KK-Forum,
flere poenger til beste for Gabriel Kielland (beklager at jeg flere ganger
skrev "GS" istedenfor "GK".
At 14:30 10.01.2002 +0100, Gabriel Kielland wrote to Knut Rognes:
>Genevekonvensjonene gjelder erklært krig mellom land, så de passer ikke i
>Afghanistan der bombingen skjer i samråd med det regimet som allerede var
>støttet av USA (og av FN).
På
http://www.itk.ntnu.no/ansatte/Andresen_Trond/kk-f/fra151001/0244.html
referte jeg B'Tselem som spredde en artikkel fra den israelske avis
Ha'aretz 11. desember 2001. Der sto det bl.a.:
****
Test of the Geneva Convention
by Ron Dudai, B’Tselem researcher
Israel uses “security considerations” to violate human rights in the
Occupied Territories
... Last week, the
States that are party to the Geneva Convention - the fundamental
document of humanitarian international law - convened and determined
that Israel, a signatory of the Convention, systematically violates many
of its provisions including establishing settlements in occupied
territory, imposing collective punishment, demolishing houses, and
imposing closures and curfews. As could have been expected, the
response of many Israelis was dismissive: “The world is against us,”
“They are anti-semitic,” and “They do not understand the grave situation
Israel is in. How is it possible to speak about human rights and
international law when innocent citizens are being killed in terrorist
attacks and Israel is at war?”
The response is simple. Human rights only have any value if they are
preserved in times of crisis. The claim that “Israel is not Holland,”
which has often been voiced in public debate, is accurate: In Holland
the Geneva Convention is not needed. In Israel it is, desperately.
The Geneva Convention, and international law as a whole, is not
pacifistic or naive. Nobody is calling for warring armies to “make love,
not war.” The fact that armies engage in war, and that soldiers - and
sometimes even innocent people - are killed is taken for granted.
However, one clear and simple message arises from this understanding:
that even in war, not everything is permissible. Some acts are
forbidden, in all circumstances. Both the Geneva Convention and the
International Declaration of Human Rights were drafted in the late 1940s
as a lesson from the catastrophe of World War II. These documents sought
to forge a consensus for the behavior of every government, indeed every
humane society, and the test is their implementation during times of
crisis. ...
****
Igjen, i en uærklært krig (man kan til og med spørre om det er en krig) som
ikke foregår mellom stater, mener signatarmaktene at Genevekonvensjonen har
full gyldighet. Ikke en gang Israel ser ut til å påberope seg GK's argument
om at den bare skulle være gyldig mellom stater. Men det ville jo for deres
vedkommende vært et katastrofalt argument.
Knut Rognes
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 11-07-02 MET DST