citing aljazeera supporting a case against the Israelis is like asking the wolf if the hen house is safe..

I love how everyone decries Israel for war crimes but ignores the fact that Hamas actively seeks civilian cover when under attack to ensure that civilians will be killed.. then they come out in the streets crying to the cameras that "the JEWS" have attacked civilian targets.

And let's not forget that Hamas and their cronies build rockets and launch them over the borer indiscriminately into Israeli civilian populations..

http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/middleeast/Israels_Right_to_the_Land.asp

1) ARCHEOLOGY

The first reason is that Israel has the right to the land because of all of the archeological evidence. All the archeological evidence supports it. Every time there is a dig in Israel, it does nothing but support the fact that Israelis have had a presence there for 3,000 years. The coins, the cities, the pottery, the culture -- there are other people, groups that are there, but there is no mistaking the fact that Israelis have been present in that land for 3,000 years. It predates any claims that other peoples in the region may have.

The ancient Philistines are extinct. Many other ancient peoples are extinct. They do not have the unbroken line to this date that the Israelis have. Even the Egyptians of today are not racial Egyptians of 2,000, 3,000 years ago. They are primarily an Arab people. The land is called Egypt, but they are not the same racial and ethnic stock as the old Egyptians of the ancient world.

The Israelis are in fact descended from the original Israelites.

-------------------------------------------------------------

they do have other reasons listed if you are truly interested

This is what is important to me. This is what is being look into:

"Traces of depleted uranium in Gaza victims, suggesting that Israel used the illegal weapons in its war on the densely-populated territory.

The UN nuclear watchdog said on Wednesday that it would open an investigation into Israel's alleged use of depleted uranium weapons, which are listed as 'illegal weapons of mass destruction' in the Geneva Convention.

The case for Israeli war crimes became stronger on Thursday when the Israeli military admitted that it pounded the Palestinian coast with at least twenty phosphorus bombs during the offensive.

White phosphorus, classified as a 'chemical weapon' by the US intelligence, is a highly-incendiary substance that bursts into all-consuming flames that cannot be extinguished with water, burning flesh to the bone and often leading to death.

Under the Geneva Treaty of 1980, the use of white phosphorous as a weapon is prohibited."


It's one thing to fight a war or protect one's self. It's quite another thing to use illegal weapons.

what does it say about suicide bombers killing innocent civilians

what does it say about the other things used against isreal

i agree those that use illegal tactics should pay but ALL not just those DEFENDING THEMSELVES

What is this supposed to prove?
That the only history you know about the region comes from the bible.
So they dig up a few bones and you determine Israel has a rite?

In the later stages of the 1800's there were less than 10 k Jews in Palestine. Even when they declared Independence, ahead of the unfair division of land(Israels favor), by the UN, they were less than 30% of the population and held ownership to only 9% of the land. This after years of Zionism.

You see, in 70 AD they were defeated and left the area on their own.

Resorting to Archaeological digs is a desperate move adj.. LMAO

Using this logic are we supposed to relinquish America to the Native Americans?
I can show you plenty of archaeological evidence that they were here 10 k years ago.

I can also show you proof of the same for the Arabs of Palestine. Far predating the emergence of the Israelis.
Your argument is weak.

Israel was guilty of the same and worse with no legal claim to the territory they stole by their use of terrorism.
They then awarded their terrorist the role of PM, Begin, Sharon, and Shamir, and honors them by naming streets, public buildings, and giving military honors in their names.
What does that say about those who defend Israel?

After years of silence while Israel has been bombarded
(indiscrimately) with rockets. The UN finally speaks!

The UN has no moral credibility. They ignore obvious
war crimes of Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, and Fatah
and instead try to investigate and condemn Israel.

It is ridiculous and just reveals the hypocrisy which
is the UN. When they have organized world opinion in
defense of the Israelis and censured those who supply
radical Islamists like Iran, Syria and others with real
meaningful penalties instead of empty condemnations.

Only then will they begin to build back any meaningful
credibility. Until then they are merely clowns in
frowning facepaint.

The Al Jazeera article, if you read it states that charging either side with war crimes would be near impossible. It recognizes that both sides are guilty.
I saw no one complain when I used Haaretz (an Israeli newspaper) as a source.

How IDF legal experts legitimized strikes involving Gaza civilians
By Yotam Feldman and Uri Blau

The idea to bombard the closing ceremony of the Gaza police course was internally criticized in the Israel Defense Forces months before the attack. A military source involved in the planning of the attack, in which dozens of Hamas policemen were killed, says that while military intelligence officers were sure the operation should be carried out and pressed for its approval, the IDF's international law division and the military advocate general were undecided.

After months of the operational elements pushing for the attack's approval, the international law division headed by Col. Pnina Sharvit-Baruch gave the go-ahead. In spite of doubts, and also under pressure, Sharvit-Baruch and the division also legitimized the attack on Hamas government buildings and the relaxing of the rules of engagement, resulting in numerous Palestinian casualties. In the division it is also believed that the killing of civilians in a house whose residents the IDF has warned might be considered legally justified, although the IDF does not actually target civilians in this way.

Many legal experts, including former international law division head Daniel Reisner, do not accept this position. "I don't think a person on a rooftop can be incriminated just because he is standing there," he said.

One reason for the international law division's permissive positions is its desire to remain relevant and influential. Sources involved in the work of the Southern Command said that its GOC, Maj. Gen. Yoav Gallant, is quite suspicious of legal experts and has a reputation of not attaching much importance to their advice. The Southern Command's legal adviser was not invited to consultations before the attack, and was compartmentalized when it came to smaller forums. It was actually during the action in Gaza that consideration for his opinions grew.

The legal addendum to Operation Cast Lead's order shows the way the IDF's legal experts legitimized the army's actions: "As much as possible and under the circumstances of the matter, the civilian population in a target area is to be warned," it states, adding "unless so doing endangers the operation or the forces."

The addendum orders commanders to be extremely cautious in the use of "incendiary weapons" (for example, phosphorus bombs), but does not prohibit their use: "Before using these weapons, the the military advocate general or international law division must be consulted on the specific case."

A source who served in the division in the past says it is "more liberal than the attorney general and the High Court petitions department." "The army knows what it wants, and pressure was certainly brought to bear when legal advisers thought that something was unacceptable or problematic," an operational military source said.

According to a senior official in the international law division, "Our goal is not to tie down the army, but to give it the tools to win in a way that is legal."


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1057648.html


................................................


The IDF stating that they worked closely with their legal department does not exactly match this account where it seems that the IDF Legal wing was 'pushed' into seeing things the planners way. If Legal opinion differed from what was wanted seems there was pressure on to make it right.

"unless so doing endangers the operation or the forces."

This statement alone makes one think. I can hear the planning staff now. "We can't warn about that we're doing this (whatever for the day) it will let them know we are coming."

Sounds like the whole 'working closely with Legal to remain with Convention' is another White Phosphorous smoke screen for the world press.

""""""""You see, in 70 AD they were defeated and left the area on their own. """"""""""


what is wrong with that statement

""defeated"" makes it involuntary

and if it doesn't isreal defeated them in 67

or do you expect a double standard to be applied

like i said it matters not what has happened isreal can do nothing to satisfy most in the world

Co-exist without expansion.

Indiscriminately? Unlike the Israeli missiles, bombs, mortars etc the ones used by Hamas have NO guidance systems.

that is your argument and if so then yes i guess we should

the world said isreal is to be there the arabs said they would do all in their power to stop it from being there

you yourself said they were there in 70 ad and left after being defeated

either you follow the direction handed down by the world or you don't

if you do then they have the right to be there

and if you don't then there are no such thing as war crimes thus no one has committed any

so which is it

the only time they have expanded is when they had to defend themselves from impending attack

if they do not want to risk the loss of their lands they should not plan attacks nor carry out attacks against isreal

isreali rockets are in response to those rockets launched by the govt that those that live in gaza elected

Are you really trying to justify their firing of unguided rockets into Israel?

While their Qassam rockets lack guidance, they are also using more sophisticated rockets produced or supplied by their masters in Syria and Iran.



We always hear about the Palestinians who have suffered, but those who bemoan their suffering always seem to miss that the Palestinians are the ones who strike first, break the truce first, attack those who try to help them and, of course, ignore the death and suffering caused by Palestinian attacks on the innocent civilians of Israel.

Correction: Regular average Palestinian citizens, the ones getting killed by the Israeli Army are NOT the ones shooting rockets into Israel. A terrorist organization by the name of Hamas is shooting rockets. Killing thousands of innocent people in order to "hopefully" get a few of the Hamas people in the process can never be logically justified. You can keep trying but I'm not buying it.

Also, I just stopped by your page and you're not even Jewish. So, that makes me even more intrigued to know why you're so in defense of Israel.

I was born a Muslim, but am now a happy atheist. Islam extremists are evil. But again, killing thousands of innocent Palestinians in rataliation is never justified in my opinion.

There is no reason why ethnicity or nation of origin should cloud ones reason or compassion. I feel that Israel is in the right. I believe that based on evidence. Therefore, they receive the lion's share of my compassion in this conflict.

Hamas fires rockets into Israel. Hamas uses civilians as human shields. Hamas knows that for Israel to respond, they will accidentally kill Palestinian civilians. The Israelis have gone to great lengths to NOT kill Palestinian civilians, but they aren't perfect. Their FIRST responsibility is to protect their own people and SECOND they can worry about protecting Palestinian civilians. They have waited months and felt that now was the right time to act. For months they have put the Palestinian civilians before their own civilians.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3660423,00.html