Thursday, October 15, 2009

UN rights chief backs Gaza war crimes report

Jarrod Rudd
October 15, 2009

The U.N.’s top Human Rights official wrote a 575 page report accusing Israel of using disproportionate force, deliberately targeted civilians, using Palestinians as human shields, and destroying civilian infrastructure during its Dec. 27-Jan. 18 incursion into the Gaza Strip to root out Palestinian rocket squads. It also accused Palestinian armies of targeting citizens and spreading terror. These war crimes were brought up in front of a 47 member council, where he argued these facts and tried to show them what the Israeli and Palestinian armies were really doing during the time of war in Gaza. The United States has looked at this report and concluded that peace efforts between the two groups can’t be achieved if this kind of behavior continues. The council is debating a resolution that would make the two groups make security a forefront and work out issues in another way.

This seems crazy to me. I don’t see why these two groups have to inflict danger on others just because of their war. Maybe since I don’t see a point in war in the first place, I don’t fully understand why this has to be done. I’m glad that the government is stepping in and making it a priority to accuse people of not properly fighting I guess you could call it, and also making other countries see that deliberately targeting citizens is just wrong because you really don’t get anywhere by doing that, it just makes the other country or group of people more upset. I hope this issue can be resolved soon, even though I know it probably won’t.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hj4Q2pdqZHVVfQcbXxokISeln93QD9BBKREO1

2 comments:

mlellis said...

I don't understand the need for war as well. The fact that they are harming innocent civilians in the midst of their war is just unbelievable as well.

chase salmons said...

I think we read the exact same article. Yeah, it seems like the main sort of confusion here isn't so much in the question of Why war? but How war? Which kind of seems to make the question a bit stupid. Firing guns at one another while shaking hands doesn't seem very reasonable.