Singles Connection


Get on TheList!
STORIES IN THIS ISSUE
FEATURES
     Prescribed remedy
     Spirit of Thanksgiving
     Soy delicious
VALLEY
     One step closer
     Or Adam services
     Chabad goes Kabbalistic
     Winter festivities
     Learn about Hanukkah at TBI
NATION
     Divided over peace
WORLD
     Openly religious president
     Funds to aid Israel
ISRAEL
     Barak behind
     'Excessive force'
OPINION
     Editorial - Just do it
     In the Mail - Letters to the Editor
     Commentary - Our children, ourselves
     Commentary - Identity-building
     Latz - A minyan opinion
ARTS
     Rossellini identifies
     'Heading south'
     'Four Psalms'
BUSINESS
     Culinary independence
     Mind Your Own Business - Business Calendar
     People on the move
COMING UP
     This Week
MILESTONES
     B'nai Mitzvah
     Weddings
     Anniversaries
     Obituaries
SENIORS
     Events
SINGLES
     Datebook
YOUTH
     'Write stuff' in essay
TORAH STUDY
     Jacob's voice and the hands of Esau

Get on TheList!
Logo

December 1, 2000/Kislev 10, 5761, Vol. 53, No.10

'Excessive force' discussed in UN

AVI MACHLIS
Jewish Telegraphic Agency
JERUSALEM - Streams of words have been written and spoken about the Israeli-Palestinian violence that erupted in late September.

But none stand out as much as one phrase, "excessive force," in describing how badly Israel's international image has been tarnished.

Although the conflict evolved from popular Palestinian riots into a far more complicated guerrilla-style campaign, the debate over Israel's use of force against Palestinian demonstrators and rioters is still on the international agenda.

The issue came up again Nov. 27, when the U.N. human rights commissioner, Mary Robinson, accused Israel of using excessive force against the Palestinians. In a report to the U.N. General Assembly, she called for an "international monitoring presence" to be set up in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Along with the conflict itself, the "excessive force" discussion is heading into new territory. As Palestinian attacks intensify, and Israel's ever-harsher retaliations expose the enormous imbalance of military power in Israel's favor, questions are being raised about the legal limits of Israel's response in a warlike conflict that falls short of an all-out war.

B'Tselem, the Israeli human rights group in the occupied territories, says it is better qualified than international organizations to investigate Israel's human rights record during the current conflict.

"We have a better ability to see the complexity of the situation than international organizations," says Tomer Feffer, spokesman for B'Tselem.

Nevertheless, B'Tselem criticizes Israel for never having invested seriously in nonlethal methods of crowd control - such as water cannons - despite years of demonstrations and riots in the West Bank and Gaza.

It also says, based on extensive field work, that Israel's widespread use of rubber-coated metal bullets is inappropriate for dispersing riots because the bullets are lethal ammunition and have caused the deaths of many unarmed Palestinians.

But Feffer adds, "According to international law, it is forbidden to mix armed people with unarmed civilians since this endangers the unarmed people. However, the fact that there are gunmen in a crowd does not give Israel the right to fire indiscriminately into the crowd."

Col. Daniel Reisner, head of the Israel Defense Force's international law department, disputes B'Tselem's criticism.

He says the army had developed nonlethal weapons to deal with the 1987-1993 Palestinian uprising.

But these are inappropriate in the current situation, he says. Water cannons, for example, could not be used because the driver would be exposed to gunfire.

In recent weeks, military representatives have fruitlessly scoured the globe for long-range nonlethal riot control equipment.


Home