Do Palestinians have (only) human rights?
Founder of Human Rights Watch Robert Bernstein has openly attacked his former organization for its recent reports on Israeli human rights violations, which occur in the context of the occupation of Palestine.
While it is not difficult to see the weaknesses in Bernstein’s outdated and reprehensible version of human rights, his intervention raises the question of whether Palestinians have human rights, and whether that is all they have. With a liberation movement that has been strangled to death by corruption, collaboration and repression, international activists rely increasingly on the discourse of human rights rather than the discourse of liberation. Bernstein’s column, as objectionable and incoherent as it is, should provoke us to consider the benefits and limitations of this strategy.
Bernstein’s opinion that we should overlook Israeli human rights violations is not new. It belongs to another era in history, an era in which not only is it the White Man’s burden to enforce rights, but also to decide what they are and who gets them. Bernstein explains that as chair of HRW he “sought to draw a sharp line between the democratic and nondemocratic worlds, in an effort to create clarity in human rights.” However, he does not explain why or how this distinction is functionally useful. Furthermore he does not explain what kind of “clarity” is thus produced. To limit the scope of human rights work according to such a meritless distinction that is nothing more than a reflection of Bernstein’s political prejudices actually guts the entire normative framework of human rights.There is nothing universal about human rights if some actors can violate them with impunity. What would it mean to exclude Western countries from the ambit of human rights work in the age of Guantanamo, Abu Ghreib, Afghanistan, Iraq, the Gaza siege? Such an inconsistency opens the door to the old accusation that human rights activists have double standards when it comes to Palestine. Bernstein’s arbitrary distinction creates confusion and inconsistency, not clarity.
For that reason Bernstein’s criticism of HRW sounds more like a way of letting Western countries off the hook when it comes to human rights than a way of protecting the integrity of human rights work. With regards to Israel’s cowardly and barbaric attacks in Gaza, Bernstein asserts–once again obscuring his true claims with innuendo–that “there is a difference between wrongs committed in self-defense and those perpetrated intentionally.” Bernstein does not ever tell us what that difference is. Indeed, his circular claim actually defeats itself, as he admits that both kinds of acts can actually be “wrongs”–which is the job human rights researchers are tasked with anyway.
Israel ironically strikes the same tone when it responds to allegations that its military campaigns leave entire populations devastated in violation of international norms. The claim that Israel acts exclusively in self-defense cannot stand, but whether as Bernstein claims there is a difference between self-defense and intentional attack, and whether these are actually mutually exclusive categories, is irrelevant to the question of whether or not a wrong has been committed. The human rights framework must only be concerned with the latter question if it is to have any coherency. Unless Bernstein suggests that the ends always justify the means, thereby eliminating the usefulness of human rights, he actually offers nothing of substance to explain why human rights organizations should turn a blind eye to Israeli crimes. The evidence of Israel’s guilt is mounting, but Bernstein and the Israeli propaganda machine do not even try to rebut it. They simply ask we ignore it.
Bernstein’s plea that we ignore Israeli human rights violations is outrageous, but so too is the historically inaccurate tale he tells about Israel. For example, he blames Hamas and Hizballah for “depriving Palestinians of any chance for the peaceful and productive life they deserve” even though Palestinians were deprived of this “chance” decades before Hamas and Hizballah, which is not Palestinian, even existed. Both of these organizations were created to respond to Zionist violence and dispossession in Palestine and Lebanon. Israel precipitated them. Nevertheless Bernstein characterizes Israel as “the repeated victim of aggression” without providing any historical evidence for his claim. No country in the contemporary Middle East has started as many wars as Israel, nor does any country have so powerful an arsenal that is actively and continuously in use. Yet because Israel falls into Bernstein’s arbitrary category of “open” societies, it should be, by nature, immune from scrutiny by human rights organizations. Such immunity cannot stand if human rights organizations are to have any credibility or if human rights are to exist as more than a tool of imperialist interventionism.
As Bernstein’s example discloses, the idea of human rights has a shadow history of colonial-like attitudes that arbitrarily exclude certain groups and classes of people from their scope. While organizations like Human Rights Watch have taken a new direction, international solidarity activists must continue to ask themselves what the appropriate role of human rights is when it comes to Palestine. Even if we reject Bernstein’s imperial school of thought on human rights, we must still recognize that even the scope of alternative human rights analysis is severely limited. The Palestinian struggle has more grievances than a human rights analysis can address or remedy. Indeed, reports by Human Rights Watch and other organizations demonstrate their insufficiency when they repeatedly create a moral equivalency between Israeli apartheid and Palestinian freedom fighters.
We must therefore keep in mind that, while the evidence convincingly shows that Israel is an egregious violator of Palestinian human rights, that human rights alone are not sufficient for the cause of Palestinian liberation, and that the political solidarity front must be expanded so that it encompasses a discourse far broader than that offered by the human rights project. Any role that human rights will play in a solidarity movement must be transformative of the environment in which it operates, rather than confined by it. By this sense it should be obvious that a solidarity movement has more to contend with than the logistics of US aid to Israel and the Israeli regime, but also all those other discursive and institutional limitations that restrict modes of political mobilization and expression. Many activists and intellectuals restrict themselves to human rights claims when it comes to Palestine because they believe this is the “safest” or most “promising” course of action, but the same environment that produces that situation must also be challenged if a robust solidarity movement is to emerge. Otherwise, we will end up with little more than the corrupt political lobbies and fangless NGOs that we see before us.
However, he does not explain why or how this distinction is functionally useful.
Maybe that's because it's so obvious, Yaman? Reporting on minor violations serves a purpose in societies that for the most part respect human rights. What good does reporting on minor violations such as overcrowded prisons do, in a country that where people don't have any human rights at all? And wouldn't it seem kind of silly to report on such petty things when dissidents are disappearing off the streets, women can't leave their homes without a male escort, thousands of people are imprisoned/executed for political activities, where torture of prisoners just for the hell of it is common, and so on?
And is it really logical to expect Israelis to guarantee the human rights of Arabs, when Arabs aren't even guaranteeing the human rights of Arabs? I mean, sure… that line of reasoning will attract a lot of support in the west, but is it logical? If Arabs really care so much about human rights why aren't they demanding that their own governments respect human rights? Why is it that even Arabs hold Israelis to a higher standard than they do other Arabs?
The distinction is unsound, but even if it wasn't, it is certainly not obvious that HRW should focus only on some human rights violations and cannot pay attention to all of them, regardless of where they occur and who perpetrates them. The morally consistent position is to document these violations every where, and not only in a set of countries according to US foreign policy whims.
Yaman, the distinction is in that some countries care about human rights and are therefore more likely to institute remedies when they get criticized. Other countries have never cared about human rights and never had any intention of respecting them even on the day they signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the first place. A country like Saudi Arabia… what human rights do they respect? I wouldn't even know where to start, if I was going to compile a report. No freedom of religion. No freedom of expression. No freedom to peacefully assemble and express grievances. No freedom of movement. No freedom from discrimination. No freedom from unjust prosecution. No, no, no…. nothing but no. If I loaded up the UDHR right now, I could go down the whole list and find not a single one that is implemented in KSA. Who is being helped when 90% of the press releases from HRW are about Israel? Is Israel really 90% of the problem? Seriously?
Previous comment was about why the double standard on the human rights issue exists. Now on to Bernstein's article about how he thinks HRW has lost sight of its original goal:
Meanwhile, the Arab and Iranian regimes rule over some 350 million people, and most remain brutal, closed and autocratic, permitting little or no internal dissent. The plight of their citizens who would most benefit from the kind of attention a large and well-financed international human rights organization can provide is being ignored as Human Rights Watch’s Middle East division prepares report after report on Israel.
I think that pretty much sums it up, no? Which part are you having difficulty following, Yaman?
Bernstein's claim that HRW ignores other countries in the Middle East is simply false.
See http://www.hrw.org/en/middle-east/n-africa
If HRW's original goal is as Bernstein claims, as a way of penetrating "closed" societies, then it was not about human rights but about being another US effort to infiltrate Soviet countries during the Cold War.
Yaman, it only takes one employee to compile those reports for their website. What matters is what they are spending their money on, to get people on the news and to get stories published. It matters what their reps are talking about when they make the talk show circuits. And it matters where they are sending their high profile fact-finding delegations. If you think the Arab world is in the headlines for human rights violations on a regular basis, you must be watching different news programs than I am!
PS
For that reason Bernstein’s criticism of HRW sounds more like a way of letting Western countries off the hook when it comes to human rights than a way of protecting the integrity of human rights work
You got it exactly backwards, somehow. His argument is that the world's worst human rights offenders are getting a free pass because HRW has launched a politically motivated pogrom against Israel.
How could you have read that article and come to the conclusion you did, Yaman? You completely inverted the meaning. It's impossible for you to have misinterpreted that article more than you did.
Hello Mr. Programmer!
You always seem to have a dumb comment on everything intellectual around here.
I mean like do u get paid by your government-propaganda-machine, for pretending to be stupid.
I'm outta work too, i want to apply and get a job like urs. Plz help.
Yours Sincerely.
You think there's "intellectual" stuff going on around here, Khalid? You can't be serious… unless you spend most of your time watching YouTube videos of kids giving eachother wedgies and such like that? Yeah, I can see how KABOBfest might seem pretty high-brow in comparison…
By the way, Khalid, I think McDonald's has some openings for people with your obvious qualifications.
Thank you buddy for your prompt reply!
McDonalds huh? I guess that's where all dem govt-propaganda-machine's talent-scouts scour for special-abilities ppl like you.
I feel that i can hone my acting-stupid ability into perfection, if i work hard at it. My ganja cash is running out, but i realize that i get a little high by denying myself logic and believe in the absurd. Plz put in a good word for me to your propaganda masters.
ours Sincerely
Did Israel kill over 1400 Palestinians in Gaza, and has it squeezed the living hell out of the people of Gaza since 2006 with the siege? Whether Israel is an "open" or a "closed" society is irrelevant to answering this question. The distinction is fruitless any way because Israel is an "open" society for Jews only (and even this is arguable, look at Ezra Nawi, look at the high school refuseniks, look at the Arab Jews). If you say that Israel is an "open" society and therefore does not need human rights organizations to pay attention, then you have to prove that Israeli institutions have actually held Israeli institutions accountable for the violation of Palestinian human rights. When has that happened?
Did Israel kill over 1400 Palestinians in Gaza, and has it squeezed the living hell out of the people of Gaza since 2006 with the siege?
That's the exact point I was trying to make, Yaman. Why does the world put a higher expectation on Israel to protect the human rights of Arab enemies during a war than it does on Arab governments to protect the human rights of their own Arab citizens during peacetime?
Whether Israel is an "open" or a "closed" society is irrelevant to answering this question.
Oh, I agree with you on that! How Arabs behave towards Arabs has no bearing on how Israel behaves. Israel need sto be held accountable, same as every other government needs to be held accountable. I'm just questioning the focus on Israel to the exclusion of all else. A double standard to some extent is inevitable on the issue of human rights, because some governments are flatly unresponsive to criticism – no matter how much criticism they get. But this is far beyond a mere double standard in my opinion. It's become more like a witch-hunt.
The distinction is fruitless any way because Israel is an "open" society for Jews only (and even this is arguable, look at Ezra Nawi, look at the high school refuseniks, look at the Arab Jews).
Palestinians in the occupied territories are not part of Israeli society, though. And that's where most of the focus of human rights groups has been. I'm not qualified to talk about Israeli society or to even try to assess what is truth and what is fiction when people criticize it, but if HRW was talking about the way Israelis treat eachother, I doubt anyone would be criticizing them for it.
If you say that Israel is an "open" society and therefore does not need human rights organizations to pay attention, then you have to prove that Israeli institutions have actually held Israeli institutions accountable for the violation of Palestinian human rights. When has that happened?
You used the words "Palestinian" and "Israeli". Are Palestinians part of israeli society? Are Israelis part of Palestinian society? If the answer is no, then what difference does it make (on THIS issue) whether that society is open or not? Seems like a straw man, to me.
I'm not sure if its better to act dumb or to act smart, Khalid. For the McDonald's gig I'd say go with the gangsta routine because your manager prolly won't even speak much English and he'll fire your ass if you use words he doesn't understand. If you wanna fit in on KABOBfest, it's best to use words with a lot of syllables even if you don't know what they mean. It makes you sound more legit as an activist. Yaman can help you with that one. Yaman can prolly help you with the McDonald's thing too, actually.
Human Rights Watch had as its original mission to pry open closed societies, advocate basic freedoms and support dissenters. But recently it has been issuing reports on the Israeli-Arab conflict that are helping those who wish to turn Israel into a pariah state.
The Middle East 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.
Yaman – obsessing over Israel while ignoring all the other more egregious violations of human rights in the region just makes you seem like a hypocrite, and exposes your bias caused by your hatred of Israel.
…the Arab and Iranian regimes rule over some 350 million people, and most remain brutal, closed and autocratic, permitting little or no internal dissent. The plight of their citizens who would most benefit from the kind of attention a large and well-financed international human rights organization can provide is being ignored as Human Rights Watch’s Middle East division prepares report after report on Israel.
Human Rights Watch has lost critical perspective on a conflict in which Israel has been repeatedly attacked by Hamas and Hezbollah, organizations that go after Israeli citizens and use their own people as human shields. These groups are supported by the government of Iran, which has openly declared its intention not just to destroy Israel but to murder Jews everywhere. This incitement to genocide is a violation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
Leaders of Human Rights Watch know that Hamas and Hezbollah chose to wage war from densely populated areas, deliberately transforming neighborhoods into battlefields. They know that more and better arms are flowing into both Gaza and Lebanon and are poised to strike again. And they know that this militancy continues to deprive Palestinians of any chance for the peaceful and productive life they deserve. Yet Israel, the repeated victim of aggression, faces the brunt of Human Rights Watch’s criticism.
Yaman – the New York Times article is very coherent. Unlike what you've written, it makes perfect sense.
You have created an imaginary strategy that you attribute to the article that simply isn't there. And contrary to what you suggest, Bernstein does not suggest that Israeli human rights abuses should be overlooked – nowhere does he suggest that – in fact he says, "At Human Rights Watch, we always recognized that open, democratic societies have faults and commit abuses." Obviously, you have lied or else you have serious cognitive problems.
Your blatantly false reference to "Bernstein’s plea that we ignore Israeli human rights violations" which you build upon actually negates most of your points, because they are built upon a falsehood. Bernstein in no way suggests that either Israel or western countries should be "off the hook" for any human rights abuses. (You should take a look at the HRW website).
Drawing a sharp line between the democratic and nondemocratic worlds is wise, because as Bernstein points out – open, democratic societies have the ability to correct faults through vigorous public debate, an adversarial press and many other mechanisms that encourage reform. That is something that nondemocratic societies do not enjoy.
Obviously your over-arching hatred of Israel dominates all of your attitudes and reasoning, and makes it difficult if not impossible for you to comprehend this: the Arab and Iranian regimes rule over some 350 million people, and most remain brutal, closed and autocratic, permitting little or no internal dissent. The plight of their citizens who would most benefit from the kind of attention a large and well-financed international human rights organization can provide is being ignored as Human Rights Watch’s Middle East division prepares report after report on Israel.
Great article, Yaman. Bernstein's screed is standard-issue, boilerplate Israeli apologetics advancing the usual lies, distortions and canards that have already been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked. It is primitive enough in its illogic, hysteria and naked assertions to have been written by a high school intern on Netanyahu's staff, though one possessed of a galling cynicism few high-schoolers are jaded enough or mendacious enough to evince on que. It is perhaps persuasive to those still uninformed and gullible enough to have any faith in the the New York Times as an unbiased and objective source, but I can't imagine any intelligent person, even many Zionists, really believe the half of it.
There is another great article on Palestine Chronicle debunking Bernstein's analysis:
"Implying that Israel acts with proportion and in self-defense and that the Palestinians are the aggressors, Bernstein declares that "there is a difference between wrongs committed in self-defense and those perpetrated intentionally." It takes true intellectual discipline to read these words without breaking into laughter–or tears. Israel is the military occupier and has been for over forty years. By definition, Israel is the aggressor. How can Israel claim to be defending itself while it is militarily occupying other people's lands? By any reasonable standard, one could not call what Israel does "self-defense."
And while Gaza is still considered "occupied territory" by all relevant observers, the illegal economic blockade is considered to be "an act of war" under international law. What are the Palestinians supposed to do? Does Israel have a moral ‘right’ to impose illegal collective punishment on the Palestinians in Gaza?"
http://www.palestinechronicle.com/view_article_de...
I would also strongly suggest reading the Heathlander's analysis of the Goldstone report. It really breaks down in detail the sheer absurdity of Israel's claims that it avoided civilian casualties.
In fact, reports the Commission, the targeting of industrial sites, water installations, houses, government buildings and other civilian infrastructure was “deliberate and systematic”. The report investigates several cases in detail – the “direct” and “intentional” shelling of Al-Quds hospital with white phosphorous shells; the “intense artillery attacks”, including the use of white phosphorous shells, on Al Wafa hospital; a flechette attack on a crowd of family and neighbours in a condolence tent; the destruction of Gaza’s only working flour mill “for the purposes of denying sustenance to the civilian population”; the “systematic”, “deliberate” and “wanton” destruction of chicken coops housing tens of thousands of chickens, which supplied over 10% of Gaza’s egg market; the “deliberate and premeditated” attack on a sewage lagoon; etc. – and places them in context of “a broader pattern of destruction”, which included the destruction of 280 schools and kindergartens, the “intensive shelling” of residential neighbourhoods “in the absence of any link to combat”, the repeated targeting of hospitals and ambulances, the “systematic destruction of civilian buildings”, the “widespread destruction of private residential houses, water wells and water tanks”, the repeated “intentional attacks on civilians”, the “systematically reckless” use of white phosphorous in densely populated civilian areas, and the wilfull destruction of “a substantial part” of Gaza’s economic infrastructure, including hundreds of factories (17 of 27 cement factories were reportedly destroyed or damaged), nearly one-fifth of Gaza’s greenhouses, its only cement packaging plant and its largest private fish farm (killing 20,000 fish in the process). It has been estimated that in total some 15% of buildings in Gaza were destroyed.
http://heathlander.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/golds...
Sorry, this time without the typos:
However, he does not explain why or how this distinction is functionally useful.
Yeah, I have to agree with Craig, the functionally utility of Bernstein's distinction is pretty obvious: To wage the propaganda war by criticizing enemy states and systems while self-righteously brandishing the mantle of human rights defender. The Cold War-era hypocrisy, of course, was stunning given the magnitude of US crimes around the globe–millions killed by American munitions in Vietnam, for example. But as Bernstein notes, "The organization [HRW] is expressly concerned mainly with how wars are fought, not with motivations." So, as long as you kill the 'right' way it doesn't matter so much if you do it for Empire (or for Jewish supremacy).
Why does the world put a higher expectation on Israel to protect the human rights of Arab enemies during a war than it does on Arab governments to protect the human rights of their own Arab citizens during peacetime?
I not so sure that's true but it would make some sense because Israel and its backers constantly trumpet their claims to be a modern Western democracy that honors it human rights obligations and Israel's is so dependent on Western backing–he who pays the piper calls the tune, ya know. Personally, though, I wouldn't mind if HRW adopted a much more aggressive policy of criticizing Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and all the other US-backed repressive, Zionist- ollaborationist regimes in the ME. A US-based human rights group ought to focus on the crimes of those regimes as they are facilitated by the US but it's not likely that US gov't and the MSM would give that stuff much air play. Same thing happened in the Cold War era–the crimes of repressive US allies, e.g. Suharto in Indonesia, somehow just weren't as outrageous and deserving of public denunciation as the crimes of enemy states. Chomsky and Herman have documented that history well.
Are Palestinians part of israeli society?
"Palestinian" is the self-descriptive term preferred by a majority or a plurality of the Arab citizens of Israel. Millions of other Palestinians live under direct and indirect control of Israel in the occupied territories where the obligations as an occupying power adhere to Israel. So, yeah, Palestinians are forcibly (for the most part) part of Israeli society.
Good post, Yaman.
The comment that Yaman has no answer for!
Yaman – the New York Times article is very coherent. It is well written, and makes perfect sense.
You have created an imaginary "strategy" that you attribute to the article that simply isn't there. And contrary to what you suggest, Bernstein does not suggest that Israeli human rights abuses should be overlooked – nowhere does he suggest that – in fact he says, "At Human Rights Watch, we always recognized that open, democratic societies have faults and commit abuses." Obviously, you have lied or else you have serious cognitive problems.
Your blatantly false reference to "Bernstein’s plea that we ignore Israeli human rights violations" which you build upon actually negates most of your points, because they are built upon a falsehood. Bernstein in no way suggests that either Israel or western countries should be "off the hook" for any human rights abuses.
Drawing a sharp line between the democratic and nondemocratic worlds is wise, because as Bernstein points out – open, democratic societies have the ability to correct faults through vigorous public debate, an adversarial press and many other mechanisms that encourage reform. That is something that nondemocratic societies do not have, so they are lacking those components and apparatus that can function to rectify human rights abuses.
Obviously your over-arching hatred of Israel dominates all of your attitudes and reasoning, and makes it difficult if not impossible for you to comprehend this….:
the Arab and Iranian regimes rule over some 350 million people, and most remain brutal, closed and autocratic, permitting little or no internal dissent. The plight of their citizens who would most benefit from the kind of attention a large and well-financed international human rights organization can provide is being ignored as Human Rights Watch’s Middle East division prepares report after report on Israel.
Can you please provide us with examples of Israeli human rights violations in Gaza that have been remedied in a way that obviates the need for groups like Human Rights Watch to pay attention?
– human rights violations in Gaza –
Hamas rockets a war crime: Human Rights Watch
"Hamas forces violated the laws of war both by firing rockets deliberately and indiscriminately at Israeli cities and by launching them from populated areas and endangering Gazan civilians," HRW programme director Iain Levine said.
Gaza/Israel: Hamas Rocket Attacks on Civilians Unlawful
Launches from Populated Areas Endanger Israelis and Palestinians
Hamas Pulling Back Into Crowded Cities, Beckoning Israelis
Hamas 'harming Gaza opponents'
A rights group has accused Palestinian organisation Hamas of killing or maiming alleged collaborators and political opponents in Gaza.
"Hamas forces in Gaza have engaged in abductions, unlawful killings, torture and death threats against those they accuse of 'collaborating' with Israel," says the report.
It says the same violence has been inflicted on "opponents and critics" of the Hamas administration.
Many witnesses and victims are said to be too frightened to come forward.
But one victim told investigators how he had been taken from his home by masked men and shot in both legs.
Some of those killed are said to have been shot dead while receiving hospital treatment.
Amnesty has called for an end to the violence and is urging the Hamas leadership to set up an independent commission to look into its allegations.
No one is suggesting that HRW should stop paying attention to Israel, or anyone else for that matter…. the problem is the syndrome of focusing exclusively on Israel to the detriment of investigating – or the brushing over of – the Palestinian side of the equation.
On Oct 20, HRW sent a Letter to Prime Minister Haniya about conducting credible investigations into serious laws-of-war violations by Palestinian forces.
Concerning the mechanisms of an open democracy dealing with these issues… naturally it will not all happen immediately – but the process is working:
Israel mulls Gaza probes review
Israel is considering a review of its internal military inquiries which cleared troops of alleged war crimes in last winter's offensive in Gaza.
Israel to review its own Gaza war probe: source
Israel govt team to examine UN Gaza war report fallout
Israel considers new Gaza inquiry
You are not making sense. You sai the problem is focusing exclusively on Israel but HRW does not focus exclusively on Israel. That is a blatant lie, and you are inattentive enough to disprove that statement yourself in the next sentence: "HRW sent a letter to prime minister Haniyah about… serious laws of war violations by Palestinian forces."
I did not make the statement that "HRW focuses exclusively on Israel."
I will indulge you in splitting hairs for a moment, but we are losing the point…
Here is what I stated: "the problem is the syndrome of focusing exclusively on Israel to the detriment of investigating – or the brushing over of – the Palestinian side of the equation."
Let me explain to you what that means… It means producing report after report on Israel, dedicating most of the time and resources to every detail possible at the expense of investigating the Palestinian issues any further than issuing a broad report about rockets.
So you see, the criticisms being raised are that Palestinian crimes are being brushed over, with references being made only to the rocket-fire and ignoring everything else.
Concerning the letter to Haniya, let's see how well his kind deal with these human rights issues. We shall see.
Maybe HRW produces reports proportional to the deaths caused by the relevant parties.
Deaths caused by Israel: 1400 ( half of which were women and children )
Deaths caused by Hamas: 20 (including IDF soldiers)
That's probably why your country has to deal with these horrifying reports.
Whenever there is a war, the weaker losing side has more casualties. What do you think would happen if Cuba launched rockets into the U.S.? Who do you think would have more casualties?
Israel is the superior military power. It was a crime for Hamas to attack them with rockets and then hide behind civilians.
Hamas Pulling Back Into Crowded Cities, Beckoning Israelis
For Hamas — an Iranian-backed movement that has no formal army but has committed itself to attacking Israel with whatever weapons it can muster — the objective is to survive and to show the world that it continues to engage. Even though Hamas fighters largely have avoided battling Israeli soldiers, they keep firing rockets into southern Israel.
More than before, however, the rockets are now coming from the cities and the refugee camps, where most of Gaza's 1.5 million people live.
Israel accuses Hamas of deliberately attacking from populated areas to drive up civilian casualty figures and stoke anger toward Israel in the Muslim world.
They say, 'We're fighting among our people for our people's freedom,' " said Nassar Ibrahim, a Palestinian journalist based in Bethlehem who does not belong to Hamas.
…the movement's leadership, which has been in hiding since before the offensive began, remains.
\\\\ Israel is the superior military power. It was a crime for Hamas to attack them with rockets and then hide behind civilians. \\\\
Its was and still is a crime to lay siege on a population with a democratically elected government, while refusing to negotiate a truce. Systematically crippling the economy, health and security of whole populations. This is a war crime.
Knowledge is the Light.
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45350
So that somehow justifies firing rockets, attacking a neighbor, and hiding behind civilians
U.N. assembly to debate Goldstone report on Gaza war
Also Yaman, take a look at THIS
(Goldstone was misspelled Goldstein)
Amnesty International accuses Israel of limiting water to Palestinians in the West Bank. If this is true, Israel must not do this… and those of us in the free world will expect our leaders to pressure Israel to stop doing this.
And in Gaza, Israel must not limit access to water. That is unacceptable.