occupation in the near future.

Probably are or at least, assuring that the residents who fled have nothing to return to. Can you imagine having 7 hours to pack up your family and life with the threat of death looming? Even if every person got out of there, they lost just about everything but their lives. War is so cruel.

That's what happens and what should happen when you harbor terrorists...

If this article is true, I hope that there is a full investigation to obtain all of the facts and if there was wrongdoing the people responsible should be brought to justice. Even with Israel's faults in this war, I have a very hard time believing that fleeing civilians were knowingly shot in the back.

Regarding HRW, here's some info: www.algemeiner.com...

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: Variable

not to derail the thread but,

huh? What law of war is that? You ever heard of a town in Germany named Dresden? How about Hiroshima or Nagasaki? Did Japan call Hawaii before it attacked on December 7th, 1941?

if i understand what your saying, your partly wrong about them not having a warning. the dresden bombing best i can recall was a screw up operation from the get go, i can't find it now but somewhere i read that they were suppose to warn them but it didn't happen.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki both did receive warnings.

Leaflet sorties were undertaken on August 1 and 4. It is very likely that Hiroshima was leafleted in late July or early August, as survivor accounts talk about a delivery of leaflets a few days before the atomic bomb was dropped.[88] One such leaflet lists twelve cities targeted for firebombing: Otaru, Akita, Hachinohe, Fukushima, Urawa, Takayama, Iwakuni, Tottori, Imabari, Yawata, Miyakonojo, and Saga. Hiroshima was not listed.[8
Leaflets

and the attack on Pearl although not a specific warning or very much time was allowed to pass, Admiral Yamamoto wanted to wait until 30 minutes after diplomats informed Washington the peace talks were over.

Japanese declaration of war See also: Japanese war crimes
The attack took place before any formal declaration of war was made by Japan, but this was not Admiral Yamamoto's intention. He originally stipulated that the attack should not commence until thirty minutes after Japan had informed the United States that peace negotiations were at an end.[68][69] The Japanese tried to uphold the conventions of war while still achieving surprise, but the attack began before the notice could be delivered. Tokyo transmitted the 5,000-word notification (commonly called the "14-Part Message") in two blocks to the Japanese Embassy in Washington, but transcribing the message took too long for the Japanese ambassador to deliver it in time. (In fact, U.S. code breakers had already deciphered and translated most of the message hours before he was scheduled to deliver it.)[70] The final part of the "14 Part Message" is sometimes described as a declaration of war. While it neither declared war nor severed diplomatic relations, it was viewed by a number of senior U.S government and military officials as a very strong indicator that negotiations were likely to be terminated [71] and that war might break out at any moment.[72] A declaration of war was printed on the front page of Japan's newspapers in the evening edition of December 8,[73] but not delivered to the U.S. government until the day after the attack.
en.wikipedia.org...

as for the rest of your post i agree, i would also like to add, that the destruction to the town seen is a strategic move. destroy all infrastructure, buildings and hiding places that hamas might have so they can't just move right back in without great effort.

this about Human Rights Watch.

The international non-governmental organization Human Rights Watch (HRW) has been criticized by various entities, such as national governments, other NGOs, the media, and its founder and former Chairman Robert L. Bernstein. Criticism falls into one of two general categories: first, of either poor research or inaccurate reporting; and secondly, and much more prevalently, of bias. The bias allegations include the organization being influenced by United States government policy, particularly in relation to reporting on Latin America; ignoring anti-Semitism in Europe,or being itself an anti-Semitic organization; the Arab–Israeli conflict; and reporting of human rights issues in Eritrea and Ethiopia. Accusations in relation to the Arab–Israeli conflict include claims that HRW is biased against Israel and that this bias in influenced by requesting or accepting donations from Saudi Arabian citizens. HRW has publicly responded to criticisms relating to its reporting on Latin America as well as the Arab–Israeli conflict.

did you see the founder and former CEO in the above doesn't think much of the now.
here is a bit more of what he has to say.

Robert Bernstein, founder of HRW, accused the organization of poor research methods, for relying on "witnesses whose stories cannot be verified and who may testify for political advantage or because they fear retaliation from their own rulers

Robert L. Bernstein, founder and former chairman of HRW, argued in October 2009 that the organization had lost critical perspective on events in the Middle East.[2] Bernstein argued that "[t]he region is populated by authoritarian regimes with appalling human rights records. Yet in recent years Human Rights Watch has written far more condemnations of Israel for violations of international law than of any other country in the region.

and the response from the london based branch. aunh aunh

Tom Porteus, director of the London branch of Human Rights Watch, replied that the organization rejected Bernstein's "obvious double standard. Any credible human rights organization must apply the same human rights standards to all countries.

there are many more condemnations of them, you can read them here. Criticism of Human Rights Watch

with so many credible people criticizing the group and a former founder and chairman doing the same, everything reported by them should be taken with a grain of salt.

Israel should be watched and judged more heavily than other countries in that region. They have nukes. Israel is a threat to the entire region. Israel is a nation that assassinates for revenge and commits genocide for defence.

Channel 4 in Israel reported the same story, it is not fabricated. The video might be fake but that needs to be proven. When someone appears to die an investigation usually ensues. Civilized nations are not in the habit of dismissing film that appears to show a murder taking place.

Given the circumstances I think a third party should be admitted to investigate.

a reply to: Iscool

That's what happens and what should happen when you harbor terrorists...

well if your harboring, aiding and supporting terrorists ie working with them, of your own free will, you are terrorist.
and yes when it comes time to pay your dues, you get what you deserve.

but if you are forced to do these things no. some folks aren't strong enough, mentally, physically or are under duress and can't resist. also some may not have means to escape the threats faced from those that would force them to serve them.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: Variable

not to derail the thread but,

huh? What law of war is that? You ever heard of a town in Germany named Dresden? How about Hiroshima or Nagasaki? Did Japan call Hawaii before it attacked on December 7th, 1941?

if i understand what your saying, your partly wrong about them not having a warning. the dresden bombing best i can recall was a screw up operation from the get go, i can't find it now but somewhere i read that they were suppose to warn them but it didn't happen.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki both did receive warnings.

Leaflet sorties were undertaken on August 1 and 4. It is very likely that Hiroshima was leafleted in late July or early August, as survivor accounts talk about a delivery of leaflets a few days before the atomic bomb was dropped.[88] One such leaflet lists twelve cities targeted for firebombing: Otaru, Akita, Hachinohe, Fukushima, Urawa, Takayama, Iwakuni, Tottori, Imabari, Yawata, Miyakonojo, and Saga. Hiroshima was not listed.[8
Leaflets

and the attack on Pearl although not a specific warning or very much time was allowed to pass, Admiral Yamamoto wanted to wait until 30 minutes after diplomats informed Washington the peace talks were over.

Japanese declaration of war See also: Japanese war crimes
The attack took place before any formal declaration of war was made by Japan, but this was not Admiral Yamamoto's intention. He originally stipulated that the attack should not commence until thirty minutes after Japan had informed the United States that peace negotiations were at an end.[68][69] The Japanese tried to uphold the conventions of war while still achieving surprise, but the attack began before the notice could be delivered. Tokyo transmitted the 5,000-word notification (commonly called the "14-Part Message") in two blocks to the Japanese Embassy in Washington, but transcribing the message took too long for the Japanese ambassador to deliver it in time. (In fact, U.S. code breakers had already deciphered and translated most of the message hours before he was scheduled to deliver it.)[70] The final part of the "14 Part Message" is sometimes described as a declaration of war. While it neither declared war nor severed diplomatic relations, it was viewed by a number of senior U.S government and military officials as a very strong indicator that negotiations were likely to be terminated [71] and that war might break out at any moment.[72] A declaration of war was printed on the front page of Japan's newspapers in the evening edition of December 8,[73] but not delivered to the U.S. government until the day after the attack.
en.wikipedia.org...

as for the rest of your post i agree, i would also like to add, that the destruction to the town seen is a strategic move. destroy all infrastructure, buildings and hiding places that hamas might have so they can't just move right back in without great effort.

this about Human Rights Watch.

The international non-governmental organization Human Rights Watch (HRW) has been criticized by various entities, such as national governments, other NGOs, the media, and its founder and former Chairman Robert L. Bernstein. Criticism falls into one of two general categories: first, of either poor research or inaccurate reporting; and secondly, and much more prevalently, of bias. The bias allegations include the organization being influenced by United States government policy, particularly in relation to reporting on Latin America; ignoring anti-Semitism in Europe,or being itself an anti-Semitic organization; the Arab–Israeli conflict; and reporting of human rights issues in Eritrea and Ethiopia. Accusations in relation to the Arab–Israeli conflict include claims that HRW is biased against Israel and that this bias in influenced by requesting or accepting donations from Saudi Arabian citizens. HRW has publicly responded to criticisms relating to its reporting on Latin America as well as the Arab–Israeli conflict.

did you see the founder and former CEO in the above doesn't think much of the now.
here is a bit more of what he has to say.

Robert Bernstein, founder of HRW, accused the organization of poor research methods, for relying on "witnesses whose stories cannot be verified and who may testify for political advantage or because they fear retaliation from their own rulers

Robert L. Bernstein, founder and former chairman of HRW, argued in October 2009 that the organization had lost critical perspective on events in the Middle East.[2] Bernstein argued that "[t]he region is populated by authoritarian regimes with appalling human rights records. Yet in recent years Human Rights Watch has written far more condemnations of Israel for violations of international law than of any other country in the region.

and the response from the london based branch. aunh aunh

Tom Porteus, director of the London branch of Human Rights Watch, replied that the organization rejected Bernstein's "obvious double standard. Any credible human rights organization must apply the same human rights standards to all countries.

there are many more condemnations of them, you can read them here. Criticism of Human Rights Watch

with so many credible people criticizing the group and a former founder and chairman doing the same, everything reported by them should be taken with a grain of salt.

Israel should be watched and judged more heavily than other countries in that region. They have nukes. Israel is a threat to the entire region. Israel is a nation that assassinates for revenge and commits genocide for defence.

Channel 4 in Israel reported the same story, it is not fabricated. The video might be fake but that needs to be proven. When someone appears to die an investigation usually ensues. Civilized nations are not in the habit of dismissing film that appears to show a murder taking place.

Given the circumstances I think a third party should be admitted to investigate.

Please forgive me if I'm wrong but I think you mean UK's Channel 4. Their reporting has seemed as fair and balanced as the US' Fox News generally is. That said, if this incident occurred as stated those who took part should answer for it.

You might be right.

THIS channel 4.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
You might be right.

THIS channel 4.

Yep, that's UK. Their "reporting" has been questionable but there should be an investigation at least.

Hamas wears no uniform, they blend in with the general population, and this is their MO. They fire rockets with no guidance system, knowing full well they will hit anywhere, and anyone, even children. When cameras roll they only see people not in uniform running about. This is their way of playing on basic emotion, all the while setting the stage for the crap most people soak right up crying "savages" when the real savages force the non combatants stay in harms way as cannon fodder. You remove all of Israel's people, create a vacuum of the area...and the varying factions of the remaining people will start shooting and killing their neighbor due to the fact they are of a different party. Perpetual war is the mindset of some and has been for thousands of years. Wanna stop the war? stop lobbing uncontroled rockets at a people whom can wipe you off the face of the earth, but have some restraint. Wanna see your population happy? kick hamas to Jordan...

a reply to: MALBOSIA

i didn't say it was fabricated. and i have no doubt that Channel 4 reported the destruction of the town. did they also report killing of civilians and do they have video of that?. if so please supply link seeing how it's your source. and don't play the video of the guy in the green shirt. it is already alleged to be a fake.

as far as i can find there is no vitrifaction of what HRW has said has happened other than their reports and the second hand testimony.

seeing how there allegations of poor investigation skills and bias on their part without second or third party non bias parties, this should be viewed as suspect.

i also found this interesting from the op's link,

Human Rights Watch was unable to conduct research in Khuza’a itself. All four roads leading to the town were impassable due to large bomb craters, and it was not clear whether Israeli forces would permit entrance.

HRW hasn't even been into the town before they wrote the article. sound like good investigating to me.

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: MALBOSIA

i didn't say it was fabricated. and i have no doubt that Channel 4 reported the destruction of the town. did they also report killing of civilians and do they have video of that?. if so please supply link seeing how it's your source. and don't play the video of the guy in the green shirt. it is already alleged to be a fake.

as far as i can find there is no vitrifaction of what HRW has said has happened other than their reports and the second hand testimony.

seeing how there allegations of poor investigation skills and bias on their part without second or third party non bias parties, this should be viewed as suspect.

i also found this interesting from the op's link,

Human Rights Watch was unable to conduct research in Khuza’a itself. All four roads leading to the town were impassable due to large bomb craters, and it was not clear whether Israeli forces would permit entrance.

HRW hasn't even been into the town before they wrote the article. sound like good investigationing to me.

I'm with you. I have no idea no idea who either of these reporters are. I have not watched the video. Not sure if I want to but I still might.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

as i said in my reply to you that is the green shirt video.

and in your link

Channel 4 News has been unable to independently verify the video or Mr Efrati's claims.

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: MALBOSIA

as i said in my reply to you that is the green shirt video.

and in your link

Channel 4 News has been unable to independently verify the video or Mr Efrati's claims.

there is a good de-bunking post about the vid, somewhere around here.

originally posted by: Iscool

originally posted by: WhiteAlice

originally posted by: SUBKONCIOUS
a reply to: WhiteAlice

that panorama is crazy... it's almost as if they are trying to clear the land for new construction and possible occupation in the near future.

Probably are or at least, assuring that the residents who fled have nothing to return to. Can you imagine having 7 hours to pack up your family and life with the threat of death looming? Even if every person got out of there, they lost just about everything but their lives. War is so cruel.

That's what happens and what should happen when you harbor terrorists...

You've never had a neighbor that you didn't like? Would you like to be judged because of your neighbor?

originally posted by: Iscool

originally posted by: WhiteAlice
Looking at this panorama of the town in the OP, it's a wonder really that people survived at all but apparently they were given a 7 hour "get out of dodge" window. www.telegraph.co.uk...

One or two city blocks at the most...You call that a town??? You can clearly see the town unscathed outside of this little tiny area...Propaganda...

If you look at the aerial damage as displayed in the Wall Street Journal that I linked, you'll see much of the same--obliterated structures as in that 360 degree shot, somewhat damaged structures and ones that seem relatively intact. It depends on where the bombs dropped and how far other structures were from it. Did you expect the entire area to be flattened?

Here you go. This is what war looks like: graphics.wsj.com...

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
Forgive my ignorance, but is HRW a credible source? Do they lean to a certain side on this issue?

Well...
online.wsj.com...

A delegation from Human Rights Watch was recently in Saudi Arabia. To investigate the mistreatment of women under Saudi Law? To campaign for the rights of homosexuals, subject to the death penalty in Saudi Arabia? To protest the lack of religious freedom in the Saudi Kingdom? To issue a report on Saudi political prisoners? No, no, no, and no. The delegation arrived to raise money from wealthy Saudis by highlighting HRW's demonization of Israel. An HRW spokesperson, Sarah Leah Whitson, highlighted HRW's battles with "pro-Israel pressure groups in the US, the European Union and the United Nations." (Was Ms. Whitson required to wear a burkha, or are exceptions made for visiting anti-Israel "human rights" activists"? Driving a car, no doubt, was out of the question.) Apparently, Ms. Whitson found no time to criticize Saudi Arabia's abysmal human rights record. But never fear, HRW "recently called on the Kingdom to do more to protect the human rights of domestic workers.

originally posted by: Iscool

originally posted by: WhiteAlice

originally posted by: SUBKONCIOUS
a reply to: WhiteAlice

that panorama is crazy... it's almost as if they are trying to clear the land for new construction and possible occupation in the near future.

Probably are or at least, assuring that the residents who fled have nothing to return to. Can you imagine having 7 hours to pack up your family and life with the threat of death looming? Even if every person got out of there, they lost just about everything but their lives. War is so cruel.

That's what happens and what should happen when you harbor terrorists...

When an entire area of a city ALL harbor terrorists? Are you for real?

a reply to: Variable

"Civilians die in war. War is terrible"....

That sounds like the typical nazi response at Nuremberg trials, but it is not a war, its a genocide, and one of these days everyone will have to face crimes against humanity.