Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Gandhi, criminale di guerra

Secondo Human Rights watch, ora, la resistenza non-violenta e' un
crimine di guerra.
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=718
Nonviolent Resistance is not Illegal: HRW Should Retract Statement
In defense of nonviolent resistance in Gaza
12.01.2006 | International Solidarity Movement
On Sunday, Nov. 19, hundreds of Palestinian civilians crowded into the
building where the family of Mohammed Baroud and a number of other
families live in Jabalya refugee camp in the Gaza Strip. Israeli
military forces had warned that the building would be attacked. The
planned Israeli attack was deterred by this action. Two hours later,
the scene was replicated at the family home of Mohammed Nawajeh, with
the same results.
The International Solidarity Movement (ISM) applauds the people of
Jabalya for their courageous and effective use of -violentnonviolent
resistance, and we express our full solidarity with their actions,
which are positive initiatives in the struggle to defend Palestinian
rights. We encourage international volunteers to participate in these
actions, as did Father Peter Dougherty and Sister Mary Ellen Gundeck of
the Michigan Peace Team.
We note with disappointment that Human Rights Watch (HRW) chose to
condemn these actions, suggesting that they could constitute a "war
crime." In a November 22, 2006 press release entitled, "OPT: Civilians
Must Not Be Used to Shield Homes Against Military Attacks" HRW Middle
East Director Sarah Leah Whitson said, "There is no excuse for calling
civilians to the scene of a planned attack. Whether or not the home is
a legitimate military target, knowingly asking civilians to stand in
harm's way is unlawful."
HRW's press release is factually, legally, and morally flawed.
HRW based its statement on contested factual information. HRW claimed
that "Palestinian armed groups" and Mohammed Baroud encouraged
civilians to gather around the homes. However, while some press
accounts mention Baroud's role, numerous other press and participant
accounts from Gaza suggest that the mobilizations resulted from calls
by civilian leaders and a groundswell of popular anger against Israeli
home demolitions.
As just one example, Eyad Bayary, a head nurse at Jabalya Hospital who
went to Baroud's home with another twenty of his neighbors, told ISM
that he did not hear a call from Baroud asking people to protect his
home. He and his neighbors went to support Baroud and his family and to
protest the shelling out of their own volition. "I live next to Mr.
Baroud's family home. If his home is shelled at best my home would be
damaged. My wife is in the six month of her pregnancy. God forbid, a
shelling of the house next door could endanger her and the child she is
carrying. All our children would be affected. We went to the Baroud
family house because we were scared and angry. No one asked us to
come."
In addition to this factual weakness, we believe that HRW's position
reflects serious errors in the interpretation and application of
international humanitarian law (IHL), in two fundamental respects: (1)
HRW's position explicitly rejects considering the legitimacy of the
target as relevant to the legal analysis; and (2) HRW's position
erroneously places the burden of protecting civilian lives on the
population being attacked instead of on the belligerents carrying out
the attack.
According to HRW, "In the case where the object of attack is not a
legitimate military target, calling civilians to the scene would still
contravene the international humanitarian law imperative for parties to
the conflict to take all feasible precautions to protect civilians from
the effects of attack." IHL clearly makes target legitimacy central to
the determination of lawful vs. unlawful conduct. Protocol I of the
Geneva Convention, Articles 51(7) provides that "Parties to the
conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or
individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives
from attacks or to shield military operations." Article 52 of the same
Protocol makes clear that a civilian home is a civilian object and not
a military objective. Even if Mohammed Baroud and Mohammed Nawajeh are
military commanders, their families, their family homes and the homes
of other families in the same buildings are not military objectives.
Therefore, the Geneva Convention's prohibition on the use of civilians
to shield military objectives does not apply to the voluntary gathering
of Palestinian civilians to protect civilian objects like the homes of
Baroud and Nawajeh from a pending Israeli attack. Rather, Israel's
targeting of these homes constitutes a violation of numerous provisions
of IHL that proscribe attacks on civilian property, and of Article 33
of the Fourth Geneva Convention, strictly prohibiting the destruction
of property for the purpose of collective punishment.
While IHL places obligations on all parties to a conflict to take "all
feasible precautions" to protect civilians from the effects of attack,
HRW does not cite support for its claim that encouraging civilians to
defend their homes from military strikes constitutes a violation of
this imperative. In fact, Protocol I, Article 57 relating to
precautions in attack, specifically places the obligation to protect
civilians on "those who plan or decide upon an attack." (Protocol I,
Art. 57(2)(a)). Furthermore, providing warning does not absolve Israel
of its responsibility not to attack civilian objects, nor does it make
the civilian objects legitimate military targets.
The error of HRW's interpretation of IHL is even more obvious when we
consider that HRW statements like "Civilians Must Not Be Used to Shield
Homes Against Military Attacks" and "knowingly asking civilians to
stand in harm's way is unlawful" would proscribe many completely
legitimate forms of non-violentnonviolent resistance in occupied
peoples' struggles. The Fourth Geneva Convention and its Additional
Protocols were never intended to permit an aggressor to choose his
targets at will, while putting the onus on the civilian victims to get
out of the way. Nor were these laws created to prevent civilians from
exercising their right to defend their property.
The condemnation of -violentnonviolent efforts by civilians to prevent
the destruction of civilian homes also represents a failure of moral
judgment on the part of HRW. To condemn -violentnonviolent actions in
this way is to confuse civil resistance with the forcible use of "human
shields" by military combatants, such as those documented by the
Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem in its November, 2002 report
"Human Shield". The report describes Israeli military seizures of
Palestinian civilians, forcing them to walk in front of soldiers and
sometimes placing them on the hoods of their vehicles to deter attacks
against their military personnel. These Israeli military actions are
clearly war crimes (though HRW failed to label them as such in its
April, 2002 report, on "In a Dark Hour: The Use of Civilians during IDF
Arrest Operations"). IHowever, it is a mistake to extend this principle
to the courageous voluntary participation of unarmed individuals in
mass non-violent actions in defense of their human rights.
By condemning nonviolent civilian resistance in this way, HRW endangers
those practicing it, and undermines the work of other human rights
groups and the credibility of HRW itself. ISM calls upon HRW to retract
its November 22 press release and to recognize the courage and the
legitimacy of the actions of the Palestinian community in Jabalya.

judgment on the part of HRW.
*ROTFL*
Come no! :)
-Stefano

 
luno...@gmail.com
 wrote:
/cut/
Subject riduttivo.
Non quoto.
Tb
-- 
[Tb] :
Il dovere di un comunista sarebbe quello di formare un cordone sanitario
attorno alla feccia nazi
[.sergio.]
No [...] se posta articoli che condivido      |     
http://snipurl.com/11s9a
--------------------------------------------------
Il mio blog: 
www.tonibaruch.blogspot.com

 .

  .
Certo potrebbe essere il fake...
Am.

 Certo potrebbe essere il fake...
Lo e'.
-Stefano

 Nonviolent Resistance is not Illegal: HRW Should Retract Statement
Per fortuna, sembra sia successo.
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/11/22/isrlpa14652.htm
We regret that our press release below ("OPT: Civilians Must Not Be
Used to Shield Homes Against Military Attacks") gave many readers the
impression that we were criticizing civilians for engaging in
nonviolent resistance. This was not our intention. It is not the policy
of the organization to criticize non-violent resistance or any other
form of peaceful protest, including civilians defending their homes.
Rather, our focus is on the behavior of public officials and military
commanders because they have responsibilities under international law
to protect civilians.
It has also become clear to us that we erred in assessing the main
incident described in the press release. We said that the planned IDF
attack on the house of a military commander in the Popular Resistance
Committee, Muhammadwail Barud, fell within the purview of the law
regulating the conduct of hostilities during armed conflict. We
criticized Barud for reportedly urging civilians to assemble near the
house in order to prevent the attack, in apparent violation of that
law. Our focus was not on the civilians who assembled, their state of
mind, or their behavior (such as whether they willingly assembled or
not), but on Barud for risking the lives of civilians.
We have since concluded that we were wrong, on the basis of the
available evidence, to characterize the IDF's planned destruction of
the house as an act of war. If the planned attack against the house -
a three-story building housing three families - was, in fact, an
administrative action by the Israeli government aimed at punishing a
militant for his alleged activities, the law regulating the conduct of
hostilities during armed conflict would not apply and could not be
violated.
An important consideration in this regard is whether the IDF had reason
to believe that the house was being used for military purposes at the
time of the planned attack. To date, Human Rights Watch has not
obtained conclusive evidence as to whether the house was being so used,
but eyewitnesses we have been able to speak with, including two
journalists on the scene, claim they saw no such evidence. The IDF,
moreover, has not responded to our requests to explain what military
objective it could have had in targeting not a militant but his home
after having ordered it vacated.
We recognize that it is important to view the planned destruction of
Barud's house in light of Israel's longstanding policy in the
Occupied Palestinian Territories, sharply increased in Gaza since June,
of demolishing houses not as legitimate military targets but as a
punitive measure. HRW has repeatedly criticized Israel for unlawful
demolition of houses.

 to protect civilians
Confermato, il coglione stava volontariamente offuscando la differenza 
tra "resistenza non violenta" fatta da civili per difendere obiettivi 
civili e *VIOLAZIONI DELLA CONVENZIONE DI GINEVRA, come la pratica degli 
scudi umani, decisa in ambito militare, per difendere legittimi 
obiettivi militari.
ROTFL
Tb


Bravo.   Ora leggi la frase immediatamente dopo che, si fede offuscato
dalle risate, ti e' sfuggita:
"We have since concluded that we were wrong, on the basis of the
available evidence, to characterize the IDF's planned destruction of
the house as an act of war. If the planned attack against the house –
a three-story building housing three families - was, in fact, an
administrative action by the Israeli government aimed at punishing a
militant for his alleged activities, the law regulating the conduct of
hostilities during armed conflict would not apply and could not be
violated. "
Cioe', HRW ammette che si trattava, appunto, di resistenza non violenta
fatta da civili per difendere obiettivi civili.  Grazie per l'ennesima
conferma che come propagandista non vali un cazzo.
GT

luno...@hotmail.com
 ha scritto:

"If", Torrieri, "if".
La resistenza passiva rimane una cosa diversa dal crimine di guerra 
dell'uso di scudo umani, contrariamente a quanto vuol farci credere 
l'offuscante Finkelstein.
Tb

luno...@hotmail.com
 ha scritto:




ma benede' e' giusto un goebbelsuccio di corso magenta...
-- 
Qultura politica di Tonibaruch su It.Politica.Internazionale :
"Oltre al cumswapping e al cumdodging, fai anche il creampie, 
porno-razzi-catto-somarello?" 
http://groups.google.it/group/it.politica.internazionale/msg/1db9ef6abb0f7604?dmode=source&hl=it
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it


We have concluded that we are wrong.
If we are wrong then A.
Toni, i cui paraocchi funzionano MOLTO meglio dei neuroni logici dice:
"ma loro non hanno detto A".
GT