"Israel's military advocate general, Danny Efroni, is seen as the leader of the drive to investigate soldiers. Efroni and his legal team have received more than 100 complaints regarding incidents from last summer's war and plan to conduct criminal investigations into at least 10, including the deaths of four boys in an explosion on a Gaza beach on July 16 and an attack on a UN school on July 24.
Efroni's perspective, military analysts say, views an internal investigation as preferable to a potential probe by the International Criminal Court. The military did not answer a request seeking comment.
The Palestinians are expected to join the court within about 60 days. Once that happens, they can submit war crimes claims against Israel. However, if Israel can show the court that it has carried out its own investigation in good faith, it could avoid an outside probe.
"Some in the military say 'let us investigate, we have nothing to hide. The moment we investigate, international law won't intrude. There will be no international inquiry and no trial in The Hague,"' said Ilan Katz, a former military deputy advocate general.
Still, the threat of criminal investigations has fueled concerns that soldiers and commanders will increasingly face prosecution. Critics say that would undermine performance in the field and dissuade new recruits from joining key combat units." CT News
--------------------------
Well, you can have an army that knows it is individually and personally responsible for its actions or failure to act or you can have an army that feels that it can act with impunity. If the latter, then you will see killing of PWs after their surrender has been accepted, abuse of civilians, disproportionate use of munitions like White Phosphorus against civilian targets , etc.
There are many here who think that any violence is a war crime. That is not a real world position but the habitual use of massive force against tribal enemies in the Israeli way is also not a sustainable real world position either.
The chickens are coming home to roost. pl
Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/israeli-military-divided-over-gaza-war-probes-1.2174707#ixzz3O33A7FRv
Ken Halliwell
you are right. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 07 January 2015 at 01:47 AM
Obviously.
And you're right. Collective punishment is under Geneva IV Art. 33 a war crime.
The ICR commentary is quite unambiguous about that.
"Article 33 is derived from Article 50 of the Hague Regulations: "No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted upon the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they can not be regarded as jointly and severally responsible"
...
1. ' Prohibition of collective penalties '
The first paragraph embodies in international law one of the general principles of domestic law, i.e. that penal liability is personal in character.
This paragraph then lays a prohibition on collective penalties. This does not refer to punishments inflicted under penal law, i.e. sentences pronounced by a court after due process of law, but penalties of any kind inflicted on persons or entire groups of persons, in defiance of the most elementary principles of humanity, for acts that these persons have not committed.
This provision is very clear. If it is compared with Article 50 of the Hague Regulations, it will be noted that that Article could be interpreted as not expressly ruling out the idea that the community might bear at least a passive responsibility (2).
Thus, a great step forward has been taken. Responsibility is personal and it will no longer be possible to inflict penalties on persons Who have themselves not committed the acts complained of."
https://www.icrc.org/ihl/com/380-600038
Two points:
#1: Geneva IV expressly rules out the idea that the community might bear at least a passive responsibility and can thus be punished.
It closes an interpretative loophole in Art. 50 of the Hague Regulations, that was invoked in defence of collective punishments carried out by the warring parties in WW-II, most notoriously and brutally by the Germans and the Japanese.
Israel's reprisals against families of terrorists by, for example, razing their houses (thus making the families homeless) are punishing not the culprits but the families i.e. they are punishing the community for acts of individuals. In Israel that is established policy, and a practice that they continued using just like the British before them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_demolition_in_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict
#2: The other salient point is that in the house demolitions, the Israelis ignore that the penal liability is personal in character. Since the practice is policy, they ignore that on principle.
It gives testimony to the tribal outlook on part of the Israelis - us vs. them. Only from that point ov view it can be considered reasonable. Needless to say, that doesn't make it any less illegal.
Posted by: confusedponderer | 07 January 2015 at 02:05 AM
anna-marina,
interesting interjection, and I will answer to that in a separate post since replying would hijack this thread.
Posted by: confusedponderer | 07 January 2015 at 04:10 AM
Ken Hallwell
For a long time O-7 and O-8 in the navy wore the same insignia and were both called rear admiral. Then DoD or someone told the navy to differentiate the two and the rank of Commodore O-7 was revived with the insignia of one broad cuff stripe. Then the navy bitched about that so much that they are now allowed to call an O-7 a rear admiral lower half with the same insignia that a commodore had. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 07 January 2015 at 08:52 AM
Robert Fisk has nicely disrobed the emperor in this rant at Counterpunch:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/01/05/palestine-and-the-icc-2/
"But surely the most significant event of all is that the descendants of the PLO – excoriated only a quarter of a century ago as the most dangerous “terrorist” organisation in the world, its mendacious leader Yasser Arafat branded “our Bin Laden” by Israel’s mendacious leader Ariel Sharon – actually wants TO ABIDE BY INTERNATIONAL LAW!"
Now that's an existential threat to peace, well, to something, that must be sternly put down by all means necessary.
Posted by: Charles I | 07 January 2015 at 12:14 PM
One of my favorite lines is how the Chinese killed millions, took all Tibet we only kill a few thousands. . . morality by the numbers.
Posted by: Charles I | 07 January 2015 at 12:16 PM
Charles I: No, I've actually had someone argue to me that "Israel could have killed many more--but didn't--so it's not a war crime."
Posted by: Matthew | 07 January 2015 at 06:32 PM