http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files/16214_220310barkat.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WC1xG4j5kdA

8,000 Hamas rockets were fired into Israel. An act of war. Israel was justified under international law to defend itself.

The aim of Operation Cast Lead was to take out weaponry/militant strongholds. A legitmate action under international law.

Hamas fought from military strongholds imbedded in civilian areas. Hamas built no bomb shelters for Gazan civilians. Hamas must take full responsibility for civilian lives lost. Surely there is some code within international law which addresses such crimes. We all know that Hamas cynically intended civilian lives to be lost for its propaganda machine. Much credit should be given to the economy and restraint of the IDF which resulted in far less casualties than Hamas intended. No review of Israel’s actions can be made without cool assessment of the conditions under which they had to fight. Experienced servicemen Col. Tim Collins and Col. Ross Kemp have already provided their findings.

On a completely different tack - the “Doctrine of Proportionate Response,” as far as I am aware is not an article of war. The term first cropped up in the TV series “West Wing”; the media picked it up and ran with it when condemning Israel. For anyone questioning this, I suggest they read “The Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya” (Kuala Lumpur,1952).” This Manual states that Malay terrorists had only small arms, pistols, and handgrenades, generally in poor condition. The British, along with Ghurkas and Australians used state-of-the-art weaponary, including tanks, bombing runs by the RAF, and shelling by the RN. More civilians were killed than terrorist and British deaths combined.

The British hold themselves to be, and are regarded by other countries, as moral and ethical combatants.

Other manuals of conduct for operations elsewhere show the same level of defence/aggression. We must not bypass the UN action in the Balkans.

The Goldstone Report should be reviewed in the context of International Law Journals addressing “Use of Force and Self-Defence.” Further references materials/journals are:

Jus ad Bellum
Jus in Bello
“Combat Manuals: The SAS and Elite Forces” (Australia)
“International Law and the Use of Force by States”
“International Law and the Use of Force”
“Harvard International Law Journal”
“War, Aggression and Self-Defence”
“Self-Defense against the Use of Force in International Law”

‘Despite the problematic nature of the highly-biased PCHR [Palestinian Centre for Human Rights] count, even the story the raw PCHR numbers tell are not evidence of intent to kill civilians. If we count policemen as combatants, there were according to PCHR 491 combatant deaths and 926 civilian deaths. Thus, even according to one of the most biased and skewed sources available, there was a combatant casualty to civilian casualty ratio of 1 to 1.885. That is, for every Palestinian combatant killed, less than two civilians were killed. It is sad that so many innocents died during the Gaza war, but numbers alone do not prove that Israel intended to kill civilians, especially in light of how Hamas used civilians as shields (see section III infra). A United Nations report estimates that worldwide 75% of war casualties are civilians.[81] Some have suggested that the combatant-civilian casualty ratio for America’s recent drone attacks in Pakistan is as high as 1 to 10.[82] Others have suggested that during NATO’s 1999 Kosovo operation, there were four civilian casualties for every combatant casualty.[83] In late December of 2009, an American air strike killed ten civilians in Afghanistan.[84] Although there are valid arguments about the prudence of these operations, no reasonable person argues that these numbers prove an intention to kill Pakistani, Yugoslav, or Afghani civilians.

If the ratio alone proves anything it is that there was a policy of reducing civilian deaths, not targeting civilians. If Israel’s intention was truly to kill civilians, why was the combatant to civilian casualty ratio only one to less than two? Certainly if one of the world’s most advanced military forces intended to kill civilians it could have made that ratio one to five or even one to ten. As Professor Halbertal writes, “There are 1.5 million people in Gaza and around 10,000 Hamas militants, so the ratio of militants to civilians is 1:150. If Israel targeted civilians intentionally, how on earth did it reduce such a ratio to 1:3 or 2:3?”[85]‘

The critique goes into why Palestinian policemen should be regarded as combatants:
‘…the status of the Gaza police must first be considered, since approximately 250 of them were among those listed as “civilians” who were killed. Although the Goldstone Report concludes that the Gaza police force was a “civilian law-enforcement agency,”[68] there is overwhelming evidence to suggest otherwise. The Gaza police has its origins in the Hamas Executive Force. When the Executive Force was formed in 2006, its commander announced that the force was “the nucleus of the future Palestinian army. The resistance must continue. We have only one enemy. They are Jews. We have no other enemy. I will continue to carry the rifle and pull the trigger whenever required to defend my people.” [69] According to the report, the Executive Force merged with a reorganized PA police in October 2007.[70] Despite the fact that the Executive Force no longer technically exists, during Operation Cast Lead a police spokesman said, “Police officers received clear orders from the leadership to face the enemy, if the Gaza Strip were to be invaded.”[71] This is conclusive evidence that the Gaza police were not entitled to the protections accorded to civilians in war. In addition, evidence suggests many policemen were combatant individuals regardless of their connection with the police.[72] According to one count, 91% of the policemen killed were either members of a terrorist organization or in infantry training, with a “decisive majority” of casualties belonging to military wings.[73] In any event, reasonable people can and do disagree as to the status of the Gaza policemen killed by Israel. They cannot simply be lumped together with infants and other obvious non-combatants for purposes of listing the number of dead civilians.[74′

‘Reading the quote on page 8 does not suggest that the speaker was urging disproportionate civilian casualties but rather he was urging military force greater than and disproportionate to the number of Israelis killed by the rockets that were being fired at Israeli civilians. This is perfectly lawful under international law. If proportionality were required in relation to military targets, it would be impossible for countries like the United States to employ its overwhelming military weapons—drones, tomahawk missiles, stealth bombers—against terrorists, who are poorly equipped but determined to kill … In addition to relying on statements of military and political officials, the report also points to the IDF’s advanced military capabilities in concluding that Israel intentionally targeted civilians. The argument is that, because the IDF uses such advanced weaponry, whenever civilians were killed, they must have been killed intentionally … It should go without saying that, no matter how advanced or sophisticated weaponry may be, errors are made in the fog of war. A month before Operation Cast Lead, United States forces in Afghanistan attacked a wedding, killing nearly forty civilians.[55] Although everyone agrees that the United States has advanced weaponry, no reasonable person would argue that this is proof that America was targeting an Afghan wedding party. Likewise, Israeli use of sophisticated weaponry should not serve as proof that Israelis intended to kill civilians during Operation Cast Lead. After all, the IDF killed several of its own soldiers through “friendly fire” mistakes.[56]

And from the introduction:
‘The Goldstone Report, when read in full and in context, is much worse than most of its detractors (and supporters) believe. It is far more accusatory of Israel, far less balanced in its criticism of Hamas, far less honest in its evaluation of the evidence, far less responsible in drawing its conclusion, far more biased against Israeli than Palestinian witnesses, and far more willing to draw adverse inferences of intentionality from Israeli conduct and statements than from comparable Palestinian conduct and statements. It is worse than any report previously prepared by any other United Nations agency or human rights group … Most of the criticism and praise of the report has been based on its highly publicized and controversial conclusions, rather than on its methodology, analysis and substantive findings. The one statement Richard Goldstone has made, with which I agree, is that many of the report’s most strident critics have probably not read the entire report. But it is also true, though I have not heard the report’s biased author say this, that many of the report’s most vocal defenders and advocates have also not read it.

It is not surprising that so few of the report’s critics and supporters have actually made their way through its dense and repetitive texts. The version I originally read was 553 pages long plus appendices. There are 1223 footnotes, though many of its most critical statements are not well sourced. It is poorly written, obviously drafted by several different hands and without the benefit of a good overall editor. It is laden with internal inconsistencies, shoddy citations of authority, and overall poor craftsmanship. If a camel is a horse designed by a committee, this report lacks even the grace of a dromedary. Most of the commentary on the report, both pro and con, seems to be based on its somewhat sanitized summary and conclusion. Some of the worst mistakes are buried very deep in the report, many of the most serious ones toward the end.’

I’ll leave you with a quote from the above critique regarding the Goldstone report into Operation Cast Lead - it’s not about balancing numbers of casualties: ‘With these quotes in hand the report concludes, “Statements by political and military leaders prior to and during the military operations in Gaza leave little doubt that disproportionate destruction and violence against civilians were part of a deliberate policy.”[44] There is an argument, albeit a very weak one, that these quotes suggest an unlawful policy of disproportionate destruction of property. This argument is weak because the use of the word “disproportionate” quoted on page 9 supra does not constitute an admission that unlawfully disproportionate force would be employed under the standards of international law. Under international law, the harm collaterally inflicted on civilians must not be disproportionate to the military objective.[45] But there is no prohibition against using overwhelming—that is disproportionate —military force against a legitimate military object.[46] Israel had a perfect right to kill every single Hamas fighter, even if that number was in the thousands, in order to stop the rockets from endangering millions of Israeli civilians. The fact that 8,000 Hamas rockets succeeded in killing only a dozen or so Israelis, does not require Israel to limit the number of Hamas combatants killed.’

I watched the first of three sections on “youtube” thinking this actually isn’t that bad (for the BBC) but by part 2 the ominous music began and she announced she’d “discovered” (prob printed from the internet) plans to build….da da da…”parks and tourist trails” around the mount of olives! Those evil Israelis! Any other country would be praised for preserving the environment around such a historic location but to the BBC its an evil Zionist plot. She then states that many of the residents in an Arab area built illegally without permits so Israel is demolishing 88 of their squats to build another park. This is truly BBC at its worst. I couldn’t watch anymore.

Palestinians enter Israel daily for work because they are assured of equitable wages with all Israelis, also they are entitled to Israeli medical cover, and other benefits.

Check how Palestinians (even three generations born on Arab soil) are treated in Arab States - they are holed up in camps, no citizenship, no decent education, the most menial of jobs, no rights at all.
Arabs prefer to bring in foreigners, offering great incentives, rather than employ Palestinians in their midst. In Lebanon, their camp is surrounded by guards, they are not permitted to bring in building supplies to repair the hovels in which they live. Hail - Oh Robert Frisk! who has a home there yet never ventures any criticism.

Gazans are not Palestinians. Gaza was a protectorate of Egypt before the 6 Day War. Parlously administered, the Egyptians couldn’t wait to off-load this area. Gazans speak an Arabic distinct from the Palestinian, an Egyptian Arabic, they have familial and economic ties to Egypt. They gained state of-the-art industries under the Israelis. But when Israel left Gaza leaving these industries intact, the Gazans destroyed them. Why doesn’t Egypt do everyone a favour and resume control of Gaza.

The holy places of Islam are Mecca and Medina. Where in G-d’s name, does history confer on Jerusalem the honour of being a holy site to Islam.

Incidentally, non-Jews comprise 26% of Israel’s population - over 20% of Israel’s population are Islamic Arabs (once Palestinians). From your somewhat hysterical, capitalized, and ill-informed response, I can only assume that you are a teenager with a lot of growing up to do.