Political Futures: Will Conservative Global Middle Powers Go…

By Denis Bright National elections in Germany and Australia in 2025 will test…

Does the Treasurer have a god complex or…

By Dale Webster THE Senate inquiry into regional bank closures, which delivered its…

Educating Australian Voters for True Democracy

By Denis Hay Description Explore how educating Australian voters can reform the two-party system…

Zionism, Imperialism and conflict in the Middle East

As we are constantly bombarded by the ongoing conflict in Gaza and…

Sado-populism

Every time a fascist-flirting regime is defeated in an election, more column…

A nation on the move: New tool tracks…

Media Release: The Climate Council Millions of Australian homes and businesses are driving…

Thank You for Emitting: The Hypocrisies of COP29

COP29 was always going to be memorable, for no other reason than…

ALP vs LNP: Similarities, Differences

By Denis Hay Title ALP vs LNP: Similarities, Differences, and Policy Impacts on…

«
»
Facebook

Tag Archives: genocide

Why are so many women and children being killed in Gaza and Lebanon?

The statistics are horrific.

On October 7 last year, 1200 Israelis were killed and over 200 hostages were taken in an attack on a music festival near the Gaza/Israel border. Included among the fatalities were a number killed by ‘friendly fire’ when the IDF were deployed to take care of the situation.

Of the fatalities recorded to date of deaths in Gaza, more than 40,000 – over 60% – are women and children. Women and children tend not to be soldiers fighting in the war zone, but rather ‘collateral damage’, unfortunate people who just happened to be in the way as the bombs went off. Reports tend not to tell of Hamas fighters being killed.

In Lebanon, including the targeted attack using pagers and walkie talkies and the targeted blowing up of buildings where Hezbollah leaders meet has killed 569 people including 50 children and wounded 1,835 people, according to the Lebanese health ministry. Oh, and yes, a senior Hezbollah commander was among those killed.

Why are there no clearer indications given of actual fighters being killed or are all males over a certain age considered to be enemies or potential enemies?

Available on ABC iview there is a documentary film, Prosecuting Evil, about a Jewish lawyer, Ben Ferencz, who as a 27 year old graduate in 1945 was the prosecutor in the Nuremberg War Crimes trials. In his opening statement to the court he said:

“Vengeance is not honourable.

Nor do we seek merely a just retribution.

We ask this court to affirm by international penal action man’s right to live in peace and dignity regardless of his race or creed.”

As the trial off 22 Nazi officers proceeded, each pleaded their innocence, but were convicted on their documentation of the deaths they were held to account for, but there was one defendant who stood out for the prosecutor. He was Otto Ohlendorf, a doctor, a general, a father of five children and a devoted husband. In presenting his rationale for the killings he signed off on, apart from the plea of ‘following orders’, couched in his subservience to Hitler who had said that Russia was going to take over Germany and the Jews would take over too or words something like that, but claimed his sense of humanity, his attempt to make the murders less traumatic, that he did not ‘smash babies heads against trees’ instead order that when a mother was holding a baby, to shoot the baby and so doing kill both mother and child. That was far less traumatising and far more efficient. I somehow come to the conclusion that the trauma alluded to was not that of the victims. His plea of self defence was based on the perceived threat from Russia and the survival of the Jewish people and how that endangered his and Germany’s existence.

After the Colonel-Doctor was convicted and sentenced to hang, the young lawyer visited him to ask, person to person, looking for some measure of remorse, some acknowledgement that the had in fact committed a war crime, a crime against humanity.

Perhaps an apology to his family for his crimes.

“Can I do something for you?”

“You will see that I was right. The Russians will take over, The Jews will survive.”

I relate that because after the war, the Nuremberg Trials exposed the criminality of the Nazi regime who conducted, in fact industrialised the mass murder of people based on ethnicity, both Jews and Gypsies, and on sexuality by killing homosexuals, and those who were deemed to suffer from mental disorders, or anyone else who did not conform to the Nazi definition of who was allowed to live.

More than the Nuremberg Trials, the newly formed United Nations passed a resolution to partition the middle eastern British protectorate of Palestine to be a two nation state for Jewish refugees, survivors of the Holocaust to settle alongside the existing Palestinian population.

And still more was done: the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights was written and endorsed by all member states, including the newly formed nation of Israel. The declaration re-affirmed the ideals of freedom of religion, that there cannot be discrimination based on ethnicity, religion, sexuality, that there is freedom of thought and speech, for refugees the right of return and so many other rights we have as human beings.

But it didn’t stop there, the International Court of Justice was formed to allow for leaders who perpetrated crimes against humanity could be held to account.

These were actions taken to try to in some way redress the horrors of the Holocaust and acknowledging the attitudes which led up to the marginalisation and genocide which had occurred, trying to ensure that such events would never occur again.

Peace has never been easy to find. And despite the best efforts of the International community it seems peace in the middle east is particularly elusive. What does not help is the rhetoric both from the Israeli leaders and military spokes people, and from the Palestinian side along with their regional supporters. While international support for Israel was strong immediately after the October 7 attack, the devastation of their retaliation which smacks more of vengeance and retribution that to seriously search out the Hamas leadership and seriously negotiate the release of hostages, some of whom have also been accidentally killed by Israeli soldiers.

With the death toll now approaching forty, Palestinian lives for each Israeli life lost and the seemingly complete destruction of anywhere to live within the Gaza strip, that support is fading fast, and now to make the claims that their intelligence is so good they can find the leadership of Hezbollah whereever they are, the bombing of residential buildings and subsequent loss of civilian lives, including women and children again appear to be more vengeance than an execution or assassination of a known target.

To date, there has been no reported deaths by Hezbollah attacks into Israel, but the death toll in Lebanon as a result of those attacks is climbing fast. If Israel invades, as seems to be their threat, it will be the sixth time since 1978.

It seems the Israeli leadership, the Zionists and Prime Minister Netanyahu will not be satisfied until the Biblical promise of the land belonging to the descendants of Abraham is realised, and the land cleansed of those who are not identified as such… and the identification is one of belief, a religious creed, that of Judaism. In effect, using the same argument the Nazis had for eliminating people who did not conform to their definition of what a good German looked like.

But why are there so many women and children killed in these conflicts?

Could it be that each child killed cannot grow up to become the enemy?

And could it be that by killing women and children cannot be born to grow up to become the enemy?

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

Going to the ICJ: Myanmar, Genocide and Aung San Suu Kyi’s Gamble

Leaders currently in office rarely make an appearance before either the International Court of Justice or the International Criminal Court. International law remains affixed to the notion that heads-of-state are, at least for the duration of their time in office, safe from prosecution. Matters change once the time in office expires.

Be that as it may, Myanmar’s Aung San Suu Kyi, with an ever-dwindling number of peace prizes and awards to her name for questionable responses to the plight of the Rohingya Muslim minority, has a plan. She intends to personally plead the case of her country against charges of genocide being made in the International Court of Justice. As the Ministry of the Interior has claimed, the argument against state brutality against the Rohingya has arisen due to ignorance about “the complexities of the issue and the narratives of the people of Myanmar.”

The case itself is drawn from the well of universal jurisdiction, a concept that Henry Kissinger finds so troubling to the freedom of flexible statecraft. The former US secretary of state, in 2001, warned that subjecting international relations to judicial procedures came with risks. “The danger lies in pushing the effort to extremes that risk substituting the tyranny of judges for that of governments; historically, the dictatorship of the virtuous has often led to inquisitions and even witch-hunts.”

Kissinger ignores a lingering point stretching back to Roman law that universal jurisdiction, or at least the rhetoric of it, can be exercised against certain crimes that might revolt the tender conscience humanity. Piracy, for instance, might be punished as an extra-territorial offence, though it should not be confused as being on all fours with international criminal law. “I need not tell you the heinousness of this offence,” came the pre-deliberation address to the jury in the piracy trial of Capt William Kidd in 1701. “Pirates are called ‘Hostes humani generis’ the enemies of the people.”

In this instance, the threat to Myanmar’s authority does not come from an internal action, but from the West African country of The Gambia as a representative of the 57-member Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. Last month, a 46-page application was submitted by the Muslim-majority state to the ICJ, alleging the commission by Myanmar’s authorities of mass murder, rape and the destruction of communities living within Rakhine State, ostensibly as part of a “clearing” program. “The genocidal acts committed during these operations were intended to destroy the Rohingya as a group… by the use of mass murder, rape and other forms of sexual violence, as well as the systematic destruction by fire of their villages, often with inhabitants locked inside burning houses.”

Some 720,000 Rohingya were forced to flee to Bangladesh in light of these operations, and the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar, established by the UN Human Rights Council, revealed nothing in the way of redeeming evidence on the part of government authorities. Its August 2018 report made special mention of the predations of the security forces in Rakhine State, though also noted the actions of armed ethnic groups in Kahin and Shan States. More detailed findings were published the following month.

The Mission, having designated the Rohingya to be a protected group, satisfied itself that acts of genocide had been committed. “Perpetrators have killed Rohingya, caused serious bodily and mental harm to Rohingya, deliberately inflicted conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of Rohingya, and imposed measures intended to prevent births to Rohingya.”

Enough, then, to go on in terms of mounting a legal action, albeit in slightly different circumstances. The instance of this case is irregular, given that the ICJ usually undertakes such hearings after consulting the findings of other tribunals, be it the International Criminal Court or those of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.

The decision by Suu Kyi to take the matter on personally in both roles as state counsellor and foreign minister is garnering mixed reviews. In Myanmar, propaganda units have been mobilised. Support for the decision is being encouraged in the days leading up to the December 10-12 hearings through planned rallies being organised by the ruling National League for Democracy (NLD) in Yangon, Mandalay, Monywa, and Mawlamyine.

Numerous armed groups have expressed their approval. Nyi Rang, external relations official for the United Wa State Army (UWSA) is one. “We are proud and supporting her taking responsibility and travelling to face the trial.” Colonel Khun Okkar, chairman of the Pa-O National Liberation Organisation (PNLO) is another. “We need to show our solidarity with the government which is trying to prove that the offences cannot be classified as genocide.”

This position, it should be said, is not universally shared within Myanmar itself. This stands to reason: not all ethnic armed organisations within the state are rooting for a government deemed the handmaiden of military brutality. The Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army (MNDAA), the Ta’ang National Liberation Army (TNLA) and the Arakan Army (AA) suggest that claims of genocide are not only plausible but historical, having taken place over seven decades of civil war. According to a sombre spokesman for the AA, “She [Aung San Suu Kyi] should not be defending war criminals who try to hide behind the term ‘the charge of the nation’.”

The prosecutor of the ICC has also opened up a preliminary investigation into the matter, an action approved by the Pre-Trial Chamber III of the ICC, though the action is limited by the fact that Myanmar is not a signatory to the court’s statute. That said, the three-judge panel reasoned that an investigation could take place as long as part of the alleged criminal conduct occurred in the territory of a State Party. Myanmar may well not be a State Party, but Bangladesh most certainly is.

The Gambia case promises to revisit the at times contentious basis as to how universal jurisdiction is invoked, despite the acceptance by such organisations as Amnesty International that most UN Member States “can exercise universal jurisdiction over one or more crimes under international law, either as such crimes or as ordinary crimes under national law.”

The sight of Suu Kyi, defending the actions of the military against what security forces deem legitimate counterinsurgency operations, is going to paint a bleak picture indeed. From the giddy summit of peace prizes and romanticised positions against tyranny, the civilian leader of Myanmar has become a powerful exponent of a certain brand of blood soaked Realpolitik, state brutality sanitised and reasoned.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button