Slashdot Mirror

Israel claims that it is merely exercising its right to self-defense and that Gaza is no longer occupied. Here’s what you need to know about these talking points and more.

Israel has killed almost 800 Palestinians in the past twenty-one days in the Gaza Strip alone; its onslaught continues. The UN estimates that more than 74 percent of those killed are civilians. That is to be expected in a population of 1.8 million where the number of Hamas members is approximately 15,000. Israel does not deny that it killed those Palestinians using modern aerial technology and precise weaponry courtesy of the world’s only superpower. In fact, it does not even deny that they are civilians.

Israel’s propaganda machine, however, insists that these Palestinians wanted to die (“culture of martyrdom”), staged their own death (“telegenically dead”) or were the tragic victims of Hamas’s use of civilian infrastructure for military purposes (“human shielding”). In all instances, the military power is blaming the victims for their own deaths, accusing them of devaluing life and attributing this disregard to cultural bankruptcy. In effect, Israel—along with uncritical mainstream media that unquestionably accept this discourse—dehumanizes Palestinians, deprives them even of their victimhood and legitimizes egregious human rights and legal violations.

This is not the first time. The gruesome images of decapitated children’s bodies and stolen innocence on Gaza’s shores are a dreadful repeat of Israel’s assault on Gaza in November 2012 and winter 2008–09. Not only are the military tactics the same but so too are the public relations efforts and the faulty legal arguments that underpin the attacks. Mainstream media news anchors are inexplicably accepting these arguments as fact.

Below I address five of Israel’s recurring talking points. I hope this proves useful to newsmakers.

1) Israel is exercising its right to self-defense.

As the occupying power of the Gaza Strip, and the Palestinian Territories more broadly, Israel has an obligation and a duty to protect the civilians under its occupation. It governs by military and law enforcement authority to maintain order, protect itself and protect the civilian population under its occupation. It cannot simultaneously occupy the territory, thus usurping the self-governing powers that would otherwise belong to Palestinians, and declare war upon them. These contradictory policies (occupying a land and then declaring war on it) make the Palestinian population doubly vulnerable.

The precarious and unstable conditions in the Gaza Strip from which Palestinians suffer are Israel’s responsibility. Israel argues that it can invoke the right to self-defense under international law as defined in Article 51 of the UN Charter. The International Court of Justice, however, rejected this faulty legal interpretation in its 2004 Advisory Opinion. The ICJ explained that an armed attack that would trigger Article 51 must be attributable to a sovereign state, but the armed attacks by Palestinians emerge from within Israel’s jurisdictional control. Israel

Israel claims that it is merely exercising its right to self-defense and that Gaza is no longer occupied. Here’s what you need to know about these talking points and more.

Israel has killed almost 800 Palestinians in the past twenty-one days in the Gaza Strip alone; its onslaught continues. The UN estimates that more than 74 percent of those killed are civilians. That is to be expected in a population of 1.8 million where the number of Hamas members is approximately 15,000. Israel does not deny that it killed those Palestinians using modern aerial technology and precise weaponry courtesy of the world’s only superpower. In fact, it does not even deny that they are civilians.

Israel’s propaganda machine, however, insists that these Palestinians wanted to die (“culture of martyrdom”), staged their own death (“telegenically dead”) or were the tragic victims of Hamas’s use of civilian infrastructure for military purposes (“human shielding”). In all instances, the military power is blaming the victims for their own deaths, accusing them of devaluing life and attributing this disregard to cultural bankruptcy. In effect, Israel—along with uncritical mainstream media that unquestionably accept this discourse—dehumanizes Palestinians, deprives them even of their victimhood and legitimizes egregious human rights and legal violations.

This is not the first time. The gruesome images of decapitated children’s bodies and stolen innocence on Gaza’s shores are a dreadful repeat of Israel’s assault on Gaza in November 2012 and winter 2008–09. Not only are the military tactics the same but so too are the public relations efforts and the faulty legal arguments that underpin the attacks. Mainstream media news anchors are inexplicably accepting these arguments as fact.

Below I address five of Israel’s recurring talking points. I hope this proves useful to newsmakers.

1) Israel is exercising its right to self-defense.

As the occupying power of the Gaza Strip, and the Palestinian Territories more broadly, Israel has an obligation and a duty to protect the civilians under its occupation. It governs by military and law enforcement authority to maintain order, protect itself and protect the civilian population under its occupation. It cannot simultaneously occupy the territory, thus usurping the self-governing powers that would otherwise belong to Palestinians, and declare war upon them. These contradictory policies (occupying a land and then declaring war on it) make the Palestinian population doubly vulnerable.

The precarious and unstable conditions in the Gaza Strip from which Palestinians suffer are Israel’s responsibility. Israel argues that it can invoke the right to self-defense under international law as defined in Article 51 of the UN Charter. The International Court of Justice, however, rejected this faulty legal interpretation in its 2004 Advisory Opinion. The ICJ explained that an armed attack that would trigger Article 51 must be attributable to a sovereign state, but the armed attacks by Palestinians emerge from within Israel’s jurisdictional control. Israel does have the right to

The ICJ has already published an opinion which contains a finding of fact that Israel is in violation of Article 49(6) of the 4th Geneva Convention. The Palestinians own violations of international law doesn't excuse Israel's ethnic cleansing.

Uhm, there is one already. The US opted out, thank you very much. You don't get to bully everyone if you have to be responsible for your acts.

For some reason, the news in the U.S. doesn't give the World Court much 'airtime', I wonder why... (sigh)

signed, a frustrated American.

Uhm, there is one already. The US opted out, thank you very much. You don't get to bully everyone if you have to be responsible for your acts.

there's no "international court" or body of "international law." (probably you know this, but many people reading the phrase "international copyright laws" get confused).

Here are some bodies and courts of international law: 1,2, 3,4.

I think I just made a law troll post.

I think this is great news.

Since the USA is a safe harbor for war criminals they don't want to prosecute, and we have an ICJ for dealing with that, my question is: when are they going to agree to having the International Court of Justice as a court of law for the warcriminals they don't want to prosecute?

Or would it be that if the USA doesn't prosecute for some reason, it's the due course of law, but if another country does not prosecute for some reason (like, people doing things not being punishable in their country) it is because the country is a "safe harbor"?

Naaaah...

Could someone in U.S be so kind and post a official terrorist definition from U.S Military handbook or from law book (or if someone just has one of those)?

What I have readed, the official terrorist definition is bretty bad for U.S policy, because U.S itself is acting like terrorist state. Actually international court http://www.icj-cij.org/ (dont know is that right address!) has sentenced U.S as terrorist country, but it does not have any legal judgement because U.S didn't vote against itself.

So by this reason, U.S should be removed (disconnected) from internet itself! (and many other country too!)

A couple of points in reply

One -- I never mentioned Albania. I mentioned Bosnia. Those are two different wars. In Bosnia, you had the events in Srebrenica. And, Serbia has been held responsible for those genocidal events.

Two -- You appear to be confusing the term genocide with refugee. In short, Genocide is the murder of an entire people. Refugee is someone that flees from danger. In your OP, you mention that about 250,000 Serbs were displaced. Displacement is NOT genocide, they are refugees. Someone being forced to leave their home and live in a camp some distance away is a horrible event. But it is NOT genocide. So, you cannot compare the displacement of the Kosovo Serbs with the events in Srebrenica.

Yes, I know the history of the United States. The peoples who settled this country were probably guilty of genocidal acts to the Native Americans, although no one has ever been formally accused of these acts by the UN. If the Albanians have permitted genocide to take place, they should be put on trial. But, based on your evidence, you are referring to displacement. Again, that is NOT genocide and, as far as I know, it is not illegal according to the UN.

Yes, there're many international courts. It's somewhat surprising that you don't even know the Internation Court of Justice, located in The Hague. As its role is to arbitrate disputes between states, it doesn't apply here.

For monopoly and other related antitrust aspects, the two most active regulators, and biggest markets, are the USA and the EU. Without knowing the law details, I'd guess that the respective laws enable complaints against anybody active in their juridisction, no matter where the defendant is located (cf EU Vs MSFT).

If you took time to RTFA, you would have noticed that the lawsuit was made in California, where ICANN is actually located (Verisign is in Delaware).

It's not because internet is "all over" that local laws do not apply.

Is there any interantional court? Geneva? US? UN? Japan? we are talking about whole earth...


Closest thing would be the International Court of Justice run by the UN.

First of all let's get one thing straight: The International Court of Justice does not try war crimes:

Contentious cases between States
The Parties
Only States may apply to and appear before the Court. The Member States of the United Nations (at present numbering 191) are so entitled.

Only cases between countries. And yes there is the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia" and they only prosecute war criminals from the former Yugoslavia.

And then again your arguments are shaky. You say that you and the people in the United States are the victims, but what about the citizens of Madrid or some other places in the world.

Also do you really think that OBL would get a fair trail in the US? You are talking about a judge, but what about the jury? I reckon that it would be impossible to find an impartial jury in the US.

and nukes etc are OK

Actually, they are not. Specifically, their use is against Human Rights laws, Environmental laws, and World Court advisories.

"Mindful that States have an obligation under the Charter of the United Nations to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State."
-- Secretary-General of the United Nations, 1994

Nope. Only a small area of international law deals with war, or human rights. Check out the kind of cases decided by the International Court of Justice, mainly disputes involving off-shore mineral and fishing rights and the like.

(way offtopic, I know, but I cannot let ignorance go through - ignorance is NOT bliss when it comes to such serious matters)

> Because Bush is wise enough to know that this body, without reforms, will be based too much on politics, not crime.

Uhm, so you haven't even read their Web site, where it says:

The International Court of Justice is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations

(which country wanted UN? Eh?)

And:

The Court is composed of 15 judges elected to nine-year terms of office by the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council sitting independently of each other. It may not include more than one judge of any nationality. Elections are held every three years for one-third of the seats, and retiring judges may be re-elected. The Members of the Court do not represent their governments but are independent magistrates

So long for the political bias you are claiming this court has.

There is NO REASON for the US to reject this Court. Except if they have something to get reproached for. Oh, a certain marriage... Well even not, because this court only judges matters happening after its initial opening (which is July 1st, 2002). Don't speak of what you don't know, please.

As to "the US knows what's going on, not the others", that's once again a wrong headed claim. The difference is that until recently, the US were trusted to do the good thing and they had the means to act. But after this overly stupid decision (which is going to break the UN ultimately if Mr Bush continues to act childish), they won't be trusted anymore.

I'll let you ponder on the fact that the "no scientific basis for Kyoto" argument was emitted by Washington officials. They have no... scientific basis (note, I said "basis", not "bias") to back this claim.

Read the press. Learn what happens. Shape up or ship out.

There is already an international court house.
http://www.icj-cij.org/

I think this is where they are trying Ariel Sharon for his crimes.

My government protects me from corporate abuses. Why can't their government protect them?

Oh yeah, because their government sucks! That's my point.

Why does their government suck?

Gee, could it be the fact that our government systematically and illegally destabilizes and undermines and blatantly overthrows any attempts at local democratic self-rule in third-world countries, preferring instead to prop up easily-controlled ,corrupt militaristic regimes?

" Coming to grips with these U.S./CIA activities in broad numbers and figuring out how many people have been killed in the jungles of Laos or the hills of Nicaragua is very difficult. But, adding them up as best we can, we come up with a figure of six million people killed-and this is a minimum figure. Included are: one million killed in the Korean War, two million killed in the Vietnam War, 800,000 killed in Indonesia, one million in Cambodia, 20,000 killed in Angola ... and 22,000 killed in Nicaragua. These people would not have died if U.S. tax dollars had not been spent by the CIA to inflame tensions, finance covert political and military activities and destabilize societies.

"Certainly, there are other local, regional, national and international factors in many of these operations, but if the CIA were tried fairly in a U.S. court, under U.S. law, the principle of complicity, incitement, riot, and mayhem would clearly apply. In the United States, if you hire someone to commit a murder your sentence may be approximately the same as that of the murderer himself.

"Who are these six million people we have killed in the interest of American national security? Conservatives tell us, "It's a dangerous world. Our enemies have to die so we can be safe and secure." Some of them say, "I'm sorry, but that's the way the world is. We have to accept this reality and defend ourselves, to make our nation safe and insure our way of life."

"Since 1954, however, we have not parachuted teams into the Soviet Union - our number one enemy - to destabilize that country... Neither do we run these violent operations in England, France, Sweden, Norway, Belgium, or Switzerland. Since the mid-1950s they have all been conducted in Third World countries where governments do not have the power to force the United States to stop its brutal and destabilizing campaigns.

"One might call this the "Third World War." It is a war that has been fought by the United States against the Third World. Others call it the Cold War and focus on the anti-Communist and anti-Soviet rationales, but the dead are not Soviets; they are people of the Third World. It might also be called the Forty-Year War, like the Thirty-Year and Hundred-Year Wars in Europe, for this one began when the CIA was founded in 1947 and continues today. Altogether, perhaps twenty million people died in the Cold War. As wars go, it has been the second or third most destructive of human life in all of history, after World War I and World War II.

"The six million people the CIA has helped to kill are people of the Mitumba Mountains of the Congo, the jungles of Southeast Asia, and the hills of northern Nicaragua. They are people without ICBMs or armies or navies, incapable of doing physical damage to the United States the 22,000 killed in Nicaragua, for example, are not Russians; they are not Cuban soldiers or advisors; they are not even mostly Sandinistas. A majority are rag-poor peasants, including large numbers of women and children.

"Communists? Hardly, since the dead Nicaraguans are predominantly Roman Catholics. Enemies of the United States? That description doesn't fit either, because the thousands of witnesses who have lived in Nicaraguan villages with the people since 1979 testify that the Nicaraguans are the warmest people on the face of the earth, that they love people from the United States, and they simply cannot understand why our leaders would want to spend $1 billion on a contra force designed to murder people and wreck the country."
-- John Stockwell, former CIA official and author

For decades, our government -- with all its military and financial clout -- has deliberately shat upon other peoples in their efforts to attain the very freedoms we take for granted.

And you have the gall to suggest that this is their fault?

Here we go ... the International Court of Justice ruled in favour of Germany in this case and acknowledged that the USA have violated the Vienna Convention.

Enforcement on an international scale is only impossible, if all the major players in the international field decline. And even then, to paraphrase Frank Zappa: "There's more of us little motherfuckers than you are."

And about those responsible for mass killings, the international Court of Justice seems to be doing quite well regarding the most atrocious killers of the recent Balkan war, even so, that some of them are freely going there, to await justice and get it over with.

What we need a single, flat namespace that doesn't have any "distinctions." The distinctions are unnecessary, unmanageable and unenforceable. Multinationals will claim their name in all namespaces by carrot or stick. There's no shortage of domain names if you're willing to be clever. There are, however, a shortage of obvious generic name terms and trademarked names, but that would be true in any namespace.

I agree, that the current three letter TLDs are not meeting needs or wants. For instance, where I work, we originated as an university computer center, and are therefore still not-for-profit, but we do have very commercial clients, for instance, the largest national newspaper, and a large publisher. Since only the US is hesitant about using their national TLD, this poses no problem, because we use the national TLD. But imagine, soon we will lose the not-for-profit status, and, in US terms, move from .edu to .com, and our acronym is a female first name,SARA. SO, what to do, buy out some luscious girl or her pimp, who exploits a sara.com site? Or stress the educational part of our business with the more easily maintained .edu site? Since it's sara.nl, the question will never rise, unless at some time we grow so big as to contemplate sara.int, but I do not see that happenning for some decades. And by then, we could always choose a new name, more cheaply.

But with a single namespace name collisions would take place more often, resulting in money destroying court cases, so let's not go there. Simply hand over the non-country-based TLDs to the UN, and leave the other ones to the countries involved.

Stefan.
It takes a lot of brains to enjoy satire, humor and wit-

There is probably no governing body in the world that is "a model of efficiency", so that's hardly an argument unless you know something better. Fact is, the US have been declaiming themselves the one true democracy in the world, and leader of all nations, at the same time balking at paying their agreed financial contribution needed to uphold the UN. But I should return to the matter at hand. Yes, the US started the internet, the first true democracy since the ancient Greeks thought of the concept, and now their baby had grown to a faltering maturity, they should relinquish their inclination to control it beyond their borders. As every other nation in the world. The UN, or another independent global institution, should conduct a research of law globally, including every nation and minority therein, and construct an international Law, hopefully with the Declaration of Human Rights as a constitution. There should be a court, widely recognised, with judges not appointed by any government, but apolitically, like the International Court in the Hague, to adjudicate, and we're getting closer to the basics of a world government. But of course most governments won't want to give up their own powers, as we can see in the lamentable struggles towards an European Union, and the fears of the US to recognise the International Court.

But to the point: the internet has outgrown the US, and if it was still 1990, or so, control would easily be distributed amongst those deserving, and with the current knowledge, the TLDs, that aren't country based, would be administered internationally. Alas, that is not how it came to pass, but I feel very strongly, that no single givernment should be able to exert decisive influence on the shaping of the internet, unless they tone down the influence of mighty companies. The internet used to be the only true democracy, bordering on the best of anarchy, but now everyone and his dog wants to get their claws on us and cream us.

Stefan.
It takes a lot of brains to enjoy satire, humor and wit-

The Court has a dual role: to settle in accordance with international law the legal disputes submitted to it by States, and to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by duly authorized international organs and agencies.

Seems to me that it's pretty similar to the US Supreme Court in a lot of respects. Since the ICJ is really a part of the UN, it also seems to me that they wouldn't exercise too much control over the US as far as enforcement goes; if the US is ruled against it would mean the only way they would have to pay is willingly, as it would be nearly impossible to start sanctions or military actions against the US.

For a basic summery, see their Court at a Glance document.

The Court has a dual role: to settle in accordance with international law the legal disputes submitted to it by States, and to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by duly authorized international organs and agencies.

Seems to me that it's pretty similar to the US Supreme Court in a lot of respects. Since the ICJ is really a part of the UN, it also seems to me that they wouldn't exercise too much control over the US as far as enforcement goes; if the US is ruled against it would mean the only way they would have to pay is willingly, as it would be nearly impossible to start sanctions or military actions against the US.

For a basic summery, see their Court at a Glance document.

Well, there are certain reasons to avoid American televison... I don't watch CBS News, or NBC News, or ABC News. I listen to NPR and watch ITN or BBC. I also read two good daily newspapers. So FRY v. NATO is not news to me. Personally, I dont think the case has much merit, and using Serbia-Info to extract information about the case seems to me as foolish as using Microsoft's PR department to get a handle on US v. Microsoft. If you want a unbiased look at this particular court case, the World Court Docket may or may not be useful.