Comments on: Human Rights Watch’s Ken Roth: Ends Justify the Means? http://blog.unwatch.org/index.php/2009/08/27/human-rights-watchs-ken-roth-misstates-goldstones-un-mandate/ The blog of UN Watch: monitoring the United Nations, promoting human rights. Mon, 06 Feb 2012 17:31:52 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: salomon http://blog.unwatch.org/index.php/2009/08/27/human-rights-watchs-ken-roth-misstates-goldstones-un-mandate/#comment-1559 salomon Mon, 31 Aug 2009 01:05:11 +0000 http://blog.unwatch.org/?p=450#comment-1559 Mr. Kenneth Roth often mentions Israel's violations of international humanitarian law and of the Fourth Geneva Convention. In his response to Irwin Cotler's two-part article in the Jerusalem Post, Mr. Roth maintains that Israel is bound to observe the rules and he adds: "That is mandated even though Hamas often violated these rules, because violations by one side do not justify violations by the other." However, it seems to me that the Fourth Geneva Convention never went as far as being a suicidal pact. Article 2 of the FGC states: "Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof." The last proposition is particularly relevant here since Hamas never observed (and never intended to respect) any provision of the international conventions regarding armed conflict. Is is not strange, to say the least, that Mr. Roth systematically ignores this aspect? Mr. Kenneth Roth often mentions Israel’s violations of international humanitarian law and of the Fourth Geneva Convention. In his response to Irwin Cotler’s two-part article in the Jerusalem Post, Mr. Roth maintains that Israel is bound to observe the rules and he adds: “That is mandated even though Hamas often violated these rules, because violations by one side do not justify violations by the other.”

However, it seems to me that the Fourth Geneva Convention never went as far as being a suicidal pact. Article 2 of the FGC states: “Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.”

The last proposition is particularly relevant here since Hamas never observed (and never intended to respect) any provision of the international conventions regarding armed conflict. Is is not strange, to say the least, that Mr. Roth systematically ignores this aspect?

]]>