So you don;t believe that Hamas uses the civilian population to hide militant operations?
Israel just slaughtered 1600 people, 900 of whom were classed as civilians.
The latest report finds evidence that Israel willfully targeted civilians, shot and killed unarmed civilians waving white flags, shot at ambulances, destroyed U.N safe compounds, bombed hospitals, used white phosphorous on residential areas, used Palestinian civilians as human shields, e.t.c.
And all you can say about it is that you think Hamas may have hidden behind the civilian population.
You see why I lose my temper here and resort to such horribly insulting and offensive phrases as 'That's very magnanimous of you?'
So you don;t believe that Hamas uses the civilian population to hide militant operations?
You see, you talk about the M.T being frustrating and about me being a jerk e.t.c, but then you come out with this?
Let's just say, if you really think there's an answer to this question, and if you think that it'll shed some light on the occupation and all of the crimes that go with it, including the criminal blockade of Gaza, and the recent massacre of a defenseless civilian population, then go ahead and find the answer. You can use Google. Knock yourself out.
I'm not sure I get you. I'm trying to clarify 1 point of the much bigger issue. I don't know why it's so hard for you to comprehend.
Ok, I'll use this line for all the consiracy threads about 9/11 etc. Thanks.
"When you're making an accusation, if there is any reasonable doubt then the accused is assumed to be not guilty."
And here I thought it was a messageboard to talk about our thoughts. Sorry I shared mine.
"Suspicion"...sure, I can go with that. More like a "sneaking suspicion".
Well, If you have a genuine interest in what happened in Gaza in January, then rather than debate with us jerks, why don't you read the U.N report? I'm sure it will answer all of your 'questions'.
So you don;t believe that Hamas uses the civilian population to hide militant operations?
Israel just slaughtered 1600 people, 900 of whom were classed as civilians.
The latest report finds evidence that Israel willfully targeted civilians, shot and killed unarmed civilians waving white flags, shot at ambulances, destroyed U.N safe compounds, bombed hospitals, used white phosphorous on residential areas, used Palestinian civilians as human shields, e.t.c.
And all you can say about it is that you think Hamas may have hidden behind the civilian population.
You see why I lose my temper here and resort to such horribly insulting and offensive phrases as 'That's very magnanimous of you?'
To answer you question...no.
ok...1 more time...my question was about whether or not you thought Hamas used the tactic of hiding amongst the civilian population...I'm sorry if it wasn't clear that I wasn't refering to any specific event.
ok...1 more time...my question was about whether or not you thought Hamas used the tactic of hiding amongst the civilian population...I'm sorry if it wasn't clear that I wasn't refering to any specific event.
My answer is 'No, I don't'. But if someone can present to me evidence to the contrary - and it's not an IDF source - then bring it on.
Ok, I'll use this line for all the consiracy threads about 9/11 etc. Thanks.
um, ok. although offtopic i hope you realize that it goes both ways and if anyone has reasonable doubt for the official story then it's legitimate.
And here I thought it was a messageboard to talk about our thoughts. Sorry I shared mine.
"Suspicion"...sure, I can go with that. More like a "sneaking suspicion".
lol what do you mean sorry you shared your thoughts, you were making an argument and I responded, quit playin a victim.
anyway, i'm going to respond to your earlier post in a little.
Not playing the victim, I'm honestly sorry I ever posted in this thread. My "motive" (since I didn't really have one) must not have been clear and it's lead to a worthless conversation that for some reason I can't stop....except now. See ya.
you are more of a condescending jerk then the people you call out in posts. Just because you don't use four letter words (oh wait...you do) doesn't mean that you aren't just like the crap you pretend to be outraged by.
But you see, as far as I'm concerned, there's a big difference in occasionally coming across as condescending, compared to asking you who the fuck you are, or describing you as crap, or as human scum, e.t.c.
At no point in this heated debate have I insulted you. Do you see the difference?
I know all yoru reasons. I've even appreciated much of what you shared. Where I break down when talking with you is the fact that you think Hamas need to nothing different...only Israel needs to change. And while I've already agreed with you that israel needs to start and make the big leap, I'm think it's only realistic to think that unless Hamas is also seen by israel as giving something up, peace will never be found.
I cannot defend israel...the only thing to say is that the hatred on both sides is so great that nothing will be done without both appearing to be giving something up for peace.
You are forgetting something huge here though: The Palestinians have already given up so much. You've very conveniently left that out. Secondly, the Israelis have no cause to demand anything from the Palestinians considering they are in violation of international laws. Hamas has called for what every other country in the world has called for. So tell me, what do the Palestinians need to give up for peace, and what does Hamas have to do differently? You'll probably say that Hamas needs to stop rocket attacks since that's all anyone can ever say. Not only are the rocket attacks no real bother to Israel (only a minor problem, really), but Hamas has already said they will stop them if Israel abides by international law and agrees to the international consensus of a two-state solution. You wanna hear something crazy too? I'm not even in support of a two-state solution. In fact, I support a one-state solution. My father's family is from Jaffa which was taken over by Zionist paramilitary organizations in the 40s, and was declared as part of Israel in 1948 and his family was expelled from their homes. With a two-state solution, we would basically forfeit claim to our home there. Isn't that already giving up enough?
Israel does not only need to make the first step, they need to make the ONLY step, which is abide by international law and stop acting like a rogue terrorist nation.
the only way there will be peace is when Hamas is gone and Israel stops expanding settlements. neither of which seems to be anytime soon.
Hamas didn't exist in 1948. It didn't exist in 1967 either.
well they exist now don't they? and its my opinion that Israel will never have friendly relations with them, and visa versa
isreal prefers violence....they have the upper hand in that arena...so you're probably right, Israel may never have a relationship with hamas,not any that leads to any sort of peace agreement. Israel's desire for land is stronger than its desire for peace....so the longer this "conflict" is drawn out, aka the more time Israel is given to assault the palestinians, the better. its one sided brutality, benefiting Israel.
So you don;t believe that Hamas uses the civilian population to hide militant operations?
Israel just slaughtered 1600 people, 900 of whom were classed as civilians.
The latest report finds evidence that Israel willfully targeted civilians, shot and killed unarmed civilians waving white flags, shot at ambulances, destroyed U.N safe compounds, bombed hospitals, used white phosphorous on residential areas, used Palestinian civilians as human shields, e.t.c.
And all you can say about it is that you think Hamas may have hidden behind the civilian population.
You see why I lose my temper here and resort to such horribly insulting and offensive phrases as 'That's very magnanimous of you?'
To answer you question...no.
ok...1 more time...my question was about whether or not you thought Hamas used the tactic of hiding amongst the civilian population...I'm sorry if it wasn't clear that I wasn't refering to any specific event.
the violence is overwhelming 1 sided....a brutalized palestinian people vs a modern miltary machine armed by a superpower. and your concerned with how the brutalized population has tried to defend itself? the ratio is almost 5-1-and used to be 20 -1....for every Israeli killed 20 Palestinians were killed. And your focussing on their reaction to that brutality? these are desperate people, under apratheid, a police state, checkpoints that force them hours out of their way....the desperation grows. certain individuals might resort to violent retaliation,,,,suicide bombings, fire homemade roickets....but that's the reaction. we need to focus on instigator in all of this, ISrael. we can do something about that. we can demand our gov't put an end to supporting ISrael....politically /miltarily....
the questrion "what about palestinian terrorism?" is irrelevant...it exists becuase of Israeli violence. so we need to deal with Israeli violence first, in order to deal with palestinian terrorism, which is reactionary.
I believe the leaders of Hamas don't care about civilian casualties...I think they like them because as I said it drives people to their side.
This is actually a pretty despicable comment.
If someone said that the Jewish leadership were happy about the holocaust because it gains them a sympathy vote people reading it would be outraged, and rightly so. But it's o.k for you to say that Hamas likes it when Palestinian civilians are killed.
And you act surprised when people lose their cool with you? :?
I believe the leaders of Hamas don't care about civilian casualties...I think they like them because as I said it drives people to their side.
This is actually a pretty despicable comment.
If someone said that the Jewish leadership were happy about the holocaust because it gains them a sympathy vote people reading it would be outraged, and rightly so. But it's o.k for you to say that Hamas likes it when Palestinian civilians are killed.
And you act surprised when people lose their cool with you? :?
Just add the word some before leadership.
I also believe that some leadership in Israel isn't all that torn up about a suicide bomber in a movie theater because it gives them a chance to get outrage and use their military might.
Frankly, I'm surprised that you don't agree. It's easier to see in this conflict than to make it up about 9/11.
I also believe that some leadership in Israel isn't all that torn up about a suicide bomber in a movie theater because it gives them a chance to get outrage and use their military might.
Frankly, I'm surprised that you don't agree. It's easier to see in this conflict than to make it up about 9/11.
the crux of the problem here is that if there is peace - israel would have lost and hamas would win ...
You see why I lose my temper here and resort to such horribly insulting and offensive phrases as 'That's very magnanimous of you?'
Ok, so I get it, you want to be the mod because then you get to choose what is offensive to people. Being deliberately belittling and condescending is always ok...but use the word crap or fuck and you're outta here!!!!
There are many pot/kettle posts on this board...you take the cake.
[You'll probably say that Hamas needs to stop rocket attacks since that's all anyone can ever say. Not only are the rocket attacks no real bother to Israel (only a minor problem, really), but Hamas has already said they will stop them if Israel abides by international law and agrees to the international consensus of a two-state solution.
Well, here's what I think is another simple question then...if they are only a minor problem, why wouldn't Hamas stop them and gain even more support from the rest of the world? They must think they are useful, no?
As for the rest of your post, whether right or wrong, I think Hamas does have to give Israel the feeling of security from these terrorist activities. Take away all the excuses.
Interesting question. One difference, they were attacking the military, not civilians. So, no I wouldn't.
Maybe I used bad examples.
I'm pretty sure that the history of anti-colonial struggles from Cuba, Africa, Bombay, and beyond, all involved civilian casualties in one way or another.
The Palestinians have a right to fight back, by whatever means they have at their disposal.
8. Also urges all States, unilaterally and in co-operation with other States, as well as relevant United Nations organs, to contribute to the progressive elimination of the causes underlying international terrorism and to pay special attention to all situations, including colonialism, racism and situations involving mass and flagrant violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms and those involving alien domination and occupation, that may give rise to international terrorism and may endanger international peace and security;
14. Considers that nothing in the present resolution could in any way prejudice the right to self-determination, freedom and independence, as derived from the Charter of the United Nations, of peoples forcibly deprived of that right referred to in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, particularly peoples under colonial and racist regimes and foreign occupation or other forms of colonial domination, nor, in accordance with the principles of the Charter and in conformity with the above-mentioned Declaration, the right of these peoples to struggle to this end and to seek and receive support;
At the time of this resolution the ANC was regarded by the U.S as a terrorist organization - hence, the following phrase was seen by the U.S as problematic..
'..peoples under colonial and racist regimes..'
..and hence why the following U.N resolutions were all vetoed by the U.S..
1979 Calls for an end to all military and nuclear collaboration with the apartheid South Africa.
1979 Strengthens the arms embargo against South Africa.
1979 Offers assistance to all the oppressed people of South Africa and their liberation movement
1981 Condemns South Africa for attacks on neighbouring states, condemns apartheid and attempts to strengthen sanctions. 7 resolutions.
1981 Condemns an attempted coup by South Africa on the Seychelles.
1983 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics, and international law. 15 resolutions.
1984 Condemns support of South Africa in its Namibian and other policies.
1984 International action to eliminate apartheid.
1984 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics, and international law. 18 resolutions.
1986 Calls on all governments (including the USA) to observe international law.
1986 Imposes economic and military sanctions against South Africa. http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le2000.htm
Also, the phrase '..and foreign occupation or other forms of colonial
domination..' was understood by everybody to refer to the Israeli occupation of the West bank and Gaza. And so the resolution condemning terrorism was vetoed by the U.S because it would have interfered with U.S terrorist activities in Latin America and it's unconditional military, economic, and diplomatic support for Israeli terrorism in the West Bank and Gaza.
The resolution:
153 - 2, with one abstention (Honduras)
Use of Human Shields by Israel during Operation Cast Lead:
1091. In conclusion, from the facts it gathered, the Mission finds that Messrs. Majdi Abd
Rabbo, Abbas Ahmad Ibrahim Halawa, Mahmoud Abd Rabbo al-Ajrami and AD/03 were
captured by the Israeli armed forces while they were in their homes, in some cases together with
their families, and were then forced at gunpoint to search houses together with the Israeli armed
forces. The Mission also finds on the basis of those facts that they were all subject to cruel,
inhuman and degrading treatment during their captivity.
G. Legal findings
1092. Several provisions of international humanitarian law prohibit the practice of using
civilian men captured by the armed forces to search houses in which the invading army suspects
the risk of ambushes or booby traps.
1093. This practice constitutes the use of involuntary human shields and is a violation of article
28 of the Fourth Geneva Convention which reads: “The presence of a protected person may not
be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.” Article 51, paragraph
7, of Additional Protocol I adds that “the presence or movements of the civilian population or
individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military
operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour
or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the
civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from
attacks or to shield military operations.” The prohibition of the use of human shields also has
customary law status (rule 97 of the ICRC rules of customary humanitarian law535), both in
international and in non-international armed conflict. The Mission, therefore, finds that the
Israeli armed forces have violated article 28 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and the
prohibition under customary international law that the civilian population as such will not be the
object of attacks, as reflected in article 51 (2) of Additional Protocol I.
1094. In 2002, the Israeli Supreme Court sitting as the High Court of Justice was seized of a
case regarding the use of a very similar practice in the West Bank, at the time known as the
“neighbour procedure”. The petitioners, seven Israeli and Palestinian human rights organizations,
535 Customary International Humanitarian Law…, p. 337. The Israeli Government recognizes the customary nature of the principle enshrined in Additional Protocol I, article 51 (7) (“The operation in Gaza…”, para. 151).
A/HRC/12/48
page 297 described cases in which “the IDF forced Palestinian residents to walk through and scan
buildings suspected to be booby-trapped, and in which it ordered them to enter certain areas
before the combat forces, in order to find wanted persons there; also described are cases in which
the army used residents as a “human shield” which accompanied the combat forces, to serve as a
shield against attack on those forces. […] Further described were cases in which local residents
were asked about the presence of wanted persons and weapons, under threat of bodily injury or
death, should the questions go unanswered.”536 In other words, the petitioners described
incidents analogous to those investigated by the Mission in Gaza.
1095. In their response to the petition, the Israeli armed forces and other respondents “clarified
unequivocally that they recognize that the forces operating in the field are categorically
forbidden from using Palestinian residents as a ‘live shield’ or as ‘hostages’, and that involving
local residents in any activity exposing them to danger to life or limb is prohibited.”537 The
Israeli armed forces also submitted to the High Court of Justice a directive regarding the use of
the so-called “early warning” procedure. This procedure relied on the allegedly exclusively
voluntary cooperation of Palestinian civilians to give wanted persons a warning to turn
themselves in. The directive states that “it is strictly forbidden to use the local resident in military
missions (e.g. locating explosive charges, intelligence gathering).” It also provides “it is strictly
forbidden to use a local resident as a ‘live shield’ against attack. Thus, during the advance of the
force, accompanied by the local resident, the latter is not to be positioned at the head of the
force.”538
1096. As a result of these assurances given by the Israeli armed forces, the High Court of
Justice did not rule on the so-called neighbour procedure, but on the “early warning” procedure.
In its ruling, it found that the “early warning” procedure was also “at odds with international
law” and ordered the armed forces to desist from any further use of the procedure.539 In reaching
this outcome, Supreme Court President A. Barak left no doubt that he considered the “neighbour
procedure” to violate article 28 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. He quotes approvingly from J.
536 Adalah Legal Centre for Arab Minority Rights in Israel et al. v. Commander of the Central Region et al., case
A/HRC/12/48
page 298
Pictet’s Commentary to the Fourth Geneva Convention, in which it is stated that “such practices
[the use of human shields], the object of which is to divert enemy fire, have rightly been
condemned as cruel and barbaric”.
1097. When reporting on its military operations in Gaza, the Israeli Government stated:
IDF’s rules of engagement strictly prohibit the use of civilians as human shields.
Moreover, the Israel Supreme Court has ruled that use of civilians in any capacity for the
purpose of military operations is unlawful, including the use of civilians to call terrorists
hiding in buildings. Following this judgement, this latter practice has also been proscribed
by IDF orders. The IDF is committed to enforcing this prohibition.
The IDF took a variety of measures to teach and instil awareness of these rules of engagement in commanders and soldiers.540
The Israeli Government does not, however, in any way mention the very specific allegations of
use of Palestinian civilians as human shields in January 2009 which have been in the public
domain since they were published in an Israeli newspaper in March 2009541 and in NGO reports
from April 2009 onwards, and which have been brought to the attention of the Attorney-General
of Israel in letters by Israeli NGOs.
1098. The Mission further finds from the facts available to it that the conduct of the Israeli
armed forces in the cases above violates article 31 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. This
provision dictates that “no physical or moral coercion shall be exercised against protected
persons, in particular to obtain information from them or from third parties.” The ICRC
Commentary notes that “article 31 prohibits coercion for any purpose or reason and the obtaining
of information is only given as an example. Thus, the custom, hitherto accepted in practice but
disputed in theory, that an invasion army may force the inhabitants of an occupied territory to
serve as ‘guides’ is now forbidden.”542
A/HRC/12/48
page 299
1099. The questioning of civilians under threat of death or injury by Israeli soldiers, who
demanded information about Hamas and the location of Palestinian combatants and tunnels, also
constitutes a violation of article 31. The Mission has no information on cases in which such a
threat was actually followed by the killing of a captured civilian. However, Messrs. Majdi Abd
Rabbo, Abbas Ahmad Ibrahim Halawa and Mahmoud Abd Rabbo al-Ajrami, all claim that they
were threatened with execution. Majdi Abd Rabbo also claimed that he was kicked and beaten
by soldiers until he gave in to their request to enter the house of HS/08. Mahmoud Abd Rabbo
al-Ajrami was thrown from the second floor of his house after refusing to provide information to
Israeli soldiers, resulting in several broken ribs.
1100. The use of the “neighbour procedure”, now apparently renamed “Johnnie procedure”,
constitutes a violation of fundamental human rights norms. It puts the right to life of the civilians
concerned, protected in article 6 of ICCPR, at risk in an arbitrary and unlawful way. The anguish
to which civilians who, blindfolded and handcuffed, are forced at gunpoint to enter houses which
– this is the reason they are forced to enter the houses – might be booby-trapped or harbour
combatants who might open fire on them, can only be described as cruel and inhuman treatment
prohibited by article 7 of ICCPR. Furthermore, the witnesses were all deprived of liberty and the
security of their person violated. This also constitute a violation of article 9 of ICCPR. The
Mission must state that numerous civilians who came into contact with the Israeli armed forces
during the military operation recounted shocking stories of humiliation that would certainly be in
stark contravention of the principle of respect for human dignity, which forms the core of all
human rights and fundamental freedoms.
1101. The Mission also finds that the intentional use as human shields of those whose accounts
are presented above qualifies as inhuman treatment of and wilfully causing great suffering to
protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention. As such, the Mission considers the
conduct of the Israeli armed forces in relation to such persons to amount to grave breaches of the
said Convention. The use of human shields is also a war crime under article 8 (2) (b) (xxiii) of
the Rome Statute.
1102. Finally, the Mission finds that obliging Majdi Abd Rabbo to use a megaphone to call on
the men trapped in the house behind his to surrender, on the grounds that ICRC was present and they could safely hand themselves over, qualifies as a violation of article 37 of Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits perfidy. At the time, the Izbat Abd Rabbo area was a closed military zone into which no one, including ICRC, was permitted to enter.
Perfidy is defined by article 37 as “acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence”. Acts amounting to perfidy resulting in death or serious personal injury are also a war crime under article 8 (2) (b) (vii) of the Rome Statute.
Allegations of Palestinian fighters using civilians as human shields during Operation Cast Lead:
1750. The Mission also examined whether the Palestinian armed groups complied with their obligations under international humanitarian law to take constant care to minimize the risk of harm to the civilian population in Gaza among whom the hostilities were being conducted. The conduct of hostilities in built-up areas does not, of itself, constitute a violation of international law. However, launching attacks - whether of rockets and mortars at the population of southern Israel or at the Israeli armed forces inside Gaza - close to civilian or protected buildings constitutes a failure to take all feasible precautions. In cases where this occurred, the Palestinian armed groups would have unnecessarily exposed the civilian population of Gaza to the inherent dangers of the military operations taking place around them.
The Mission found no evidence to suggest that Palestinian armed groups either directed civilians to areas where attacks were being launched or that they forced civilians to remain within the vicinity of the attacks. The Mission also found no evidence that members of Palestinian armed groups engaged in combat in civilian dress. Although in the one incident of an Israeli attack on a mosque it investigated the Mission found that there was no indication that that mosque was used for military purposes or to shield military activities, the Mission cannot exclude that this might have occurred in other cases.
Henry Siegman - 29 January 2009
London Review of Books
'Western governments and most of the Western media have accepted a number of Israeli claims justifying the military assault on Gaza: that Hamas consistently violated the six-month truce that Israel observed and then refused to extend it; that Israel therefore had no choice but to destroy Hamas’s capacity to launch missiles into Israeli towns; that Hamas is a terrorist organisation, part of a global jihadi network; and that Israel has acted not only in its own defence but on behalf of an international struggle by Western democracies against this network.
I am not aware of a single major American newspaper, radio station or TV channel whose coverage of the assault on Gaza questions this version of events. Criticism of Israel’s actions, if any (and there has been none from the Bush administration), has focused instead on whether the IDF’s carnage is proportional to the threat it sought to counter, and whether it is taking adequate measures to prevent civilian casualties.
Middle East peacemaking has been smothered in deceptive euphemisms, so let me state bluntly that each of these claims is a lie. Israel, not Hamas, violated the truce: Hamas undertook to stop firing rockets into Israel; in return, Israel was to ease its throttlehold on Gaza. In fact, during the truce, it tightened it further. This was confirmed not only by every neutral international observer and NGO on the scene but by Brigadier General (Res.) Shmuel Zakai, a former commander of the IDF’s Gaza Division. In an interview in Ha’aretz on 22 December, he accused Israel’s government of having made a ‘central error’ during the tahdiyeh, the six-month period of relative truce, by failing ‘to take advantage of the calm to improve, rather than markedly worsen, the economic plight of the Palestinians of the Strip . . . When you create a tahdiyeh, and the economic pressure on the Strip continues,’ General Zakai said, ‘it is obvious that Hamas will try to reach an improved tahdiyeh, and that their way to achieve this is resumed Qassam fire . . . You cannot just land blows, leave the Palestinians in Gaza in the economic distress they’re in, and expect that Hamas will just sit around and do nothing.’
The truce, which began in June last year and was due for renewal in December, required both parties to refrain from violent action against the other. Hamas had to cease its rocket assaults and prevent the firing of rockets by other groups such as Islamic Jihad (even Israel’s intelligence agencies acknowledged this had been implemented with surprising effectiveness), and Israel had to put a stop to its targeted assassinations and military incursions. This understanding was seriously violated on 4 November, when the IDF entered Gaza and killed six members of Hamas. Hamas responded by launching Qassam rockets and Grad missiles. Even so, it offered to extend the truce, but only on condition that Israel ended its blockade. Israel refused. It could have met its obligation to protect its citizens by agreeing to ease the blockade, but it didn’t even try. It cannot be said that Israel launched its assault to protect its citizens from rockets. It did so to protect its right to continue the strangulation of Gaza’s population.
Everyone seems to have forgotten that Hamas declared an end to suicide bombings and rocket fire when it decided to join the Palestinian political process, and largely stuck to it for more than a year. Bush publicly welcomed that decision, citing it as an example of the success of his campaign for democracy in the Middle East. (He had no other success to point to.) When Hamas unexpectedly won the election, Israel and the US immediately sought to delegitimise the result and embraced Mahmoud Abbas, the head of Fatah, who until then had been dismissed by Israel’s leaders as a ‘plucked chicken’. They armed and trained his security forces to overthrow Hamas; and when Hamas – brutally, to be sure – pre-empted this violent attempt to reverse the result of the first honest democratic election in the modern Middle East, Israel and the Bush administration imposed the blockade.
Israel seeks to counter these indisputable facts by maintaining that in withdrawing Israeli settlements from Gaza in 2005, Ariel Sharon gave Hamas the chance to set out on the path to statehood, a chance it refused to take; instead, it transformed Gaza into a launching-pad for firing missiles at Israel’s civilian population. The charge is a lie twice over. First, for all its failings, Hamas brought to Gaza a level of law and order unknown in recent years, and did so without the large sums of money that donors showered on the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority. It eliminated the violent gangs and warlords who terrorised Gaza under Fatah’s rule. Non-observant Muslims, Christians and other minorities have more religious freedom under Hamas rule than they would have in Saudi Arabia, for example, or under many other Arab regimes.
The greater lie is that Sharon’s withdrawal from Gaza was intended as a prelude to further withdrawals and a peace agreement. This is how Sharon’s senior adviser Dov Weisglass, who was also his chief negotiator with the Americans, described the withdrawal from Gaza, in an interview with Ha’aretz in August 2004:
'What I effectively agreed to with the Americans was that part of the settlements [i.e. the major settlement blocks on the West Bank] would not be dealt with at all, and the rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns . . . The significance [of the agreement with the US] is the freezing of the political process. And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state and you prevent a discussion about the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package that is called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed from our agenda indefinitely. And all this with [President Bush’s] authority and permission . . . and the ratification of both houses of Congress.'
Do the Israelis and Americans think that Palestinians don’t read the Israeli papers, or that when they saw what was happening on the West Bank they couldn’t figure out for themselves what Sharon was up to?
Israel’s government would like the world to believe that Hamas launched its Qassam rockets because that is what terrorists do and Hamas is a generic terrorist group. In fact, Hamas is no more a ‘terror organisation’ (Israel’s preferred term) than the Zionist movement was during its struggle for a Jewish homeland. In the late 1930s and 1940s, parties within the Zionist movement resorted to terrorist activities for strategic reasons. According to Benny Morris, it was the Irgun that first targeted civilians. He writes in Righteous Victims that an upsurge of Arab terrorism in 1937 ‘triggered a wave of Irgun bombings against Arab crowds and buses, introducing a new dimension to the conflict’. He also documents atrocities committed during the 1948-49 war by the IDF, admitting in a 2004 interview, published in Ha’aretz, that material released by Israel’s Ministry of Defence showed that ‘there were far more Israeli acts of massacre than I had previously thought . . . In the months of April-May 1948, units of the Haganah were given operational orders that stated explicitly that they were to uproot the villagers, expel them, and destroy the villages themselves.’ In a number of Palestinian villages and towns the IDF carried out organised executions of civilians. Asked by Ha’aretz whether he condemned the ethnic cleansing, Morris replied that he did not:
'A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads. It was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our settlements were fired on.'
In other words, when Jews target and kill innocent civilians to advance their national struggle, they are patriots. When their adversaries do so, they are terrorists.
It is too easy to describe Hamas simply as a ‘terror organisation’. It is a religious nationalist movement that resorts to terrorism, as the Zionist movement did during its struggle for statehood, in the mistaken belief that it is the only way to end an oppressive occupation and bring about a Palestinian state. While Hamas’s ideology formally calls for that state to be established on the ruins of the state of Israel, this doesn’t determine Hamas’s actual policies today any more than the same declaration in the PLO charter determined Fatah’s actions.
These are not the conclusions of an apologist for Hamas but the opinions of the former head of Mossad and Sharon’s national security adviser, Ephraim Halevy. The Hamas leadership has undergone a change ‘right under our very noses’, Halevy wrote recently in Yedioth Ahronoth, by recognising that ‘its ideological goal is not attainable and will not be in the foreseeable future.’ It is now ready and willing to see the establishment of a Palestinian state within the temporary borders of 1967. Halevy noted that while Hamas has not said how ‘temporary’ those borders would be, ‘they know that the moment a Palestinian state is established with their co-operation, they will be obligated to change the rules of the game: they will have to adopt a path that could lead them far from their original ideological goals.’ In an earlier article, Halevy also pointed out the absurdity of linking Hamas to al-Qaida.
'In the eyes of al-Qaida, the members of Hamas are perceived as heretics due to their stated desire to participate, even indirectly, in processes of any understandings or agreements with Israel. [The Hamas political bureau chief, Khaled] Mashal’s declaration diametrically contradicts al-Qaida’s approach, and provides Israel with an opportunity, perhaps a historic one, to leverage it for the better.'
Why then are Israel’s leaders so determined to destroy Hamas? Because they believe that its leadership, unlike that of Fatah, cannot be intimidated into accepting a peace accord that establishes a Palestinian ‘state’ made up of territorially disconnected entities over which Israel would be able to retain permanent control. Control of the West Bank has been the unwavering objective of Israel’s military, intelligence and political elites since the end of the Six-Day War.[*] They believe that Hamas would not permit such a cantonisation of Palestinian territory, no matter how long the occupation continues. They may be wrong about Abbas and his superannuated cohorts, but they are entirely right about Hamas.
Middle East observers wonder whether Israel’s assault on Hamas will succeed in destroying the organisation or expelling it from Gaza. This is an irrelevant question. If Israel plans to keep control over any future Palestinian entity, it will never find a Palestinian partner, and even if it succeeds in dismantling Hamas, the movement will in time be replaced by a far more radical Palestinian opposition.
If Barack Obama picks a seasoned Middle East envoy who clings to the idea that outsiders should not present their own proposals for a just and sustainable peace agreement, much less press the parties to accept it, but instead leave them to work out their differences, he will assure a future Palestinian resistance far more extreme than Hamas – one likely to be allied with al-Qaida. For the US, Europe and most of the rest of the world, this would be the worst possible outcome. Perhaps some Israelis, including the settler leadership, believe it would serve their purposes, since it would provide the government with a compelling pretext to hold on to all of Palestine. But this is a delusion that would bring about the end of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.
Anthony Cordesman, one of the most reliable military analysts of the Middle East, and a friend of Israel, argued in a 9 January report for the Center for Strategic and International Studies that the tactical advantages of continuing the operation in Gaza were outweighed by the strategic cost – and were probably no greater than any gains Israel may have made early in the war in selective strikes on key Hamas facilities. ‘Has Israel somehow blundered into a steadily escalating war without a clear strategic goal, or at least one it can credibly achieve?’ he asks. ‘Will Israel end in empowering an enemy in political terms that it defeated in tactical terms? Will Israel’s actions seriously damage the US position in the region, any hope of peace, as well as moderate Arab regimes and voices in the process? To be blunt, the answer so far seems to be yes.’ Cordesman concludes that ‘any leader can take a tough stand and claim that tactical gains are a meaningful victory. If this is all that Olmert, Livni and Barak have for an answer, then they have disgraced themselves and damaged their country and their friends.’
"A typical Israeli liberal
The difference between an Israeli liberal and an Israeli conservative is that an Israeli liberal is--like an Israeli conserviative--willing to support the murder of hundreds of Palestinian children but--unlike an Israeli conservative--he/she would add a few words about anguish--of the Israeli killers. That is really the difference. Look at this dude: "But they never imagined that the report would accuse the Jewish state of intentionally aiming at civilians. Israelis believe that their army did not deliberately kill the hundreds of Palestinian civilians, including children, who died during “Operation Cast Lead.” They believe, therefore, that Israel is not culpable, morally or criminally, for these civilian deaths, which were collateral to the true aim of the operation — killing Hamas gunmen." OK, one was not intentional, two was not intentional, or three was not intentional, but when hundreds of children are killed, this Zionist justification of murder becomes hollow."
'There it is again, the cyclical “déjà vu war.” That same ceremonial bloodshed that again is being poured into the hot lava that has been leading the entire region to misery for dozens of years now.
To be honest, one is fatigued by the need to divide the seventh day of the Six-Day War into “operations,” “wars,” “battles,” “operations,” and “campaigns.” All of them constitute one ongoing war; one great butcher shop. The war of occupier against occupied, and the war of the occupied against the occupier.
And again we hear all the great words about courage, surprise, sophistication, and success. Yet the nature of the “surprise” we delivered against Hamas isn’t quite clear. I mean, did the group fail to deploy its airplanes? Did it fail to advance its armored corps in advance? Did it fail to deploy its Patriot missile batteries?
Moreover, and there is no need to deny this, there is not too much glory and valor involved in flying over a giant prison and firing at its people using helicopters and fighter jets. So far we have seen sophistication and success mostly in the excited commentary of dozens of generals (res.) who again enjoy the limelight. As always.
Yet out of all the big words, as usual, we see a small and ugly truth emerging: Our southern cities have been hit by dozens of missiles, while Gaza sustained hundreds of dead. Almost half of them are civilians; almost half of them are the graduates of a police course who have nothing to do with Qassam rockets.
Yet we have seen this bleeding folly time and again. After all, this was precisely the way Israel conducted itself during the terrible years of the Intifada. After every terrible attack by Palestinian groups, Israel bombed a police station or office of facility belonging to the Palestinian Authority, to the point where the PA lost its power and status, allowing Hamas to rise to power on its ashes.
So who are we crowning now in the framework of our desire not to disappoint our angry masses?
Only hatred, bereavement, pain, and desire for revenge will come out of this operation, both here and there. Perhaps someone will gain a few Knesset seats too. Indeed, this is so tiring, and so bleak.'
we like to demonize islamic extremists driven by some religious fanaticism however what do people think drives israeli settlers?? ... they believe they should be allowed to settle on land because of a divine gift from god ... wtf?? ... who are the real extremists here?
Ambassador Susan Rice
Permanent U.S. Representative to United Nations
United States Mission to the United Nations
140 East 45th Street
New York, NY 10017
September 25, 2009
Dear Ambassador Rice,
The following organizations are writing to you to express their strong support for the recommendations of the UN Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict contained in the Goldstone Report and strongly urge the United States to endorse these recommendations when they are voted on in the UN Human Rights Council on September 29.
Earlier this month, the United States assumed a seat on the UN Human Rights Council for the first time. Upon assuming this seat, Dr. Esther Brinner, Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of International Organization Affairs, stated that “We can not pick and choose which of these [human] rights we embrace nor select who among us are entitled to them. We are all endowed at birth with the right to live in dignity, to follow our consciences and speak our minds without fear, to choose those who govern us, to hold our leaders accountable, and to enjoy equal justice under the law. These rights extend to all, and the United States can not accept that any among us would be condemned to live without them.”
We strongly agree with this statement and believe that the United States should put these words into action by voting to endorse the recommendations of the Goldstone Report.
The UN Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict did an exemplary job under adverse circumstances of investigating human rights abuses, violations of international law, war crimes, and possible crimes against humanity by all parties before, during, and after Israel’s assault on the occupied Gaza Strip in December 2008-January 2009.
The mission was scrupulously even-handed in investigating these violations. As it stated in its methodology, “To implement its mandate, the Mission determined that it was required to consider any actions by all parties that might have constituted violations of international human rights law or international humanitarian law. The mandate also required it to review related actions in the entire Occupied PalestinianTerritory and Israel.”
Now that this mission has delivered its report and documented human rights violations by Israel, Palestinian armed groups, and the Palestinian Authority, it is imperative for the United States to support its recommendations. To do otherwise would undermine our country’s commitment to the universality of human rights and contradict Dr. Brinner’s promise to the UN Human Rights Council: “Make no mistake; the United States will not look the other way in the face of serious human rights abuses. The truth must be told, the facts brought to light and the consequences faced.”
The UN Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict has told the truth and brought the facts to light. On September 29, it is time for the United States to make sure that the consequences are faced for these violations of human rights. We strongly urge the United States to vote in favor of the recommendations in the Goldstone Report.
Signed by,
1. US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation
2. Boston Coalition for Palestinian Rights
3. Code Pink: Women for Peace
4. International Coalition to End the Illegal Siege of Gaza
5. Jewish Voice for Peace
Comments
Israel just slaughtered 1600 people, 900 of whom were classed as civilians.
The latest report finds evidence that Israel willfully targeted civilians, shot and killed unarmed civilians waving white flags, shot at ambulances, destroyed U.N safe compounds, bombed hospitals, used white phosphorous on residential areas, used Palestinian civilians as human shields, e.t.c.
And all you can say about it is that you think Hamas may have hidden behind the civilian population.
You see why I lose my temper here and resort to such horribly insulting and offensive phrases as 'That's very magnanimous of you?'
I'm not sure I get you. I'm trying to clarify 1 point of the much bigger issue. I don't know why it's so hard for you to comprehend.
Well, If you have a genuine interest in what happened in Gaza in January, then rather than debate with us jerks, why don't you read the U.N report? I'm sure it will answer all of your 'questions'.
lol what do you mean sorry you shared your thoughts, you were making an argument and I responded, quit playin a victim.
anyway, i'm going to respond to your earlier post in a little.
To answer you question...no.
ok...1 more time...my question was about whether or not you thought Hamas used the tactic of hiding amongst the civilian population...I'm sorry if it wasn't clear that I wasn't refering to any specific event.
My answer is 'No, I don't'. But if someone can present to me evidence to the contrary - and it's not an IDF source - then bring it on.
Not playing the victim, I'm honestly sorry I ever posted in this thread. My "motive" (since I didn't really have one) must not have been clear and it's lead to a worthless conversation that for some reason I can't stop....except now. See ya.
But you see, as far as I'm concerned, there's a big difference in occasionally coming across as condescending, compared to asking you who the fuck you are, or describing you as crap, or as human scum, e.t.c.
At no point in this heated debate have I insulted you. Do you see the difference?
Israel does not only need to make the first step, they need to make the ONLY step, which is abide by international law and stop acting like a rogue terrorist nation.
the violence is overwhelming 1 sided....a brutalized palestinian people vs a modern miltary machine armed by a superpower. and your concerned with how the brutalized population has tried to defend itself? the ratio is almost 5-1-and used to be 20 -1....for every Israeli killed 20 Palestinians were killed. And your focussing on their reaction to that brutality? these are desperate people, under apratheid, a police state, checkpoints that force them hours out of their way....the desperation grows. certain individuals might resort to violent retaliation,,,,suicide bombings, fire homemade roickets....but that's the reaction. we need to focus on instigator in all of this, ISrael. we can do something about that. we can demand our gov't put an end to supporting ISrael....politically /miltarily....
the questrion "what about palestinian terrorism?" is irrelevant...it exists becuase of Israeli violence. so we need to deal with Israeli violence first, in order to deal with palestinian terrorism, which is reactionary.
This is actually a pretty despicable comment.
If someone said that the Jewish leadership were happy about the holocaust because it gains them a sympathy vote people reading it would be outraged, and rightly so. But it's o.k for you to say that Hamas likes it when Palestinian civilians are killed.
And you act surprised when people lose their cool with you? :?
Just add the word some before leadership.
I also believe that some leadership in Israel isn't all that torn up about a suicide bomber in a movie theater because it gives them a chance to get outrage and use their military might.
Frankly, I'm surprised that you don't agree. It's easier to see in this conflict than to make it up about 9/11.
the crux of the problem here is that if there is peace - israel would have lost and hamas would win ...
Ok, so I get it, you want to be the mod because then you get to choose what is offensive to people. Being deliberately belittling and condescending is always ok...but use the word crap or fuck and you're outta here!!!!
There are many pot/kettle posts on this board...you take the cake.
Well, here's what I think is another simple question then...if they are only a minor problem, why wouldn't Hamas stop them and gain even more support from the rest of the world? They must think they are useful, no?
As for the rest of your post, whether right or wrong, I think Hamas does have to give Israel the feeling of security from these terrorist activities. Take away all the excuses.
Would you have said the same thing to the French Resistance and Jewish partisan groups regarding their attacks on the Nazis?
Interesting question. One difference, they were attacking the military, not civilians. So, no I wouldn't.
And again, what I'm saying is what I think has to happen for any peace to be had. I may certainly be wrong.
Maybe I used bad examples.
I'm pretty sure that the history of anti-colonial struggles from Cuba, Africa, Bombay, and beyond, all involved civilian casualties in one way or another.
The Palestinians have a right to fight back, by whatever means they have at their disposal.
http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/42/a42r159.htm
General Assembly
94th plenary meeting - 7 December 1987
8. Also urges all States, unilaterally and in co-operation with other States, as well as relevant United Nations organs, to contribute to the progressive elimination of the causes underlying international terrorism and to pay special attention to all situations, including colonialism, racism and situations involving mass and flagrant violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms and those involving alien domination and occupation, that may give rise to international terrorism and may endanger international peace and security;
14. Considers that nothing in the present resolution could in any way prejudice the right to self-determination, freedom and independence, as derived from the Charter of the United Nations, of peoples forcibly deprived of that right referred to in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, particularly peoples under colonial and racist regimes and foreign occupation or other forms of colonial domination, nor, in accordance with the principles of the Charter and in conformity with the above-mentioned Declaration, the right of these peoples to struggle to this end and to seek and receive support;
At the time of this resolution the ANC was regarded by the U.S as a terrorist organization - hence, the following phrase was seen by the U.S as problematic..
'..peoples under colonial and racist regimes..'
..and hence why the following U.N resolutions were all vetoed by the U.S..
1979 Calls for an end to all military and nuclear collaboration with the apartheid South Africa.
1979 Strengthens the arms embargo against South Africa.
1979 Offers assistance to all the oppressed people of South Africa and their liberation movement
1981 Condemns South Africa for attacks on neighbouring states, condemns apartheid and attempts to strengthen sanctions. 7 resolutions.
1981 Condemns an attempted coup by South Africa on the Seychelles.
1983 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics, and international law. 15 resolutions.
1984 Condemns support of South Africa in its Namibian and other policies.
1984 International action to eliminate apartheid.
1984 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics, and international law. 18 resolutions.
1986 Calls on all governments (including the USA) to observe international law.
1986 Imposes economic and military sanctions against South Africa.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le2000.htm
Also, the phrase '..and foreign occupation or other forms of colonial
domination..' was understood by everybody to refer to the Israeli occupation of the West bank and Gaza. And so the resolution condemning terrorism was vetoed by the U.S because it would have interfered with U.S terrorist activities in Latin America and it's unconditional military, economic, and diplomatic support for Israeli terrorism in the West Bank and Gaza.
The resolution:
153 - 2, with one abstention (Honduras)
1091. In conclusion, from the facts it gathered, the Mission finds that Messrs. Majdi Abd
Rabbo, Abbas Ahmad Ibrahim Halawa, Mahmoud Abd Rabbo al-Ajrami and AD/03 were
captured by the Israeli armed forces while they were in their homes, in some cases together with
their families, and were then forced at gunpoint to search houses together with the Israeli armed
forces. The Mission also finds on the basis of those facts that they were all subject to cruel,
inhuman and degrading treatment during their captivity.
G. Legal findings
1092. Several provisions of international humanitarian law prohibit the practice of using
civilian men captured by the armed forces to search houses in which the invading army suspects
the risk of ambushes or booby traps.
1093. This practice constitutes the use of involuntary human shields and is a violation of article
28 of the Fourth Geneva Convention which reads: “The presence of a protected person may not
be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.” Article 51, paragraph
7, of Additional Protocol I adds that “the presence or movements of the civilian population or
individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military
operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour
or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the
civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from
attacks or to shield military operations.” The prohibition of the use of human shields also has
customary law status (rule 97 of the ICRC rules of customary humanitarian law535), both in
international and in non-international armed conflict. The Mission, therefore, finds that the
Israeli armed forces have violated article 28 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and the
prohibition under customary international law that the civilian population as such will not be the
object of attacks, as reflected in article 51 (2) of Additional Protocol I.
1094. In 2002, the Israeli Supreme Court sitting as the High Court of Justice was seized of a
case regarding the use of a very similar practice in the West Bank, at the time known as the
“neighbour procedure”. The petitioners, seven Israeli and Palestinian human rights organizations,
535 Customary International Humanitarian Law…, p. 337. The Israeli Government recognizes the customary nature of the principle enshrined in Additional Protocol I, article 51 (7) (“The operation in Gaza…”, para. 151).
A/HRC/12/48
page 297 described cases in which “the IDF forced Palestinian residents to walk through and scan
buildings suspected to be booby-trapped, and in which it ordered them to enter certain areas
before the combat forces, in order to find wanted persons there; also described are cases in which
the army used residents as a “human shield” which accompanied the combat forces, to serve as a
shield against attack on those forces. […] Further described were cases in which local residents
were asked about the presence of wanted persons and weapons, under threat of bodily injury or
death, should the questions go unanswered.”536 In other words, the petitioners described
incidents analogous to those investigated by the Mission in Gaza.
1095. In their response to the petition, the Israeli armed forces and other respondents “clarified
unequivocally that they recognize that the forces operating in the field are categorically
forbidden from using Palestinian residents as a ‘live shield’ or as ‘hostages’, and that involving
local residents in any activity exposing them to danger to life or limb is prohibited.”537 The
Israeli armed forces also submitted to the High Court of Justice a directive regarding the use of
the so-called “early warning” procedure. This procedure relied on the allegedly exclusively
voluntary cooperation of Palestinian civilians to give wanted persons a warning to turn
themselves in. The directive states that “it is strictly forbidden to use the local resident in military
missions (e.g. locating explosive charges, intelligence gathering).” It also provides “it is strictly
forbidden to use a local resident as a ‘live shield’ against attack. Thus, during the advance of the
force, accompanied by the local resident, the latter is not to be positioned at the head of the
force.”538
1096. As a result of these assurances given by the Israeli armed forces, the High Court of
Justice did not rule on the so-called neighbour procedure, but on the “early warning” procedure.
In its ruling, it found that the “early warning” procedure was also “at odds with international
law” and ordered the armed forces to desist from any further use of the procedure.539 In reaching
this outcome, Supreme Court President A. Barak left no doubt that he considered the “neighbour
procedure” to violate article 28 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. He quotes approvingly from J.
536 Adalah Legal Centre for Arab Minority Rights in Israel et al. v. Commander of the Central Region et al., case
A/HRC/12/48
page 298
Pictet’s Commentary to the Fourth Geneva Convention, in which it is stated that “such practices
[the use of human shields], the object of which is to divert enemy fire, have rightly been
condemned as cruel and barbaric”.
1097. When reporting on its military operations in Gaza, the Israeli Government stated:
IDF’s rules of engagement strictly prohibit the use of civilians as human shields.
Moreover, the Israel Supreme Court has ruled that use of civilians in any capacity for the
purpose of military operations is unlawful, including the use of civilians to call terrorists
hiding in buildings. Following this judgement, this latter practice has also been proscribed
by IDF orders. The IDF is committed to enforcing this prohibition.
The IDF took a variety of measures to teach and instil awareness of these rules of engagement in commanders and soldiers.540
The Israeli Government does not, however, in any way mention the very specific allegations of
use of Palestinian civilians as human shields in January 2009 which have been in the public
domain since they were published in an Israeli newspaper in March 2009541 and in NGO reports
from April 2009 onwards, and which have been brought to the attention of the Attorney-General
of Israel in letters by Israeli NGOs.
1098. The Mission further finds from the facts available to it that the conduct of the Israeli
armed forces in the cases above violates article 31 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. This
provision dictates that “no physical or moral coercion shall be exercised against protected
persons, in particular to obtain information from them or from third parties.” The ICRC
Commentary notes that “article 31 prohibits coercion for any purpose or reason and the obtaining
of information is only given as an example. Thus, the custom, hitherto accepted in practice but
disputed in theory, that an invasion army may force the inhabitants of an occupied territory to
serve as ‘guides’ is now forbidden.”542
A/HRC/12/48
page 299
1099. The questioning of civilians under threat of death or injury by Israeli soldiers, who
demanded information about Hamas and the location of Palestinian combatants and tunnels, also
constitutes a violation of article 31. The Mission has no information on cases in which such a
threat was actually followed by the killing of a captured civilian. However, Messrs. Majdi Abd
Rabbo, Abbas Ahmad Ibrahim Halawa and Mahmoud Abd Rabbo al-Ajrami, all claim that they
were threatened with execution. Majdi Abd Rabbo also claimed that he was kicked and beaten
by soldiers until he gave in to their request to enter the house of HS/08. Mahmoud Abd Rabbo
al-Ajrami was thrown from the second floor of his house after refusing to provide information to
Israeli soldiers, resulting in several broken ribs.
1100. The use of the “neighbour procedure”, now apparently renamed “Johnnie procedure”,
constitutes a violation of fundamental human rights norms. It puts the right to life of the civilians
concerned, protected in article 6 of ICCPR, at risk in an arbitrary and unlawful way. The anguish
to which civilians who, blindfolded and handcuffed, are forced at gunpoint to enter houses which
– this is the reason they are forced to enter the houses – might be booby-trapped or harbour
combatants who might open fire on them, can only be described as cruel and inhuman treatment
prohibited by article 7 of ICCPR. Furthermore, the witnesses were all deprived of liberty and the
security of their person violated. This also constitute a violation of article 9 of ICCPR. The
Mission must state that numerous civilians who came into contact with the Israeli armed forces
during the military operation recounted shocking stories of humiliation that would certainly be in
stark contravention of the principle of respect for human dignity, which forms the core of all
human rights and fundamental freedoms.
1101. The Mission also finds that the intentional use as human shields of those whose accounts
are presented above qualifies as inhuman treatment of and wilfully causing great suffering to
protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention. As such, the Mission considers the
conduct of the Israeli armed forces in relation to such persons to amount to grave breaches of the
said Convention. The use of human shields is also a war crime under article 8 (2) (b) (xxiii) of
the Rome Statute.
1102. Finally, the Mission finds that obliging Majdi Abd Rabbo to use a megaphone to call on
the men trapped in the house behind his to surrender, on the grounds that ICRC was present and they could safely hand themselves over, qualifies as a violation of article 37 of Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits perfidy. At the time, the Izbat Abd Rabbo area was a closed military zone into which no one, including ICRC, was permitted to enter.
Perfidy is defined by article 37 as “acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence”. Acts amounting to perfidy resulting in death or serious personal injury are also a war crime under article 8 (2) (b) (vii) of the Rome Statute.
1750. The Mission also examined whether the Palestinian armed groups complied with their obligations under international humanitarian law to take constant care to minimize the risk of harm to the civilian population in Gaza among whom the hostilities were being conducted. The conduct of hostilities in built-up areas does not, of itself, constitute a violation of international law. However, launching attacks - whether of rockets and mortars at the population of southern Israel or at the Israeli armed forces inside Gaza - close to civilian or protected buildings constitutes a failure to take all feasible precautions. In cases where this occurred, the Palestinian armed groups would have unnecessarily exposed the civilian population of Gaza to the inherent dangers of the military operations taking place around them.
The Mission found no evidence to suggest that Palestinian armed groups either directed civilians to areas where attacks were being launched or that they forced civilians to remain within the vicinity of the attacks. The Mission also found no evidence that members of Palestinian armed groups engaged in combat in civilian dress. Although in the one incident of an Israeli attack on a mosque it investigated the Mission found that there was no indication that that mosque was used for military purposes or to shield military activities, the Mission cannot exclude that this might have occurred in other cases.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n02/sieg01_.html
Israel’s Lies
Henry Siegman - 29 January 2009
London Review of Books
'Western governments and most of the Western media have accepted a number of Israeli claims justifying the military assault on Gaza: that Hamas consistently violated the six-month truce that Israel observed and then refused to extend it; that Israel therefore had no choice but to destroy Hamas’s capacity to launch missiles into Israeli towns; that Hamas is a terrorist organisation, part of a global jihadi network; and that Israel has acted not only in its own defence but on behalf of an international struggle by Western democracies against this network.
I am not aware of a single major American newspaper, radio station or TV channel whose coverage of the assault on Gaza questions this version of events. Criticism of Israel’s actions, if any (and there has been none from the Bush administration), has focused instead on whether the IDF’s carnage is proportional to the threat it sought to counter, and whether it is taking adequate measures to prevent civilian casualties.
Middle East peacemaking has been smothered in deceptive euphemisms, so let me state bluntly that each of these claims is a lie. Israel, not Hamas, violated the truce: Hamas undertook to stop firing rockets into Israel; in return, Israel was to ease its throttlehold on Gaza. In fact, during the truce, it tightened it further. This was confirmed not only by every neutral international observer and NGO on the scene but by Brigadier General (Res.) Shmuel Zakai, a former commander of the IDF’s Gaza Division. In an interview in Ha’aretz on 22 December, he accused Israel’s government of having made a ‘central error’ during the tahdiyeh, the six-month period of relative truce, by failing ‘to take advantage of the calm to improve, rather than markedly worsen, the economic plight of the Palestinians of the Strip . . . When you create a tahdiyeh, and the economic pressure on the Strip continues,’ General Zakai said, ‘it is obvious that Hamas will try to reach an improved tahdiyeh, and that their way to achieve this is resumed Qassam fire . . . You cannot just land blows, leave the Palestinians in Gaza in the economic distress they’re in, and expect that Hamas will just sit around and do nothing.’
The truce, which began in June last year and was due for renewal in December, required both parties to refrain from violent action against the other. Hamas had to cease its rocket assaults and prevent the firing of rockets by other groups such as Islamic Jihad (even Israel’s intelligence agencies acknowledged this had been implemented with surprising effectiveness), and Israel had to put a stop to its targeted assassinations and military incursions. This understanding was seriously violated on 4 November, when the IDF entered Gaza and killed six members of Hamas. Hamas responded by launching Qassam rockets and Grad missiles. Even so, it offered to extend the truce, but only on condition that Israel ended its blockade. Israel refused. It could have met its obligation to protect its citizens by agreeing to ease the blockade, but it didn’t even try. It cannot be said that Israel launched its assault to protect its citizens from rockets. It did so to protect its right to continue the strangulation of Gaza’s population.
Everyone seems to have forgotten that Hamas declared an end to suicide bombings and rocket fire when it decided to join the Palestinian political process, and largely stuck to it for more than a year. Bush publicly welcomed that decision, citing it as an example of the success of his campaign for democracy in the Middle East. (He had no other success to point to.) When Hamas unexpectedly won the election, Israel and the US immediately sought to delegitimise the result and embraced Mahmoud Abbas, the head of Fatah, who until then had been dismissed by Israel’s leaders as a ‘plucked chicken’. They armed and trained his security forces to overthrow Hamas; and when Hamas – brutally, to be sure – pre-empted this violent attempt to reverse the result of the first honest democratic election in the modern Middle East, Israel and the Bush administration imposed the blockade.
Israel seeks to counter these indisputable facts by maintaining that in withdrawing Israeli settlements from Gaza in 2005, Ariel Sharon gave Hamas the chance to set out on the path to statehood, a chance it refused to take; instead, it transformed Gaza into a launching-pad for firing missiles at Israel’s civilian population. The charge is a lie twice over. First, for all its failings, Hamas brought to Gaza a level of law and order unknown in recent years, and did so without the large sums of money that donors showered on the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority. It eliminated the violent gangs and warlords who terrorised Gaza under Fatah’s rule. Non-observant Muslims, Christians and other minorities have more religious freedom under Hamas rule than they would have in Saudi Arabia, for example, or under many other Arab regimes.
The greater lie is that Sharon’s withdrawal from Gaza was intended as a prelude to further withdrawals and a peace agreement. This is how Sharon’s senior adviser Dov Weisglass, who was also his chief negotiator with the Americans, described the withdrawal from Gaza, in an interview with Ha’aretz in August 2004:
'What I effectively agreed to with the Americans was that part of the settlements [i.e. the major settlement blocks on the West Bank] would not be dealt with at all, and the rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns . . . The significance [of the agreement with the US] is the freezing of the political process. And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state and you prevent a discussion about the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package that is called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed from our agenda indefinitely. And all this with [President Bush’s] authority and permission . . . and the ratification of both houses of Congress.'
Do the Israelis and Americans think that Palestinians don’t read the Israeli papers, or that when they saw what was happening on the West Bank they couldn’t figure out for themselves what Sharon was up to?
Israel’s government would like the world to believe that Hamas launched its Qassam rockets because that is what terrorists do and Hamas is a generic terrorist group. In fact, Hamas is no more a ‘terror organisation’ (Israel’s preferred term) than the Zionist movement was during its struggle for a Jewish homeland. In the late 1930s and 1940s, parties within the Zionist movement resorted to terrorist activities for strategic reasons. According to Benny Morris, it was the Irgun that first targeted civilians. He writes in Righteous Victims that an upsurge of Arab terrorism in 1937 ‘triggered a wave of Irgun bombings against Arab crowds and buses, introducing a new dimension to the conflict’. He also documents atrocities committed during the 1948-49 war by the IDF, admitting in a 2004 interview, published in Ha’aretz, that material released by Israel’s Ministry of Defence showed that ‘there were far more Israeli acts of massacre than I had previously thought . . . In the months of April-May 1948, units of the Haganah were given operational orders that stated explicitly that they were to uproot the villagers, expel them, and destroy the villages themselves.’ In a number of Palestinian villages and towns the IDF carried out organised executions of civilians. Asked by Ha’aretz whether he condemned the ethnic cleansing, Morris replied that he did not:
'A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads. It was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our settlements were fired on.'
In other words, when Jews target and kill innocent civilians to advance their national struggle, they are patriots. When their adversaries do so, they are terrorists.
It is too easy to describe Hamas simply as a ‘terror organisation’. It is a religious nationalist movement that resorts to terrorism, as the Zionist movement did during its struggle for statehood, in the mistaken belief that it is the only way to end an oppressive occupation and bring about a Palestinian state. While Hamas’s ideology formally calls for that state to be established on the ruins of the state of Israel, this doesn’t determine Hamas’s actual policies today any more than the same declaration in the PLO charter determined Fatah’s actions.
These are not the conclusions of an apologist for Hamas but the opinions of the former head of Mossad and Sharon’s national security adviser, Ephraim Halevy. The Hamas leadership has undergone a change ‘right under our very noses’, Halevy wrote recently in Yedioth Ahronoth, by recognising that ‘its ideological goal is not attainable and will not be in the foreseeable future.’ It is now ready and willing to see the establishment of a Palestinian state within the temporary borders of 1967. Halevy noted that while Hamas has not said how ‘temporary’ those borders would be, ‘they know that the moment a Palestinian state is established with their co-operation, they will be obligated to change the rules of the game: they will have to adopt a path that could lead them far from their original ideological goals.’ In an earlier article, Halevy also pointed out the absurdity of linking Hamas to al-Qaida.
'In the eyes of al-Qaida, the members of Hamas are perceived as heretics due to their stated desire to participate, even indirectly, in processes of any understandings or agreements with Israel. [The Hamas political bureau chief, Khaled] Mashal’s declaration diametrically contradicts al-Qaida’s approach, and provides Israel with an opportunity, perhaps a historic one, to leverage it for the better.'
Why then are Israel’s leaders so determined to destroy Hamas? Because they believe that its leadership, unlike that of Fatah, cannot be intimidated into accepting a peace accord that establishes a Palestinian ‘state’ made up of territorially disconnected entities over which Israel would be able to retain permanent control. Control of the West Bank has been the unwavering objective of Israel’s military, intelligence and political elites since the end of the Six-Day War.[*] They believe that Hamas would not permit such a cantonisation of Palestinian territory, no matter how long the occupation continues. They may be wrong about Abbas and his superannuated cohorts, but they are entirely right about Hamas.
Middle East observers wonder whether Israel’s assault on Hamas will succeed in destroying the organisation or expelling it from Gaza. This is an irrelevant question. If Israel plans to keep control over any future Palestinian entity, it will never find a Palestinian partner, and even if it succeeds in dismantling Hamas, the movement will in time be replaced by a far more radical Palestinian opposition.
If Barack Obama picks a seasoned Middle East envoy who clings to the idea that outsiders should not present their own proposals for a just and sustainable peace agreement, much less press the parties to accept it, but instead leave them to work out their differences, he will assure a future Palestinian resistance far more extreme than Hamas – one likely to be allied with al-Qaida. For the US, Europe and most of the rest of the world, this would be the worst possible outcome. Perhaps some Israelis, including the settler leadership, believe it would serve their purposes, since it would provide the government with a compelling pretext to hold on to all of Palestine. But this is a delusion that would bring about the end of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.
Anthony Cordesman, one of the most reliable military analysts of the Middle East, and a friend of Israel, argued in a 9 January report for the Center for Strategic and International Studies that the tactical advantages of continuing the operation in Gaza were outweighed by the strategic cost – and were probably no greater than any gains Israel may have made early in the war in selective strikes on key Hamas facilities. ‘Has Israel somehow blundered into a steadily escalating war without a clear strategic goal, or at least one it can credibly achieve?’ he asks. ‘Will Israel end in empowering an enemy in political terms that it defeated in tactical terms? Will Israel’s actions seriously damage the US position in the region, any hope of peace, as well as moderate Arab regimes and voices in the process? To be blunt, the answer so far seems to be yes.’ Cordesman concludes that ‘any leader can take a tough stand and claim that tactical gains are a meaningful victory. If this is all that Olmert, Livni and Barak have for an answer, then they have disgraced themselves and damaged their country and their friends.’
15 January
"A typical Israeli liberal
The difference between an Israeli liberal and an Israeli conservative is that an Israeli liberal is--like an Israeli conserviative--willing to support the murder of hundreds of Palestinian children but--unlike an Israeli conservative--he/she would add a few words about anguish--of the Israeli killers. That is really the difference. Look at this dude: "But they never imagined that the report would accuse the Jewish state of intentionally aiming at civilians. Israelis believe that their army did not deliberately kill the hundreds of Palestinian civilians, including children, who died during “Operation Cast Lead.” They believe, therefore, that Israel is not culpable, morally or criminally, for these civilian deaths, which were collateral to the true aim of the operation — killing Hamas gunmen." OK, one was not intentional, two was not intentional, or three was not intentional, but when hundreds of children are killed, this Zionist justification of murder becomes hollow."
Déjà vu in Gaza
12.29.2008 | Ynet
By B. Michael
'There it is again, the cyclical “déjà vu war.” That same ceremonial bloodshed that again is being poured into the hot lava that has been leading the entire region to misery for dozens of years now.
To be honest, one is fatigued by the need to divide the seventh day of the Six-Day War into “operations,” “wars,” “battles,” “operations,” and “campaigns.” All of them constitute one ongoing war; one great butcher shop. The war of occupier against occupied, and the war of the occupied against the occupier.
And again we hear all the great words about courage, surprise, sophistication, and success. Yet the nature of the “surprise” we delivered against Hamas isn’t quite clear. I mean, did the group fail to deploy its airplanes? Did it fail to advance its armored corps in advance? Did it fail to deploy its Patriot missile batteries?
Moreover, and there is no need to deny this, there is not too much glory and valor involved in flying over a giant prison and firing at its people using helicopters and fighter jets. So far we have seen sophistication and success mostly in the excited commentary of dozens of generals (res.) who again enjoy the limelight. As always.
Yet out of all the big words, as usual, we see a small and ugly truth emerging: Our southern cities have been hit by dozens of missiles, while Gaza sustained hundreds of dead. Almost half of them are civilians; almost half of them are the graduates of a police course who have nothing to do with Qassam rockets.
Yet we have seen this bleeding folly time and again. After all, this was precisely the way Israel conducted itself during the terrible years of the Intifada. After every terrible attack by Palestinian groups, Israel bombed a police station or office of facility belonging to the Palestinian Authority, to the point where the PA lost its power and status, allowing Hamas to rise to power on its ashes.
So who are we crowning now in the framework of our desire not to disappoint our angry masses?
Only hatred, bereavement, pain, and desire for revenge will come out of this operation, both here and there. Perhaps someone will gain a few Knesset seats too. Indeed, this is so tiring, and so bleak.'
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
we like to demonize islamic extremists driven by some religious fanaticism however what do people think drives israeli settlers?? ... they believe they should be allowed to settle on land because of a divine gift from god ... wtf?? ... who are the real extremists here?
Click on the link, fill in the form and send your support for the report:
http://www.endtheoccupation.org/modinput4.php?modin=173
Endorse the Goldstone Report
Ambassador Susan Rice
Permanent U.S. Representative to United Nations
United States Mission to the United Nations
140 East 45th Street
New York, NY 10017
September 25, 2009
Dear Ambassador Rice,
The following organizations are writing to you to express their strong support for the recommendations of the UN Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict contained in the Goldstone Report and strongly urge the United States to endorse these recommendations when they are voted on in the UN Human Rights Council on September 29.
Earlier this month, the United States assumed a seat on the UN Human Rights Council for the first time. Upon assuming this seat, Dr. Esther Brinner, Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of International Organization Affairs, stated that “We can not pick and choose which of these [human] rights we embrace nor select who among us are entitled to them. We are all endowed at birth with the right to live in dignity, to follow our consciences and speak our minds without fear, to choose those who govern us, to hold our leaders accountable, and to enjoy equal justice under the law. These rights extend to all, and the United States can not accept that any among us would be condemned to live without them.”
We strongly agree with this statement and believe that the United States should put these words into action by voting to endorse the recommendations of the Goldstone Report.
The UN Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict did an exemplary job under adverse circumstances of investigating human rights abuses, violations of international law, war crimes, and possible crimes against humanity by all parties before, during, and after Israel’s assault on the occupied Gaza Strip in December 2008-January 2009.
The mission was scrupulously even-handed in investigating these violations. As it stated in its methodology, “To implement its mandate, the Mission determined that it was required to consider any actions by all parties that might have constituted violations of international human rights law or international humanitarian law. The mandate also required it to review related actions in the entire Occupied PalestinianTerritory and Israel.”
Now that this mission has delivered its report and documented human rights violations by Israel, Palestinian armed groups, and the Palestinian Authority, it is imperative for the United States to support its recommendations. To do otherwise would undermine our country’s commitment to the universality of human rights and contradict Dr. Brinner’s promise to the UN Human Rights Council: “Make no mistake; the United States will not look the other way in the face of serious human rights abuses. The truth must be told, the facts brought to light and the consequences faced.”
The UN Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict has told the truth and brought the facts to light. On September 29, it is time for the United States to make sure that the consequences are faced for these violations of human rights. We strongly urge the United States to vote in favor of the recommendations in the Goldstone Report.
Signed by,
1. US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation
2. Boston Coalition for Palestinian Rights
3. Code Pink: Women for Peace
4. International Coalition to End the Illegal Siege of Gaza
5. Jewish Voice for Peace