UN Bias: Rapporteur Slams Israel

Today, The Jerusalem Post reported:

There is evidence that Israel committed war crimes during its 22-day campaign in the Gaza Strip and there should be an independent inquiry, UN investigator Richard Falk said Thursday.

The mental anguish of the civilians who suffered the assault is so great that the entire population of Gaza could be seen as casualties, said Falk, U.N. special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip...

"To lock people into a war zone is something that evokes the worst kind of international memories of the Warsaw Ghetto, and sieges that occur unintentionally during a period of wartime," Falk, who is Jewish, said, referring to the starvation and murder of Warsaw's Jews by Nazi Germany in World War Two.

Several points:

1) Falk's shrill commentary again affirms the UN's decided tilt in favor of the Hamas terrorist organization. Israel should continue to bar his entry into areas under its control.

2) Falk's stretching circumstances to allege a "war crime" against all of Gaza's civilian population not only ignores Hamas' human shielding (an actual war crime), but invents a class of "war crime" that simply does not exist in international law e.g., there is no provision under the Fourth Geneva Convention that makes unintended "mental anguish" a war crime. The much more rigorous standard applies to "Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health." Falk's argument is baseless for several reasons. First, there is no evidence that Israel deliberately intended to inflict suffering on Gaza's civilian population. Second, there is no evidence that all of Gaza's civilians have experienced "great suffering, or serious injury to body or health" strictly on account of Israel. In short, Mr. Falk engages in the kind of activism that undermines the basic principles of international law.

3) Falk's repugnant comparison to the Warsaw ghetto is par for the course. He has made it a habit to discount the truly horrific nature of the Holocaust and the Nazis' practices in alleging Israeli equivalence. He has accused Israel of engaging in "a Holocaust in the making" while ignoring the context in which Israel was limiting aid to humanitarian assistance to the Gaza Strip.

In the end, Mr. Falk's sweeping allegations have no basis in international law or fact. They only highlight the UN's partiality when it comes to the Middle East and the reality that the UN is a forum for waging the conflict through diplomatic means rather than trying to resolve it.

donsutherland1 said:

Today, The Jerusalem Post reported:

There is evidence that Israel committed war crimes during its 22-day campaign in the Gaza Strip and there should be an independent inquiry, UN investigator Richard Falk said Thursday.

The mental anguish of the civilians who suffered the assault is so great that the entire population of Gaza could be seen as casualties, said Falk, U.N. special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip...

"To lock people into a war zone is something that evokes the worst kind of international memories of the Warsaw Ghetto, and sieges that occur unintentionally during a period of wartime," Falk, who is Jewish, said, referring to the starvation and murder of Warsaw's Jews by Nazi Germany in World War Two.

Several points:

1) Falk's shrill commentary again affirms the UN's decided tilt in favor of the Hamas terrorist organization. Israel should continue to bar his entry into areas under its control.

2) Falk's stretching circumstances to allege a "war crime" against all of Gaza's civilian population not only ignores Hamas' human shielding (an actual war crime), but invents a class of "war crime" that simply does not exist in international law e.g., there is no provision under the Fourth Geneva Convention that makes unintended "mental anguish" a war crime. The much more rigorous standard applies to "Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health." Falk's argument is baseless for several reasons. First, there is no evidence that Israel deliberately intended to inflict suffering on Gaza's civilian population. Second, there is no evidence that all of Gaza's civilians have experienced "great suffering, or serious injury to body or health" strictly on account of Israel. In short, Mr. Falk engages in the kind of activism that undermines the basic principles of international law.

3) Falk's repugnant comparison to the Warsaw ghetto is par for the course. He has made it a habit to discount the truly horrific nature of the Holocaust and the Nazis' practices in alleging Israeli equivalence. He has accused Israel of engaging in "a Holocaust in the making" while ignoring the context in which Israel was limiting aid to humanitarian assistance to the Gaza Strip.

In the end, Mr. Falk's sweeping allegations have no basis in international law or fact. They only highlight the UN's partiality when it comes to the Middle East and the reality that the UN is a forum for waging the conflict through diplomatic means rather than trying to resolve it.

Click to expand...

Are you seriously saying that the UN is biased because they said they wanted an independent inquiry :shock:

Oh yeah, everything that criticizes Israel is "biased", "dishonest" or "antisemite"

Funny how the UN is not "biased" anymore when it is favorable to Israel

bub said:

Are you seriously saying that the UN is biased because they said they wanted an independent inquiry...

Click to expand...

Not at all, Bub. In an earlier message I stated:

Personally, I would have no objection if an ad hoc independent team of experts was assembled, perhaps under the auspices of the Madrid Quartet to provide an accurate assessment of casualties, with the consensus findings being published afterward. Entities such as UNRWA, UNHRC, UNOCHA, etc., that took decided tilt toward one of the parties should be excluded. My guess is that Hamas would reject any objective, independent examination.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/middl...far-fewer-casualites-gaza.html#post1057894825

Oh yeah, everything that criticizes Israel is "biased", "dishonest" or "antisemite"

Click to expand...

Two things:

1. I never mentioned anti-semitism.
2. The issue is that Mr. Falk's lack of objectivity. In the article I cited, he is literally inventing principles of international law that have no foundation in the Geneva Conventions in a bid to place virtually all the responsibility for the consequences of the conflict on Israel. He omits Hamas' aggression. He omits Hamas' human shielding. He seeks to deny Israel of its inherent right of self-defense even as self-defense is a long-standing principle of international law and is specifically mentioned in Article 51 of the UN Charter.

bub said:

Are you seriously saying that the UN is biased because they said they wanted an independent inquiry :shock:

Click to expand...

Errrr...did you read the OP? don states quite clearly the reasons why he believes Falk to be biased. That wasn't one of them

Don just can't stand it when anyone 'tells it like it is'. "Shoot the messenger, that lying dog, for he refuses to use the only Truthspeak that we permit the world to use with reference to our good, holy, divinely-inspired selves".

"And what's worse, this anti-semite is a self-hating, traitorous Jew!"

"Stone him, that he remain not an abomination is the eyes of Our own particular G*D!!"

Jakers said:

Don just can't stand it when anyone 'tells it like it is'. "Shoot the messenger, that lying dog, for he refuses to use the only Truthspeak that we permit the world to use with reference to our good, holy, divinely-inspired selves".

Click to expand...

It's not my problem that the Geneva Conventions and other instruments that define war crimes explicitly state that such acts must be "willful" and that the gravity of harm to health and body must be serious, which rules out mere "mental anguish." That those who make the anti-Israel case must invent principles that do not exist in the instruments of international law only highlights the weakness of the allegations they advance.

"And what's worse, this anti-semite is a self-hating, traitorous Jew!"

"Stone him, that he remain not an abomination is the eyes of Our own particular G*D!!"

Click to expand...

I made no such comments. I did not accuse Mr. Falk of anti-semitism. Hence, the quotes you expressed have nothing to do with my message. The manufactured quotes only create noise aimed at evading the reality that Mr. Falk's charges have no connection to the standards set forth in the international instruments that define war crimes. The evasion is likely attempted precisely because the above-noted reality renders his allegations completely without merit.

donsutherland1 said:

It's not my problem that the Geneva Conventions and other instruments that define war crimes explicitly state that such acts must be "willful" and that the gravity of harm to health and body must be serious, which rules out mere "mental anguish." That those who make the anti-Israel case must invent principles that do not exist in the instruments of international law only highlights the weakness of the allegations they advance.

Click to expand...

First, the Israeli blockade, and then invasion, was and is "willful". Or have you somehow convinced yourself that blockades and wars are mere accidents? No doubt you believe that carpet or cluster or fire bombing heavily populated area is not a 'warm crime' because the bombers were only aiming at 'armed combatants' , and so the children who were blown up, torn apart, or fried alive during bombardment, as well as after bombardment, in the case of cluster bombs and randomly scattered land mines, etc.

Look uo wiki on warcrimes and crimes against humantity. Here's a taste, from Wiki--

"War crimes are defined in the statute that established the International Criminal Court, which includes:

1. Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, such as:
1. Willful killing, or causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
2. Torture or inhumane treatment
3. Unlawful wanton destruction or appropriation of property
4. Forcing a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of a hostile power
5. Depriving a prisoner of war of a fair trial
6. Unlawful deportation, confinement or transfer
7. Taking hostages
2. The following acts as part of an international conflict:
1. Directing attacks against civilians
2. Directing attacks against humanitarian workers or UN peacekeepers
3. Killing a surrendered combatant
4. Misusing a flag of truce
5. Settlement of occupied territory
6. Deportation of inhabitants of occupied territory
7. Using poison weapons
8. Using civilians as shields
9. Using child soldiers
3. The following acts as part of a non-international conflict:
1. Murder, cruel or degrading treatment and torture
2. Directing attacks against civilians, humanitarian workers or UN peacekeepers
3. Taking hostages
4. Summary execution
5. Pillage
6. Rape, sexual slavery, forced prostitution or forced pregnancy."

Don't play the Philadelphia lawyer to cover up the actual evil done by Israelis to the people of Gaza, both in the blockade and the invasion.

However the court only has jurisdiction over these crimes where they are "part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes" [5]

Click to expand...

Blockades and invasions fit that description perfectly. Which why both Israel and the USA have exempted themselves and their troops from from prosecution for such crimes under international laws and treaties and conventions.

Second, what has been done to the non-combatant Gazan population, including young children, was no confined to "mental anguish" There's plenty of physical anguish and death to observe, provided your eyes are open and you don't have your Zionist "divine entitlement, we can do no wrong" blinkers on.

Third, mental anguish, at least in most places at the beginning of the 21st century, is taken very seriously by most people. We no longer accuse people of 'shirking' when they suffer from what is now recognised as "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder". Particularly when it is children who, having been caught up in a nightmare, are no condemned to re-live it, day and night, eyes open or closed.

Your attempt to minimize the damage done to the Gazans[?] and sugar-coat the motives and methods of the Israelis is, to say the least, sickening.

I made no such comments.

Click to expand...

I did not accuse you, personally, of making those exact statements. I was quoting the Zionist/Israeli spin-doctors in general. I did not mean for it to appear that I was attributing the quoted words to your post. I did not expect that anyone would think that I had done so. But since you have chosen to do so, I will be more careful about the way I phrase the standaed Israeli/Zionist position, in future. Maybe I'll skip a space, or start a new para. Would that suit you?

I did not accuse Mr. Falk of anti-semitism.

Click to expand...

Others have accused him , and others like him, of so-being. They've done it more times than can be counted, even here in this discussion board. Even when the accused 'anti-semite' is them self a Jew. In fact, the word that used to send "liberals" looking for places to hide, "anti-semite", is now rightfully waved off with scorn. Overuse has turned it into a pathetic joke.

The manufactured quotes only create noise aimed at evading the reality that Mr. Falk's charges have no connection to the standards set forth in the international instruments that define war crimes. The evasion is likely attempted precisely because the above-noted reality renders his allegations completely without merit.

Click to expand...

The reality, i.e., the truth, is that what Mr. Falk said very much connects Israeli behaviour wrt Gaza [and the rest of Palestine, come right down to it], is entirely in keeping with both the letter and the spirit of what the world, [aside from the USA and Israel], defines as war crimes and crimes against humanity. These last 2 nations seem to believe that no such crimes exist; at least, not where they are concerned.

How is the UN biased? They've put down multiple resolutions against Hamas. This guy is calling it like he sees it. Maybe a little emotionally - he should change that - but he is. And from the reports of various charity organisations he's not exactly lying, is he? But I suppose the charity organisations are lying, too?

Israel has violated the Geneva Convention loads of times. There's no point in defending their record on that. They were very strictly pro-torture for a long time and there is video of an Israeli bombing of a marked UN civilian building during the first Lebanon war.

bub said:

Are you seriously saying that the UN is biased because they said they wanted an independent inquiry :shock:

Oh yeah, everything that criticizes Israel is "biased", "dishonest" or "antisemite"

Funny how the UN is not "biased" anymore when it is favorable to Israel

Click to expand...

Bub,

Falk is a biased asshole. He is also a known anti-semite. His being sent to conduct the inquiry was at best extremely poor judgement; at worst an obvious attempt by the UN to stack the deck against Isreal.

Jakers said:

First, the Israeli blockade, and then invasion, was and is "willful". Or have you somehow convinced yourself that blockades and wars are mere accidents? No doubt you believe that carpet or cluster or fire bombing heavily populated area is not a 'warm crime' because the bombers were only aiming at 'armed combatants' , and so the children who were blown up, torn apart, or fried alive during bombardment, as well as after bombardment, in the case of cluster bombs and randomly scattered land mines, etc.

Look uo wiki on warcrimes and crimes against humantity. Here's a taste, from Wiki--

"War crimes are defined in the statute that established the International Criminal Court, which includes:

1. Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, such as:
1. Willful killing, or causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
2. Torture or inhumane treatment
3. Unlawful wanton destruction or appropriation of property
4. Forcing a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of a hostile power
5. Depriving a prisoner of war of a fair trial
6. Unlawful deportation, confinement or transfer
7. Taking hostages
2. The following acts as part of an international conflict:
1. Directing attacks against civilians
2. Directing attacks against humanitarian workers or UN peacekeepers
3. Killing a surrendered combatant
4. Misusing a flag of truce
5. Settlement of occupied territory
6. Deportation of inhabitants of occupied territory
7. Using poison weapons
8. Using civilians as shields
9. Using child soldiers
3. The following acts as part of a non-international conflict:
1. Murder, cruel or degrading treatment and torture
2. Directing attacks against civilians, humanitarian workers or UN peacekeepers
3. Taking hostages
4. Summary execution
5. Pillage
6. Rape, sexual slavery, forced prostitution or forced pregnancy."

Click to expand...

Almost every one of these things is used in regular course by Hamas and various other Islamic countries.

Get off your high horse and stop your anti-semetic rhetoric.

:shock:

The piece in Haaretz included a couple more qoutes from Mr. Falk that provide more context to the quote provided in the OP they are bolded;

There is evidence that Israel committed war crimes during its 22-day campaign in the Gaza Strip and there should be an independent inquiry, UN investigator Richard Falk said Thursday.

The mental anguish of the civilians who suffered the assault is so great that the entire population of Gaza could be seen as casualties, said Falk, UN special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Falk, speaking by phone from his home in California, said compelling evidence that Israel's actions in Gaza violated international humanitarian law required an independent investigation into whether they amounted to war crimes.

I believe that there is the prima facie case for reaching that conclusion," he told a Geneva news conference.

Falk said Israel had made no effort to allow civilians to escape the fighting.

"To lock people into a war zone is something that evokes the worst kind of international memories of the Warsaw Ghetto, and sieges that occur unintentionally during a period of wartime," Falk, who is Jewish, said, referring to the starvation and murder of Warsaw's Jews by Nazi Germany in World War II.

"There could have been temporary provision at least made for children, disabled, sick civilians to leave, even if where they left to was southern Israel," the U.S. professor said.

Falk said the entire Gaza population, which had been trapped in a war zone with no possibility to leave as refugees, may have been mentally scarred for life. If so, the definition of casualty could be extended to the entire civilian population.

Click to expand...

Richard Falk, professor emeritus of international law and practice at Princeton University, is the United Nations Human Rights Rapporteur in the Occupied Territories. He is a Jew himself and has no reason to be biased.

donsutherland1 said:

2) Falk's stretching circumstances to allege a "war crime" against all of Gaza's civilian population not only ignores Hamas' human shielding (an actual war crime), but invents a class of "war crime" that simply does not exist in international law e.g., there is no provision under the Fourth Geneva Convention that makes unintended "mental anguish" a war crime. The much more rigorous standard applies to "Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health." Falk's argument is baseless for several reasons. First, there is no evidence that Israel deliberately intended to inflict suffering on Gaza's civilian population. Second, there is no evidence that all of Gaza's civilians have experienced "great suffering, or serious injury to body or health" strictly on account of Israel. In short, Mr. Falk engages in the kind of activism that undermines the basic principles of international law.

Click to expand...

Mr. Falk remarks in the Haaretz article were general and were not presented as the bases for a potential war crime investigaation. Assuming that his arguement that the people of Gaza has suffered mental anguish is going to be the bases for a war crime charge may not be accurate. This can be used with other arguements to support the collective punishment that Israel is accused of.

The fact that Israel has not asked civilians to leave and allowed them to exit Gaza temporarily as Mr. Falk suggested is a powerful arguement that Israel at least did not care much for their fate.

In any case, all what Mr. Falk asked for is that there should be an independent inquiry. The arguements that will be used if the findings confirm possible war crimes remain to be seen. It is pre mature IMO, to speculate about those at this time and decide that they are baseless or not supported by international law.

Jpost reported that Israel is taking potential war crimes accusations seriously

"We need to be prepared for the potential lawsuits that will be filed against senior officers," a defense official explained. "The team will review the footage and intelligence information and formulate arguments that can be used to defend against claims that Israel committed war crimes in Gaza." The footage collected by the team was filmed by regular combat soldiers who received special training on how to film and document military operations under combat conditions. The unit is part of the IDF Spokesman's Unit and is headed by Maj. Zvika Golan.

Click to expand...

Barak orders legal team to gather footage ahead of possible lawsuits

The position of Mr. Falk can be better understood by reading a couple of his articles.

In an article dated 12/27, he explained what he thinks can qualify as war crimes as "defined in the Geneva Conventions, both in regard to the obligations of an Occupying Power and in the requirements of the laws of war.."

• Collective punishment: The entire 1.5 million people who live in the crowded Gaza Strip are being punished for the actions of a few militants
• Targeting civilians: The airstrikes were aimed at civilian areas in one of the most crowded stretches of land in the world, certainly the most densely populated area of the Middle East
• Disproportionate military response: The airstrikes have not only destroyed every police and security office of Gaza's elected government, but have killed and injured hundreds of civilians; at least one strike reportedly hit groups of students attempting to find transportation home from the university.

Click to expand...

Israel's War Crimes

In another article dated 1/2/2009 he elaborated on the situation in Gaza;

What this background suggests strongly is that Israel launched its devastating attacks, starting on December 27, not simply to stop the rockets or in retaliation, but also for a series of unacknowledged reasons. It was evident for several weeks prior to the Israeli attacks that the Israeli military and political leaders were preparing the public for large-scale military operations against the Hamas. The timing of the attacks seemed prompted by a series of considerations: most of all, the interest of political contenders, the Defense Minister Ehud Barak and the Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, in demonstrating their toughness prior to national elections scheduled for February, but now possibly postponed until military operations cease. Such Israeli shows of force have been a feature of past Israeli election campaigns, and on this occasion especially, the current government was being successfully challenged by Israel's notoriously militarist politician, Benjamin Netanyahu, for its supposed failures to uphold security. Reinforcing these electoral motivations was the little concealed pressure from the Israeli military commanders to seize the opportunity in Gaza to erase the memories of their failure to destroy Hezbollah in the devastating Lebanon War of 2006 that both tarnished Israel's reputation as a military power and led to widespread international condemnation of Israel for the heavy bombardment of undefended Lebanese villages, disproportionate force, and extensive use of cluster bombs against heavily populated areas.

Respected and conservative Israeli commentators go further. For instance, the prominent historian, Benny Morris writing in the New York Times a few days ago, relates the campaign in Gaza to a deeper set of forebodings in Israel that he compares to the dark mood of the public that preceded the 1967 War when Israelis felt deeply threatened by Arab mobilizations on their borders. Morris insists that despite Israeli prosperity of recent years, and relative security, several factors have led Israel to act boldly in Gaza: the perceived continuing refusal of the Arab world to accept the existence of Israel as an established reality; the inflammatory threats voiced by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad together with Iran's supposed push to acquire nuclear weapons, the fading memory of the Holocaust combined with growing sympathy in the West with the Palestinian plight, and the radicalization of political movements on Israel's borders in the form of Hezbollah and Hamas. In effect, Morris argues that Israel is trying via the crushing of Hamas in Gaza to send a wider message to the region that it will stop at nothing to uphold its claims of sovereignty and security.

Click to expand...

Richard Falk: Understanding the Gaza Catastrophe