Use of civilians as human shields is widely considered a war crime.

Who the hell doesn't consider the use of human shields to be a war crime?

Guess we're gonna find out.

Be Well.

"Who the hell doesn't consider the use of human shields to be a war crime?
Guess we're gonna find out."

I literally LOL'd in and effort to protect myself from the shocking truth of that statement.

in an effort...

I literally LOL'd in and effort to protect myself from the shocking truth of that statement.

Even the AIPAC crowd are leaving this one alone.

Wotever happened to GZ, btw?

Did the cheques stop clearing?

Be Well.

Muslims do this all the time.

Muslims do this...

Yeah, Spud knows.

"Wotever happened to GZ, btw?"

Sometimes I wonder if he wasn't reborn in Sully.

Just kidding, Sully.

Disgusting and inexcusable behavior by the two soldiers and good on Israel for not only charging them, but not covering this up.

"Muslims do this all the time."

Agreed. But I think a significant difference is that they use their own children.

In this story, the soldiers used a Palestinian.

An added outrage.

Yes, good on Israel. I will stand up and applaud them wholeheartedly when appropriate punishment is levied.

Me too Hag. This is beyond disgusting. We condemn the Palestinians for doing this.

Disgusting and inexcusable behavior by the two soldiers and good on Israel for not only charging them, but not covering this up.

Good points. Agreed.

In this story, the soldiers used a Palestinian.

An added outrage.

Also a good point.

Be Well.

Odd that the Israelis can have an in house debate on their country's behavior towards the Palestinians while in the USA it is either muzzled, or those who criticize are automatically portrayed as anti-Semites.

It would be highly interesting to see how brave the IDF would be if they were forced to confront a real army with an air force, tanks, and artillery instead of always bullying kids with slingshots and using them as shields.

"Who the hell doesn't consider the use of human shields to be a war crime?"

Not they are unique in this regard but Hamas and Hezbollah use their own people as human shields all the time. If you put a rocket position on top of an apartment building in a crowded residential area the reason why is pretty obvious.

The notion of "war crimes" is a little absurd to me in the first place, to be honest. If you are losing a war and the consequences for losing are severe but you could equalize things by using chemical weapons against enemy troops, how is using those weapons a crime or even unethical? I would find it more unethical to allow your own troops to be slaughtered and your people to be subjugated due to your refusal to use weapons that would save lives on your side strictly out of fear of being tried for war crimes.

Putting rules on any kind of fight almost always favors the more powerful side. War is supposed to be nasty. The notion of "war crimes" was invented by people who won a war and wanted to execute their vanquished enemies "legally". Reality is that what is appropriate during a war is completely a matter of personal perspective. At one time guerilla warfare was looked at as somehow unethical by countries who had large powerful armies. Why? Because it equalled the playing field a bit.

That said, there is no need for Israelis to be using Palestinian kids to check for booby traps and I hope these guys face severe consquences.

Several years ago this was SOP for the IDF. Anyone remember all the cable news stories of human shields being used?

Israel also operates a blackmarket in human organs, shooting Paletinian teenagers, harvesting their organs and forwarding them to Mayors and Rabbis in New JErsey that distribute them for a fee.

Nutcase is sounding a whole lot like JeffnD today.

It would be highly interesting to see how brave the IDF would be if they were forced to confront a real army with an air force, tanks, and artillery instead of always bullying kids with slingshots and using them as shields.

#13 | Posted by Robson

Well said.

"It would be highly interesting to see how brave the IDF would be if they were forced to confront a real army with an air force, tanks, and artillery instead of always bullying kids with slingshots and using them as shields."

It is more interesting that you don't know that they've already beaten real armies with tanks and such numerous times. At one point, they were even the lightly armed guerillas fighting larger, better equipped armies, they won.

The reason why they are now facing lightly armed idiots is that these are the only people who refuse to admit they lost the previous wars. Nobody who is in a position to control real armies wants to lose all their equipment getting their asses kicked by Israel - again.

"Well said."

LOL. Factually incorrect, but well said.

Another deterrent would be all the weapons we keep giving them.

Israel has publicly called them out on this and (hopefully) will bring down the hammer to make clear it is unacceptable.

Anyone using the actions of these sick people to generalize about Israel is really just grabbing any excuse spew hatred for a country they don't like.
There was no coverup or secret order to do this. It was a criminal act, and is now being prosecuted accordingly.

Saying otherwise would be the equivalent to saying the crazy bastard (& US Army Major) in the Fort Worth shooting spree proves how disgusting all Americans are.

Prior to 2002 THIS WAS STANDARD OPERATION PROCEDURE for the IDF. They got caught too many times by cable news cameras and had to get a supreme court decision to make the cowardly fuckers stop doing it.

Good on them for following their laws. Too bad it took the light of public exposure to get them to pass the law, though.

Obama has others start and drive his cars for him for the same reason.

So turnabout isn't fair play? I mean, Hamas et. al. has been using children and women as human shields for ages.

There was no coverup

Yeah, well, that's because there's fucking video of it on YouTube.

I mean, Hamas et. al. has been using children and women as human shields for ages.

And the Israelis kill them anyway.

At one time guerrilla warfare was looked at as somehow unethical by countries who had large powerful armies. Why? Because it equalled the playing field a bit.

True that.

During America's revolutionary war the Brits were a bit taken aback by American guerrilla tactics.

Be Well.

"Muslims do this all the time.

#5 | Posted by mysterytoy"

Dumb fuck, does this also mean Christians rape and sodomize children all the time since a number of priests have remnants of digested PBJ sandwiches sticking to their dicks?

You are one stereotypical meat muppet.

I mean, Hamas et. al. has been using children and women as human shields for ages.

And the Israelis kill them anyway.

#29 | Posted by Ray at 2010-03-13 05:32 AM | Reply
--------------

Yep. Happens when you make war a bit more family oriented. Hell, Hamas et al kill them without the Israelis. Have a daughter who shows a little too much wrist and you could be stoning her the next day.

Still waiting for your counterpoint. Two wrongs don't make a right.

"Who the hell doesn't consider the use of human shields to be a war crime?"

Don't really need to wait to find out, Hamas. But the real question, for the left is, you didn't care about these children before, why now? If it obviously is a war crime, why isn't Hamas being held to the same standard?

BTW I think if they are found guilty, they should throw these guys in prison for... oh say 20years.

"They got caught too many times by cable news cameras and had to get a supreme court decision to make the cowardly fuckers stop doing it." - homophobe

It was not SOP.

Nor was it a "supreme court" decision, it was the IDF policy decision, after HumanRights groups petitioned the High Court of Justice.

I WAS standard operating procedure. The Supreme Court descision took 4 years to get the cowardly fucks to finally put a stop to it.

And it was cable news coverage of the practice that finally got the Israeli human rights groups to protest loudly enough and sue to get the case before the Supreme Court. The IDF FOUGHT THE CASE WANTING TO KEEP USING HUMAN SHIELDS right up to the end.

Get your facts straight before you defend these cowards.

Timeline of events

* April 2002 - During Operation Defensive Shield, soldiers greatly increase the use of Palestinians as human shields.

* May 2002 - Seven human rights organizations petition the High Court of Justice against the use of Palestinians as human shields. The IDF informs the court that it will stop using civilians for military tasks, except for the "neighbor procedure."

* August 2002 - Nidal Abu Mukhsan is killed while serving as a human shield during implementation of the "neighbor procedure." Following another petition filed by the human rights organizations, the court issues a temporary injunction forbidding the IDF to use the procedure. Soldiers continue to use it.

* November 2002 - B'Tselem publishes a report that describes five cases in which soldiers violated the court's order. The petitioners file an application in accordance with the Contempt of Court Ordinance.

* December 2002 The State files its response to the Court, in which it contends that the army is no longer using Palestinians as human shields but only "is assisted by residents to prevent the loss of life." The State attaches the "prior warning procedure," which is intended to replace the "neighbor procedure." According to the new procedure, "assistance" by civilians is allowed if, in the judgment of the military commander in the field, the life of the "person giving assistance" is not endangered, provided that the individual consents. In reply, the human rights organizations contend that the new procedure is unlawful and that it is incorrect to state that such "assistance" does not endanger the person's life. The petitioners include testimonies relating to cases in which civilians were used as human shields after the High Court issued the temporary injunction.

* January 2003 - The High Court of Justice reduces the temporary injunction, and allows use of the "prior warning procedure." At the request of the High Court, the human rights organizations file a legal opinion stating that the procedure is unlawful. The IDF has not yet responded to the petitioners' arguments. In the meanwhile, it implements the "prior warning procedure."

* July 2003 The High Court hears the petition of the human rights organizations, in which the parties argue the legality of the "prior warning procedure" and the application to hold the respondent in contempt of court, which was filed after the IDF continued to use human shields. The High Court extends the validity of the temporary injunction until further order.

* April 2004 The human rights organizations file an application with the High Court for a temporary order directing the IDF to refrain from using Palestinians as human shields and/or hostages, and to forbid the IDF from asking them to take part in any military action, or to use them in any such action, without exception and without army officials having any discretion in the matter. The petitioners attach testimonies and affidavits relating to additional cases, dating from December 2003 to April 2004, in which civilians were used as human shields.

* August 2004 On 16 August 2004, Adalah files an application requesting that the Court order the IDF, in accordance with the Contempt of Court Ordinance, to comply with the High Court's order prohibiting it from using individuals as human shields or hostages in military operations. The application also requests that the High Court impose a fine on the military authorities.
In its application, Adalah contends that the IDF is continuing to violate the High Court prohibition on the use of human shields. Attached to the application are eight new testimonies, which were given to B'Tselem, involving cases in which the IDF used Palestinians as human shields or hostages between the period January-July 2004.

* September 2004 On 5 September 2004, the High Court hears the petition filed by Adalah in May 2002 against the use of Palestinians as human shields or hostages. Supreme Court President Aharon Barak criticizes the "prior warning procedure," which replaced the "neighbor procedure," and urges the IDF to forego use of the procedure, on the grounds that the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits the use of local residents in military actions by the occupying army. In his comments, President Barak says that, "Out of one hundred cases in which the neighbor willingly helps the army, ninety-nine of them will be against his will. It is very hard to verify willingness, and the fear is that, when a contingent of soldier come at night, out of fear no neighbor will refuse to cooperate with the soldiers." The High Court announces that it will give it decision at a later time.

* October 2005 On 6 October 2005, the High Court of Justice rules that it is illegal for the IDF to use Palestinian civilians during military actions and that it is forbidden to use the prior warning procedure.

* 2007 Despite the High Court's decision and army orders preceding and following it, security forces continue to use Palestinians as human shields. In 2007, B'Tselem documented twelve such cases. For example, in February, soldiers forced two Palestinian minors, aged 11 and 15, to accompany them in combing houses and opening the doors to the houses and the rooms. In July, a 14-year-old girl from Beit Hanun, in the northern Gaza Strip, was shot in the leg and stomach when soldiers used her as a human shield.

* October 2007 The Judge Advocate General decides not to prosecute the commander of IDF forces in the West Bank, Brig.-Gen. Yair Golan, who in five cases ordered use of the "prior-warning procedure." The JAG suffices with a light disciplinary punishment. This decision transmits a message of contempt for Palestinian life and the High Court.

This internet thingy sure is inconvenient for you IDF aplogists, isn't it?

Can ANY of you even imagine in your sickest daydreams a squad of US Marines cowering behind a fourteen year old girl in a firefight?

This is what you are defending when you say the IDF stopped using human shields in 2002.

Odd that the Israelis can have an in house debate on their country's behavior towards the Palestinians while in the USA it is either muzzled, or those who criticize are automatically portrayed as anti-Semites.
It would be highly interesting to see how brave the IDF would be if they were forced to confront a real army with an air force, tanks, and artillery instead of always bullying kids with slingshots and using them as shields.
#13 | Posted by Robson at 2010-03-12 12:21 PM

AIPAC should be dissolved and all of it's members sent back to Israel. Netanyahu has been mocking Vice President Biden publicly while this embarrassing barbarism continues. Fundamentalism is a disease and Israel is attempting to be contagious - which is a slap in the face to anyone promoting actual peace with the Palestinians.

Palestine doesn't have an organized military to my knowledge - just Hamas, which we now know is acting on behalf of Israel. Reminding me very distinctly that we have our own Israeli inside of American government who operate as neo-conservatives. Excise them immediately, just as we should Nazi.