Gaza homes destruction 'wanton'
- Details
- Written by BBC News BBC News
- Published: 06 March 2009 06 March 2009
- Hits: 3988 3988
BBC News
Human rights investigators say Israeli forces engaged in "wanton destruction" of Palestinian homes during the recent conflict in Gaza.
Amnesty International has told the BBC News website the methods used raised concerns about war crimes.
Israel's military said buildings were destroyed because of military "operational needs".
The Israeli Defense Forces said they operated in accordance with international law during the conflict.
However, the use of mines to destroy homes contradicted this claim, the head of the Amnesty International fact-finding mission to southern Israel and Gaza, Donatella Rovera, has argued.
“ The IDF emphasises that the terrorist organisation, Hamas, and its infrastructure were the target of Operation Cast Lead, and not the civilian population in Gaza ”
Israeli military statement
Israeli troops had to leave their vehicles to plant the mines, indicating that they faced no danger and that there was no military or operational justification, she said.
Breaking the Silence, an Israeli group that gathers and circulates the testimonies of Israeli soldiers, has also told the BBC News website that its findings from the Gaza war suggested many demolitions had been carried out when there was no immediate threat.
"From the testimonies that we've gathered, lots of demolitions - buildings demolished either by bulldozers or explosives - were done after the area was under Israeli control," said Yehuda Shaul, one of the group's members.
Destruction of civilian property is not illegal in itself under international law, but it must be justifiable on military grounds - for example if the building was booby trapped or being used as cover for enemy fighters.
Thousands of buildings were destroyed in the 22-day Israeli operation.
Some of them were police stations, mosques and government premises attacked in targeted airstrikes, in many cases with surrounding buildings left in tact.
Reduced to rubble
There were also whole neighbourhoods reduced to rubble in areas where the Israeli ground forces were present.
Ms Rovera said Amnesty International was concerned about "large scale destruction of homes and other civilian properties" during the conflict.
"The destruction was, in our view, and according to our findings, wanton destruction - it could not be justified on military grounds," she said.
Ms Rovera said her team found fragments of anti-tank mines in and around destroyed properties.
Their use was also consistent with remains of houses, collapsed in on themselves as if blown up from below, rather than destroyed from above as in an airstrike, she said.
Troops would have had to leave their armoured vehicles to plant them and rig up the detonators, she said.
"Unless those operating on the ground felt not just 100% but 200% secure - that the places were not booby trapped, that they wouldn't come under fire - they could not have got out of the vehicles," she said. "They would not have used that method."
"The use of the method tells us even more that there wasn't the kind of danger that might have made it lawful to destroy some of those properties," Ms Rovera said.
GAZA DESTRUCTION
# 14,000 homes
# 219 factories
# 240 schools UNDP estimates
"Wanton destruction on a large scale would qualify as a war crime," she said, adding that the practice was among several used in the conflict by both sides that Amnesty is concerned may constitute war crimes.
In one case visited by the BBC, six homes belonging to the extended family of Raed al-Atamna in the Izbit Abed Rabbo area, near the border with Israel, were destroyed.
Mr Atamna said a UN ordnance clearance team had found several mines in and around the remains of one of the homes.
He said he and his family had fled the area during the Israeli military operation, and returned to find their homes demolished.
'Substantial operational needs'
The IDF said buildings in the Gaza Strip were destroyed during Operation Cast Lead due to "substantial operational needs".
In a written statement, it said: "For example, buildings were either booby-trapped, located over tunnels, or fire was opened from within them in the direction of IDF soldiers.
"The terrorist organisations operated from within the civilian population, using them as a cover and made cynical use of the IDF's strict rules of engagement, opening fire from within civilian population centres, mosques, schools, hospitals and even private residences of citizens in the Gaza Strip.
"The troops were briefed and trained to avoid harming uninvolved civilians and did all they could to give warning in advance so that civilians could distance themselves from combat zones.
"The IDF emphasises that the terrorist organisation, Hamas, and its infrastructure were the target of Operation Cast Lead, and not the civilian population in Gaza."
A military source said the mines used do not detonate automatically and therefore do not represent a danger when left unexploded in the field.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/7926413.stm
Published: 2009/03/06 10:55:07 GMT
© BBC MMIX
Save the date: Sunday, March 15, 2009!
- Details
- Written by PJW, PPRC and many others PJW, PPRC and many others
- Published: 06 March 2009 06 March 2009
- Hits: 3952 3952
March and Rally in Salem, Oregon, on the 6th anniversary of the Invasion of Iraq:
"Stop the Wars at Home and Abroad: Keep Oregon's Guard Home from Iraq and Afghanistan!"
1:00 PM on the Capitol Steps
Mark your calendars for Sunday, March 15th, 2009, and prepare for the short journey down I-5 to the state capital! Salem, we're comin' down for a visit!
Flyer / Leaflet: Print this out and help us spread the word for the big action in Salem!
http://www.pprc-news.org/press/march1509flyerb.pdf
Federal judge says Sami Al-Arian plea deal does matter
- Details
- Written by Meg Laughlin, Times Staff Writer Meg Laughlin, Times Staff Writer
- Published: 06 March 2009 06 March 2009
- Hits: 3891 3891
For the first time, federal prosecutors in Alexandria, Va., have acknowledged that when Sami Al-Arian took a plea deal in early 2006, federal prosecutors in Tampa believed — as did Al-Arian — that it exempted him from testifying in other cases.
But with this surprising admission, which begins a 24-page document filed in Virginia federal court Wednesday night, comes a provocative argument: It doesn't matter.
"The understandings of the prosecutors who negotiated that agreement … are irrelevant to (Al-Arian's) guilt or innocence" for criminal contempt, wrote the Alexandria federal prosecutors, who maintain they are not bound by an agreement made in another district.
Despite what prosecutors in Tampa agreed to, the Virginia prosecutors argue they had a right to move Al-Arian to Virginia to testify. They also say that when Al-Arian repeatedly refused, citing a good-faith belief his plea agreement protected him, he was guilty of criminal contempt. He "willfully disobeyed," they say.
But U.S. District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema has said it does matter what he and the Tampa federal prosecutors agreed to. A criminal conviction could mean more prison time and she would need to see "a completely full record" to determine the length of his sentence.
Furthermore, Brinkema has said, she doesn't think "the Department of Justice can compartmentalize itself."
"This is not one U.S. Attorney's Office vs. another. … You have the United States Department of Justice … involved at both ends," she said.
Al-Arian took a plea deal in February 2006, in Tampa after a jury acquitted him on eight counts of aiding terrorists and deadlocked on nine counts. He pleaded guilty to aiding associates of the terrorist group Palestinian Islamic Jihad with nonviolent immigration needs.
Tampa prosecutors agreed with his defense attorneys that he would be deported within a few months of signing the plea agreement. But, instead, a Tampa federal judge sentenced him to 11 more months in prison.
Virginia prosecutors called that extra time "the window of opportunity" they needed to move Al-Arian to Virginia and force him to testify before a grand jury investigating an Islamic think tank.
Al-Arian's criminal contempt trial was scheduled to begin Monday, but Brinkema postponed it. A new date will be set Monday.
Contact Meg Laughlin at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..
Sudanese president Bashir charged with Darfur war crimes
- Details
- Written by Xan Rice in Nairobi Xan Rice in Nairobi
- Published: 04 March 2009 04 March 2009
- Hits: 3868 3868
International criminal court issues warrant alleging war crimes and crimes against humanity
The Sudanese president, Omar al-Bashir, has been charged with war crimes over the conflict in Darfur, becoming the first sitting head of state issued with an arrest warrant by the international criminal court (ICC).
The court, based in The Hague, upheld the request of the chief prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, to charge Bashir with war crimes and crimes against humanity. More than 200,000 people have died since 2003 in the country's western Darfur region.
Judges dismissed the prosecution's most contentious charge of genocide. Prosecutors had alleged Bashir tried to wipe out three non-Arab ethnic groups.
Within minutes of the announcement, hundreds of protesters took to the streets in Khartoum, the Sudanese capital.
Mustafa Osman Ismail, an aide to Bashir, described the decision as "neo-colonialism ... They do not want Sudan to become stable."
The ICC spokeswoman, Laurence Blairon, said the indictment, drawn up by three judges, included five counts of crimes against humanity: murder, extermination, forcible transfer, torture and rape. The two counts of war crimes were for directing attacks on the civilian population and pillaging.
Blairon said Bashir was criminally responsible as the head of state and commander of the Sudanese armed forces for the offences during a five-year counter-insurgency campaign against three armed groups in Darfur.
She said all states would be asked to execute the arrest warrant and if Sudan failed to cooperate the matter would be referred to the UN security council.
Human rights groups hailed the ICC decision to pursue Bashir, who is accused of ordering mass murder, rape and torture in Darfur.
"This sends a strong signal that the international community no longer tolerates impunity for grave violations of human rights committed by people in positions of power," said Tawanda Hondora, the deputy director of Amnesty International's Africa programme.
Sudan does not recognise the ICC, and Bashir yesterday said the court could "eat" the arrest warrant, which he described as a western plot to hinder Sudan's development.
Despite his defiance, the court's decision will raise immediate questions over his political future and he will find it difficult to travel abroad without the risk of arrest.
The case is by far the biggest and most controversial that the ICC, which started work as a permanent court in 2002, has taken on.
Bashir, who is 65 and has held power for 20 years, joins the likes of the former Liberian president Charles Taylor and the late Yugoslavian leader Slobodan Milosevic, who were indicted by special international tribunals while still in office.
Both were subsequently forced from power and put on trial in The Hague.
Few independent observers doubt Bashir's large share of responsibility for the humanitarian catastrophe in Darfur.
After the uprising in February 2003 by mainly non-Arab rebels, who complained of marginalisation and neglect, his government armed, trained and financed bands of Arab nomads to attack villages across Darfur, killing, raping and looting as they went. The army provided air and ground support.
Moreno-Ocampo says the strategy caused 35,000 violent deaths, and alleges that Bashir wanted to eliminate the Fur, Marsalit and Zaghawa ethnic groups, whom he deemed supportive of the rebels.
"More than 30 witnesses will [testify] how he [Bashir] managed to control everything, and we have strong evidence of his intention," Moreno-Ocampo said yesterday.
But some Sudan experts were not convinced by the genocide charge, which is normally extremely difficult to prove. Equally contentious was the decision to pursue Bashir while he still heads an unpredictable regime in an unstable country.
The US, UK and France were in favour of the arrest warrant, and hope it may push Sudan's government towards reforms and ending the six-year conflict.
But Arab states and the African Union had pressed for a postponement of the charges to allow Bashir a final chance to end the Darfur conflict while not under duress.
Under the ICC statute, the United Nations can still pass a resolution to defer the prosecution for 12 months, but this seems unlikely given the stance of leading western powers.
Street protests against the ICC decision are expected in Khartoum, but the government has insisted there will be no impact on national policies.
Some observers fear, however, that Bashir will crack down on opposition groups in the coming months if he feels his power is at stake, and that the 2005 peace deal to end the civil war in the south could also be in peril.
The UN, aid agencies and western embassies have made emergency plans in case of violence against foreigners.
The Israel donors conference
- Details
- Written by Amira Hass Amira Hass
- Published: 04 March 2009 04 March 2009
- Hits: 3922 3922
Last update - 10:24 04/03/2009
The Israel donors conference
By Amira Hass
The extent of the funding pledged to the Palestinian Authority by donor countries reflects the extent of their support for Israel and its policies. The American taxpayers' contribution to the Ramallah government's bank account is dwarfed by the large sums the U.S. government donates to Israel every year. It's impossible to get excited over the American pledge of $900 million (two-thirds of it for strengthening Salam Fayyad's government and the rest for Gaza's recovery) and forget the $30 billion the United States has promised Israel in defense aid by the end of 2017, as last week's Amnesty International report noted.
The $900 million pledged to the Palestinians in Sharm el-Sheikh should be seen as part of the regular American aid to Israel. As an occupying power, Israel is obligated to assure the well-being of the population under its control. But Israel is harming it instead, after which the United States (like other countries) rushes to compensate for the damage.
The Clinton and Bush administrations - and Barack Obama appears to be following in their footsteps - erased the phrase "Israeli occupation" from their dictionaries and collaborated with Israel in ignoring its commitments as enshrined in international law. The billions of dollars that Israel receives from the United States for weapons and defense development - which played a significant role in the destruction in the Gaza Strip - are part of Israel's successful propaganda, which presents the Rafah tunnels and Grad rockets as a strategic threat and part of the Islamic terror offensive against enlightened countries.
The West has blown the Hamas movement out of proportion, exaggerating its military might to the point of mendacity; this allowed for an extended siege and three weeks of Israeli military intractability. In the Palestinian and larger Arab world, this embellishment helps Hamas depict itself as the real patriotic force.
The hundreds of millions of euros that have been donated or pledged to help Gaza, as though it were beset by natural disasters, are overshadowing the trade ties between Europe and Israel. The Western countries concerned about humanitarian aid for the Palestinians also buy from Israel arms and defense knowledge developed under the laboratory conditions of the occupation, that serial creator of humanitarian crises.
And the 1 billion petrodollars? First of all, they were generated from a natural resource that logic dictates should benefit the Arab peoples. Second, they were pledged at a conference that boycotted Gaza (neither Hamas nor business people or social activists from the Strip participated in the donors conference). This is how Saudi Arabia lends its hand to the American and Israeli veto of inter-Palestinian reconciliation.
Every cent paid to the Palestinians - whether for the Ramallah government's budget or medical treatment of children wounded by Israeli pilots or soldiers - lets Israel know that it can continue its efforts to force a capitulation deal on the Palestinian elite. Only by recognizing that surrender is the goal can one understand that 16 years after Oslo, no Palestinian state was established. When did Shimon Peres, Ariel Sharon and Tzipi Livni begin talking about two states? Only after their bulldozers and military bureaucrats crushed the realistic physical basis of a Palestinian state. And this basis is: June 4, 1967 land (including East Jerusalem), Gaza - an inseparable part of the state - and zero settlements (and that applies to Gilo and Ma'aleh Adumim).
During the 1990s it was still possible to describe donations to the Palestinians as an expression of confidence and hope in Israel's readiness to free itself of the occupation regime it had created. But not in 2009. Support for Israeli policy - this is the only way to understand the fact that other countries keep pouring in hundreds of millions of dollars meant to put out the fires set by this policy, without extinguishing the source of the blaze.