The High Court is expected to rule tomorrow on a landmark legal challenge accusing the British government of breaching international law over its support for Israeli aggression in the Gaza strip.

Palestinian human rights group Al-Haq is calling for a judicial review of the government’s involvement in, and failure to condemn, Israeli atrocities in the area.

The case specifically focuses on Britain’s continued arms trading with Israel, arguing that this aided and abetted “horrific human rights violations” in Gaza.

Lawyers for Al-Haq contend that Britain has legal obligations to denounce Israel’s actions against the Palestinian people and to co-operate with other states to end its breaches under international law.

The action is being backed by the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign, the Scottish TUC and Public Interest Lawyers, which is representing Al-Haq.

Phil Shiner, the solicitor representing Al-Haq in the case, stated: “The UK government has not only failed to take any effective measures in preventing Israel’s ongoing unlawful behaviour, it has positively aided it by continuing to supply arms to it.

“Al Haq are pursuing this case through the courts to ensure that the UK government now comply with all of its obligations under international law,” said Mr Shiner

Supporting the legal bid, STUC assistant secretary Mary Senior said: “Earlier this year during the STUC’s visit to Israel and Palestine, we met with Al-Haq’s director, Shawan Jabarin in Ramallah.

“Mr Jabarin explained to us why international sanctions against the state of Israel for its breaches of international laws are not only legitimate, but absolutely necessary to maintain the integrity of international laws,” said Ms Senior.

The government has responded to the legal claim by stating that the British courts should not dictate to it on matters of foreign policy.

Al-Haq is asking the court to reject this argument as “outdated” and accept that what is being requested of it is a ruling on the legality of the government’s actions, and inaction, in the context of “egregious and established breaches of international law by the Israeli state.”

An estimated 1,400 Palestinians, including over 400 children, were killed during Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli bombardment and incursion into Gaza between December 2008 and January 2009.

paddym@peoples-press.com
http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/britain/high_court_set_to_rule_on_britain_s_role_in_gaza_war

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8102631.stm
Tuesday 16 June 2009

Carter ‘distressed’ by Gaza visit

Mr Carter advocates talks with Hamas

Former US President Jimmy Carter has said he had to “hold back tears” while viewing destruction on a visit to Gaza.

He is due to meet leaders from Hamas, which controls Gaza but is considered a terrorist group by western countries.

The veteran politician is expected to hand over a letter for captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit from his family.

He condemned “deliberate” destruction in Israel’s January offensive, but also expressed sadness over Palestinian rocket attacks on Israeli towns.

The former US president, who brokered the 1979 Israel-Egypt peace deal, has long advocated engagement with the militant Hamas movement as crucial for progress on peace.

The BBC’s Aleem Maqbool in Gaza says he is one of the highest profile figures to visit Gaza for years.

While Mr Carter is not visiting in an official capacity, many in Gaza hope he has the ear of US President Barack Obama, our correspondent says.

Visiting the American School in Gaza, damaged in Israel’s three-week operation, Mr Carter said “it’s very distressing to me”.

He said the school had been “deliberately destroyed by bombs from F-16s made in my country and delivered to the Israelis”.

“It’s not good to see this destruction, but it’s also not good, when I go to Sderot, to see rockets falling on Israelis,” he said, in reference to an Israeli town that is a frequent target of rocket fire from Palestinian militants.

“The only way to avoid this tragedy happening again is to have genuine peace agreed between the Palestinians and Israel,” he said.

‘New obstacles’

Hamas did not confirm whether it would pass the letter on to Gilad Shalit, who has been held captive since 2006.

A Hamas spokesman said 11,000 letters would have to be sent in return, referring to the number of Palestinian prisoners he believed were being held in Israeli detention.

Mr Carter was due to meet former Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Ismail Haniya of Hamas.

He has met the movement’s leader in Damascus, Khaled Meshaal, several times previously.

Visiting Israel earlier this week, Mr Carter said a major policy speech given by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “raised many new obstacles to peace”.

While Mr Netanyahu yielded to US pressure to back the creation of a Palestinian state, he set the conditions that it must be demilitarised and recognise Israel as a Jewish state.

Whom? a little presumptuous maybe . I believe the word you wanted was WHO.
Rule.
Use the he/him method to decide which word is correct.
he = who
him = whom
Examples: Who/Whom wrote the letter?
He wrote the letter. Therefore, who is correct.
For who/whom should I vote?
Should I vote for him? Therefore, whom is correct

as for what can I do , That is absolutely nothing , and if I could do something I couldn’t promise you that I would . you need to remember I am a right wing psychopath well maybe a sociopath . I am just here for the scenery .

Most here have the ability to profuse information. The article above shows just how humanity IS. What is your excuse? What the hell are YOU doing?

Tell me Danny Ray, just what the fuck can You Really Do Danny Ray?

Please do tell Danny Ray!

pathetic.

because italy lost ww2, it lost some regions which were given to her by allies in ‘19. So, technically speaking, pavelic [married to a jew] and with kvaternik [another jew] his second in command did not cede to italy all of the coastal regions.
there was other ‘jews’ who were prominent in Ustasha gov’t. So, go figure? tnx bozhidar balkas vanvouver formerly from littoral croatia but in canada 57 yrs.
bozhidar is obviously a slav name. It means dods gift.

April 2002 – During Operation Defensive Shield, soldiers greatly
increase the use of Palestinians as human shields.

May 2002 – Seven human rights organizations petition the High Court
of Justice
against the use of Palestinians as human shields. The
IDF informs the court that it will stop using civilians for military
tasks, except for the “neighbor procedure.”

August 2002 – Nidal Abu Mukhsan is killed while serving
as a human shield during implementation of the “neighbor procedure.”
Following another petition filed by the human rights organizations, the
court issues a temporary injunction forbidding the IDF to use the procedure. Soldiers continue to use it.

November 2002 – B’Tselem publishes a report that describes five cases in which soldiers violated the court’s order. The petitioners file an application in accordance with the Contempt of Court Ordinance.

December 2002 – The State files its response to the Court, in which
it contends that the army is no longer using Palestinians as human shields but only “is assisted by residents to prevent the loss of life.” The State attaches the “prior warning procedure,” which is intended to replace the “neighbor procedure.”

According to the new procedure, “assistance” by civilians is allowed if, in the judgment of the military commander in the field, the life of the “person giving assistance” is not endangered, provided that the individual consents.

In reply, the human rights organizations contend that the new procedure is unlawful and that it is incorrect to state that such “assistance” does not endanger the person’s life. The petitioners include testimonies relating to cases in which civilians were used as human shields after the High Court issued the temporary injunction.

January 2003 – The High Court of Justice reduces the temporary
injunction, and allows use of the “prior warning procedure.” At the request of the High Court, the human rights organizations file a legal opinion stating that the procedure is unlawful. The IDF has not yet responded to the petitioners’ arguments. In the meanwhile, it implements the “prior warning procedure.”

July 2003 – The High Court hears the petition of the human rights
organizations, in which the parties argue the legality of the “prior warning procedure” and the application to hold the respondent in contempt of court, which was filed after the IDF continued to use human shields. The High Court extends the validity of the temporary injunction until further order.

April 2004 – The human rights organizations file an application with
the High Court for a temporary order directing the IDF to refrain from using Palestinians as human shields and/or hostages, and to forbid the IDF from asking them to take part in any military action, or to use them in any such action, without exception and without army officials having any discretion in the matter.

The petitioners attach testimonies and affidavits relating to
additional cases, dating from December 2003 to April 2004, in which
civilians were used as human shields.

August 2004 – On 16 August 2004, Adalah files an application
requesting that the Court order the IDF, in accordance with the Contempt of Court Ordinance, to comply with the High Court’s order prohibiting it from using individuals as human shields or hostages in military operations. The application also requests that the High Court impose a fine on the military authorities.

In its application, Adalah contends that the IDF is continuing to violate
the High Court prohibition on the use of human shields. Attached to the application are eight new testimonies, which were given to B’Tselem, involving cases in which the IDF used Palestinians as human shields or hostages between the period January-July 2004.

September 2004 – On 5 September 2004, the High Court hears the
petition filed by Adalah in May 2002 against the use of Palestinians as
human shields or hostages. Supreme Court President Aharon Barak criticizes the “prior warning procedure,” which replaced the “neighbor procedure,” and urges the IDF to forego use of the procedure, on the grounds that the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits the use of local residents in military actions by the occupying army.

In his comments, President Barak says that, “Out of one hundred cases in which the neighbor willingly helps the army, ninety-nine of them will be against his will. It is very hard to verify willingness, and the fear is that, when a contingent of soldier come at night, out of fear no neighbor will refuse to cooperate with the soldiers.” The High Court announces that it will give it decision at a later time.

6 October 2005: The High Court of Justice rules that it is illegal
for the IDF to use Palestinian civilians during military actions and that it
is forbidden to use the prior warning procedure.

So such a struggle! Not only was Israel caught using Palestinians as human shields a hundred times or more (and we have since learned they used Lebanese civilians as well), they fought every inch of the way to keep doing so – despite the law suits of SEVEN Human Rights Organizations. And guess what – despite the Israeli “law” against using human shields – they still do so.

So let’s be clear about this – Israel, in its attacks on the West Bank and Gaza, has been convicted of using human shields. The Palestinians (and the Lebanese) have been cleared of same in the defense of their homelands.

You are right of course all groups in the area sent many heroes to fight the fascist. And we will never know the sacrifices they made in those dark mountain forest.

re partisans of yugoslavia fighting croats, you are wrong. For your education, partisans were slovenes, croats, serbs, maceddonians, and montenegrins.
i’m not sure about how many bosniaks [muslims] joined partisans. Tito, self was a croat. Proportionally, more croats were partisans that serbs.
however, it is true that the serbs, slovenes, and croats also fought partisans on behalf of germans and italians.

all three peoples had puppet gov’ts installed by italy and germany.
9o% of croat partisans were from coastal regions. These were the regions that Ustashe [croats] ceded to italy which led to massive uprising by littoral croatia.
you are forgiven for mistaken use of the word “insurgency” to describe what is going on in palestina, and other places. tnx

http://www.peaceandjustice.it/images/gaza2/34.jpg

From the US Citizens for Peace and Justice website.
http://www.peaceandjustice.it

I used the term Insurgent because the school I was taught in used that term.

Again Human shields are not used so much for protection as for the propanganda value.

If you don’t mind strapping a bomb on the back of a retarded kid and sending him into a crowd of your ememies you wont mind having some of your own people killed to gain an edge in the press. and I will go further and say that sometimes if the body count is too low to attract attention it can be added to.