The bottom line in this situation is that as long as the occupation continues, Israel has no legal nor moral right whatsoever to military self defense against Palestinians. period.
As for the Palestinian leadership allegedly saying that a future Palestinian state would be 'Judenrein' (free of Jews), this is bullshit. Abbas was referring to settlers, not Jews per se.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/palestinians-yes-to-jews-no-to-settlers-in-our-state/ Hanan Ashrawi, a member of the PLO Executive Committee, told The Times of Israel that Jews and members of all religions would have the right to apply for Palestinian citizenship. But “Palestine” could not accept “ex-territorial Jewish enclaves” where residents maintained their Israeli citizenship status, she said.
...The source in the Israeli Prime Minister’s office said that “just as Israel has an Arab minority, the prime minister doesn’t see why Palestine can’t have a Jewish minority. The Jews living on their side should have a choice whether they want to stay or not.”
...Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has previously stated that no settlers would be allowed to remain in the Palestinian state, and his chief negotiator Saeb Erekat on Sunday repeated that not a single settler would be allowed to stay because, he said, Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal under international law.
That's not evidence. That's something that somebody may, or may not have, said.
Oh, so when you quote articles, they are facts, but when I quote one that doesn't fit your narrative, it's "alleged." Yes, I'm sure the Jews will be welcomed in the future Palestine, just as they were in all of the other friendly Arab nations. Where are your cries of ethnic cleansing when Jews and Christians are driven out of every other middle eastern nation? Close to 1 million Jews were driven from unfriendly Arab nations over the past 50 years. LINK LINK 2
As for the Palestinian leadership allegedly saying that a future Palestinian state would be 'Judenrein' (free of Jews), this is bullshit. Abbas was referring to settlers, not Jews per se.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/palestinians-yes-to-jews-no-to-settlers-in-our-state/ Hanan Ashrawi, a member of the PLO Executive Committee, told The Times of Israel that Jews and members of all religions would have the right to apply for Palestinian citizenship. But “Palestine” could not accept “ex-territorial Jewish enclaves” where residents maintained their Israeli citizenship status, she said.
...The source in the Israeli Prime Minister’s office said that “just as Israel has an Arab minority, the prime minister doesn’t see why Palestine can’t have a Jewish minority. The Jews living on their side should have a choice whether they want to stay or not.”
...Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has previously stated that no settlers would be allowed to remain in the Palestinian state, and his chief negotiator Saeb Erekat on Sunday repeated that not a single settler would be allowed to stay because, he said, Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal under international law.
Oh, so "settlers" would not be allowed to stay, but "Jews" would be welcomed with open arms. Tell me, who are these Jews that would be welcomed? New immigrants from Tel Aviv or elsewhere? Which Jews exactly would be allowed to live there, and if your answer is "none" then how is this not anything dfifferent than asking for the land to be Judenrein?
The bottom line in this situation is that as long as the occupation continues, Israel has no legal nor moral right whatsoever to military self defense against Palestinians. period.
Yes, they have no right to defend themselves. They should allow indiscriminate bombing of civilians. Moron.
Yes, I'm sure the Jews will be welcomed in the future Palestine, just as they were in all of the other friendly Arab nations. Where are your cries of ethnic cleansing when Jews and Christians are driven out of every other middle eastern nation? Close to 1 million Jews were driven from unfriendly Arab nations over the past 50 years. LINK LINK 2
More bullshit. Seems to be a favourite tool of yours, bullshit. Anything to try and excuse and justify Israel's crimes against the Palestinians, and now a cynical attempt to equate the exodus of Arab Jews from Arab countries with the forced expulsion of Palestinians from their lands in 1948.
Though here's what Yehuda Shenav, a professor of history at Tel Aviv University has to say on the matter: "Any reasonable person, Zionist or non-Zionist, must acknowledge that the analogy drawn between Palestinians and Arab Jews is unfounded....Arab Jews arrived to Israel under the initiative of the State of Israel and Jewish organizations. Some arrived of their own free will; others arrived against their will. Some lived comfortably and securely in Arab lands; others suffered from fear and oppression."
The State of Israel in many cases actively precipitated Jewish emigration, sending emissaries to Arab countries in order to persuade Jews to leave. Their methods often involved violence; for example, in Egypt, where the situation of Jews deteriorated significantly in 1954 after a group of local Jews was caught carrying out acts of terrorism and sabotage at the behest of Israel. Israel publicly acknowledged responsibility for this only in 2005. Similarly, Jewish emigration from Iraq accelerated in 1951 after the bombing of a synagogue; this act was blamed at the time on Zionist agents. A claim lent credibility by the recent admission by a former member of the Iraqi Zionist underground that members of his group did employ such tactics.
As for the Arab Jews themselves, many have voiced their opposition to this new cynical campaign by the Netanyahu government: "The property of the Jews of the Middle East is not a matter for the State of Israel," says Yehouda Shenhav, an associate professor of sociology and anthropology at Tel Aviv University, himself of Iraqi descent. "They are manipulating me for an ulterior motive."
As Jonathan Cook points out: "Many, if not most, Arab Jews left their homelands voluntarily, unlike Palestinians, to begin a new life in Israel. Even where tensions forced Jews to flee, such as in Iraq, it is hard to know who was always behind the ethnic strife. There is strong evidence that Israel’s Mossad spy agency waged false-flag operations in Arab states to fuel the fear and hostility needed to drive Arab Jews towards Israel."
Supporting all aspects of the Israeli assault on Gaza in November, President Obama gave Israeli forces a green light, saying “We are fully supportive of Israel’s right to defend itself.” Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu defended Israel’s targeting of civilian areas in Gaza saying “it’s our right to defend our people.”
Obama and Netenyahu disregarded law and facts:
* In 2004, the International Court of Justice rejected Israeli Government arguments and found that as an occupying power, Israel’s right to defend itself under a UN Charter provision does not apply against those living under its rule.
* The Court found that the right, and indeed the obligation, to protect citizens does not trump Israeli obligation to conform to international law when doing so.
* Israeli military assaults on Gaza, including “Operation Pillar of Defense,” caused a vast increase in rocket fire from Gaza, so the assaults endangered rather than defended Israeli citizens.
* Israeli political and military leaders have long known how to quickly halt or substantially dial down rocket fire that involves no bombs, no killing, and no destruction: ceasefire agreements. However, Israeli forces have repeatedly ended effective ceasefire agreements with aerial extrajudicial executions of Palestinians in Gaza that dialed up rocket fire.
Israeli Government argues self-defense
In its 2004 written advisory opinion regarding the wall that Israeli forces built across Palestinian occupied territory, the International Court of Justice included the Israeli government’s self-defense arguments:
* According to Israel “the construction of the Barrier is consistent with Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, its inherent right to self-defense and Security Council resolutions 1368 (2001) and 1373 (2001).”
* More specifically, Israel’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations asserted in the General Assembly on 20 October 2003 that “the fence is a measure wholly consistent with the right of States to self-defense enshrined in Article 51 of the Charter”; the Security Council resolutions referred to, he continued, “have clearly recognized the right of States to use force in self-defense against terrorist attacks,” and therefore surely recognize the right to use nonforcible measures to that end (A/ES10/PV.21, p. 6).
The Israeli government thus argued that self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter applies and that the wall should be considered as legitimate under this Charter self-defense provision– especially because the wall is a passive means of self-defense rather than a forcible measure. The Israeli government further implied that the two Security Council resolutions allow Israel’s right of self-defense against terrorism to trump the provision of international humanitarian law prohibiting Israel, as occupying power, to encroach on Palestinian territory.
International Court of Justice rejects Israeli self-defense
Rejecting the Israeli government arguments, the Court first found that the Article 51 right to self-defense “has no relevance” when the attacks on Israel, the occupying power, are from people living under Israeli rule rather than coming from a foreign state. The Court found:
Article 51 of the Charter thus recognizes the existence of an inherent right of self-defense in the case of armed attack by one State against another State. However, Israel does not claim that the attacks against it are imputable to a foreign State. The Court also notes that Israel exercises control in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and that, as Israel itself states, the threat which it regards as justifying the construction of the wall originates within, and not outside, that territory. . . Consequently, the Court concludes that Article 51 of the Charter has no relevance in this case.
The Court thus concluded that self-defense under Article 51 does not apply to an occupying power with respect to those living under occupation. Although Israel withdrew its illegal settlers from Gaza in 2005, Israel still controls all aspects of life in Gaza, including air, land and sea borders, and therefore Israel continues to be regarded as an occupying power over Gaza.
The decision that an occupying power cannot invoke Article 51 self-defense is complementary to provisions of the UN Charter, UN General Assembly Resolution 2625, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights under which self-determination is a principle of international law.
More specifically, the decision is complementary to UN General Assembly Resolution 2649, adopted November 30, 1970, that “affirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples under colonial and alien domination recognized as being entitled to the right of self-determination to restore to themselves that right by any means at their disposal.” Resolution 2649 also “considers that the acquisition and retention of territory in contravention of the right of the people of that territory to self-determination is inadmissible and a gross violation of the Charter;” and “condemns those Governments that deny the right to self-determination of peoples recognized as being entitled to it, especially of the peoples of southern Africa and Palestine.”
The rejection of Israel’s Article 51 argument leaves Israeli forces and their US sponsors at risk of prosecution for the crime of aggression, the subject of another article.
Court Rejects Israeli argument that self-defense trumps international law The Court also concluded that construction of the wall on occupied Palestinian land was not in conformance with applicable international law because the route of the wall across Palestinian territory was illegal. “The Court considers that Israel cannot rely on a right of self-defense or on a state of necessity in order to preclude the wrongfulness of the construction of the wall.” Thus, the Court established that defending its citizens does not relieve Israeli government officials of their responsibility to observe international law.
International law for an occupying power includes the responsibility to protect civilians living under occupation and their property and to provide for the humanitarian needs of the population living under the occupation. International humanitarian law requires all combatants to protect civilians and civilian property during any armed conflict.
Court recognizes Israeli right to protect citizens if method conforms to international law
The Court recognized that “Israel has to face numerous indiscriminate and deadly acts of violence against its civilian population. It has the right, and indeed the duty, to respond in order to protect the life of its citizens. The measures taken are bound nonetheless to remain in conformity with applicable international law.”
Israeli argument before the court can be applied in reverse
The argument the Israeli permanent representative introduced is remarkable in that it can be applied in reverse in view of the Court’s decision: the Court rejected an occupying power’s right to use a non-forcible measure–the fence–in self-defense because the fence illegally encroached on occupied territory. Therefore, the Court would surely reject forcible measures that violate the law. During Israel’s “Operation Cast Lead” from December 27, 2008 to January 18, 2009, Israeli military and political leaders failed to take heed of the decision of the International Court, as described in a report issued by a delegation from the National Lawyers Guild, and reports issued by Human Rights Watch, the Palestine Center for Human rights, Amnesty International, the UN Human Rights Council–“the Goldstone Report,” Defence for Children International (Palestine Section), Al Mezan Centre for Human Rights, and the League of Arab States, all available at Universal Jurisdiction. Instead, Israeli political and military leaders–and their US sponsors–wrongfully continued to rely on Israel’s supposed right to protect its own citizens as justifying measures, such as intentionally attacking civilians and civilian property, that violate international law.
Israel’s “Pillar of Defense” November 14-21 failed to heed both the decision of the Court and the law as described in those reports, as described in articles on Counterpunch, “Wrecking Gaza: Civilian Infrastructure Targeted by Israeli Military” and “Shattered Lives in Gaza: How the IDF Targeted Civilians.”
Reports by Human Rights Watch also describe Israeli violations during Operation Pillar of Defense, including “Gaza: Unlawful Israeli Attacks on Palestinian Media” and “Gaza: Israeli Airstrike on Home Unlawful.” An HRW report on November 15 warned both sides, “Gaza: Avoid Harm to Civilians.”
A December 24 report by Human Rights Watch, “Gaza: Palestinian Rockets Unlawfully Targeted Israeli Civilians” sharply criticizes Palestinian resistance groups that fired rockets at Israeli population centers: Under international humanitarian law, or the laws of war, civilians and civilian structures may not be subject to deliberate attacks or attacks that do not discriminate between civilians and military targets. Anyone who commits serious laws-of-war violations intentionally or recklessly is responsible for war crimes. . .
The November 14 to 21 hostilities between Israel and Hamas and armed groups in Gaza involved unlawful attacks on civilians by both sides.
As will be further described in a forthcoming article, data on the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs web site, on the allied Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC) web site, and on the Palestine Center for Human Rights web site shows that Israeli forces have levers of control over rocket fire from Gaza. Data on the web sites shows that Israeli extra-judicial executions in Gaza dialed up rocket attacks on Israel to extremely high levels. The data also shows that Israeli government and military leaders dialed down rocket attacks to zero, or very close to zero, by using a readily available non-violent technique: a cease fire agreement.
Israeli political and military leaders who set the policy, those carrying out the attacks, and US government and corporate sponsors who provided the weapons and political backing are all liable for prosecution for war crimes because of their unlawful attacks on civilians and civilian property. The decision of the International Court of Justice on the wall indicates that liability for war crimes would not be precluded even if Israeli forces could prove they were acting to defend Israeli citizens. Similarly for the crime of aggression: particularly when Israeli forces violated effective ceasefires and initiated the military conflicts with their extra-judicial executions in Gaza. Claims that Israeli forces acted to protect their own citizens will have “no relevance” under Article 51.
Investigation and prosecution
With its upgrade in status to non-member state at the UN on November 29, Palestine can now bring its case against Israeli and US political and military leaders to the International Criminal Court (ICC) at the Hague. The International Criminal Court has jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute those responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. If the prosecutor of the ICC refuses the request to investigate, the Palestinian Authority can bring a proposal to the UN General Assembly to establish an International Criminal Tribunal for Israel as a ‘subsidiary organ,’ as provided under U.N. Charter Article 22 to conduct the investigation and prosecution.
The Palestinian Authority has been under intense pressure not to bring the case. Or to use the possibility of bringing a case at the ICC as a bargaining chip for other objectives, such as an agreement to halt illegal Israeli settlement building. However, pressure on Palestine not to bring a case and Palestine holding the possibility of criminal prosecution as a bargaining chip both threaten foundational principles of justice: respect for the rule of law, equal justice under law, and judicial independence. Rather pressure and bargaining are consistent with corruption and a culture of impunity for wrongdoers with powerful friends.
A worldwide campaign for justice is needed. The system of immunity and impunity enjoyed by Israeli political and military leaders and by their US government sponsors must end now. Without accountability for violations of international law, the law will become mere recommendation, the violations will be repeated, hundreds more Palestinians will be killed and wounded, more of their homes will be destroyed, rocket fire will be dialed up, and we will hear again about “Israel’s right to defend itself” while Israeli forces cynically take actions that put Israeli citizens more at risk for political goals. Only if those responsible are brought to justice can we expect that military and political leaders in Israel and the US would be inclined to think seriously before again initiating aggression while pleading self-defense. Public pressure is needed to ensure that the criminal cases are brought at the ICC–or, if the ICC refuses, to an Article 22 Tribunal–and to counter the vast US political influence to undermine an independent, impartial, and unbiased investigation and prosecution.
Oh, so "settlers" would not be allowed to stay, but "Jews" would be welcomed with open arms. Tell me, who are these Jews that would be welcomed? New immigrants from Tel Aviv or elsewhere? Which Jews exactly would be allowed to live there, and if your answer is "none" then how is this not anything dfifferent than asking for the land to be Judenrein?
Did you read the piece I posted? It's not difficult to understand.
'Jews and members of all religions would have the right to apply for Palestinian citizenship. But “Palestine” could not accept “ex-territorial Jewish enclaves” where residents maintained their Israeli citizenship status'.
Basically, I imagine that extremist racist ex-settlers would be refused citizenship. Not too difficult to comprehend why.
Sorry to put a dent in your racist fantasy. You must have been frothing at the mouth with excitement when you thought that your mis-quoted piece of self-serving bullshit may have passed scrutiny.
Gotta get back to work. Keep on spouting your hate and misinformation. Have you ever been to Israel or Gaza? Probably not. I have. Many times. it's very different than what you describe. I openly admit problems on both sides, but you all seem to think this is just a one sided issue. It's not. The only road to peace is mutual understanding and an end to violence on both sides. And that's where I'll leave it. Carry on.
“As for settlements, we proposed the following: Removal of some settlements, annexation of others, and keeping others under Palestinian sovereignty,” Palestinian negotiator Ahmad Qurei (Abu-’Alaa) told then-foreign minister Tzipi Livni, in the presence of then-US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice and their negotiating teams.
Qurei suggested applying Palestinian sovereignty to Ma’aleh Adumim, the largest Israeli settlement in the West Bank, and using it as “a model of cooperation and coexistence.” The idea was rejected by [then-Israeli foreign minister Tzipi] Livni as “unrealistic.”
Gotta get back to work. Keep on spouting your hate and misinformation. Have you ever been to Israel or Gaza? Probably not. I have. Many times. it's very different than what you describe. I openly admit problems on both sides, but you all seem to think this is just a one sided issue. It's not. The only road to peace is mutual understanding and an end to violence on both sides. And that's where I'll leave it. Carry on.
If you ever get the time, I'd love you to tell me how an illegal military occupation of a poor and largely defenseless people, which is supported by the Worlds only superpower, is not one-sided.
The bottom line in this situation is that as long as the occupation continues, Israel has no legal nor moral right whatsoever to military self defense against Palestinians. period.
Yes, they have no right to defend themselves. They should allow indiscriminate bombing of civilians. Moron.
Drowned out a moron?? Come on man, only one coming across as a moron here is you. Funny, Israel is allowed to do whatever they want for defense, yet when the Palestinians, who are defending themselves from an OCCUPIER, it's labeled terrorism. But drowned out is the moron? Good one johnnies blue balls.
Gotta get back to work. Keep on spouting your hate and misinformation. Have you ever been to Israel or Gaza? Probably not. I have. Many times. it's very different than what you describe. I openly admit problems on both sides, but you all seem to think this is just a one sided issue. It's not. The only road to peace is mutual understanding and an end to violence on both sides. And that's where I'll leave it. Carry on.
So where the fuck is YOUR understanding in this conflict? All you've done is shit on the Palestinians and praise the Israelis, oh and u keep "generally" saying "both sides" have issues. And all the shit you spewed ISNT hate or racisit shit? And the only way you've ever been to gaza is with the idf. Dnt sit here and pretend u go there and have picnics and nice strolls down Main Street.
And since the whole '400 rockets raining down on israel' thing has begun again, I'll link to a previous post that shows how the IDF and the Israeli government manipulates and inflates the number and lethality of rocket attacks to advance their agendas and attempt to justify their war crimes.
Gaza's health ministry says 22 Palestinian children have been killed since Israel's operation protective edge, was launched against Gaza on Tuesday.
The total deathtoll has increased to 78 people, the ministry claimed.
The campaign Defense for Children International Palestine said it has verified the deaths of 14 children, in the first two days of the offensive.
It provides the names and details in a daily list Children killed in on Wednesday
Mohammad Ibrahim Fayeq al-Masri, 14, from the northern Gaza city of Beit Hanoun Mohammad Fakher Mustafa Jamal Malaka, 3, from Gaza City's Zeitoun neighborhood Mohammad Iyad Salem Areef, 9, rom Gaza City's Al-Shujaiyah neighbourhood Amir Iyad Salem Areef, 11, from Gaza City's Al-Shujaiyah neighbourhood Mohammad Khalaf Odeh al-Nawasra, 1, from Maghazi refugee camp in central Gaza Nidal Khalaf Odeh al-Nawasra, 3, from Maghazi refugee camp in central Gaza Ranim Jawdat Abdul-Karim Abdul-Ghafoor, 1, from Al-Qarara near the southern Gaza city of Khan Younis
Children killed on Tuesday
Hussein Yousef Hussein Karawe, 13, from the southern Gaza city of Khan Younis Basem Salem Hussein Karawe, 10, from the southern Gaza city of Khan Younis Mohammad Ali Faraj Karawe, 12, from the southern Gaza city of Khan Younis Abdullah Hamed Karawe, 6, from the southern Gaza city of Khan Younis Kasem Jaber Adwan Karawe, 12, from the southern Gaza city of Khan YounisSeraj Abed al-Aal, 8, from the southern Gaza city of Khan Younis Ahmad Nael Mahdi, 15, from Gaza City’s Sheikh Radwan neighborhood
The campaign said it was trying to confirm reports that at least three more children were killed on Wednesday.
"Israel has a right of self defence, but it does not apply in the Occupied Territories. If the U.S invaded Jamaica and dotted it with settlements, neither the settlers nor the armed forces could invoke any right to defend themselves against the Jamaicans, any more than a robber who invaded your house. So it is with the Israeli's in the Occupied Territories. Their right of self-defense is their right to the least violent defensive alternative. Since withdrawal (perhaps followed by fortifying their own 1948 border) is by far their best and least violent defense, that is all they have a right to do." - Michael Neumann
Gaza's health ministry says 22 Palestinian children have been killed since Israel's operation protective edge, was launched against Gaza on Tuesday.
The total deathtoll has increased to 78 people, the ministry claimed.
The campaign Defense for Children International Palestine said it has verified the deaths of 14 children, in the first two days of the offensive.
It provides the names and details in a daily list Children killed in on Wednesday
Mohammad Ibrahim Fayeq al-Masri, 14, from the northern Gaza city of Beit Hanoun Mohammad Fakher Mustafa Jamal Malaka, 3, from Gaza City's Zeitoun neighborhood Mohammad Iyad Salem Areef, 9, rom Gaza City's Al-Shujaiyah neighbourhood Amir Iyad Salem Areef, 11, from Gaza City's Al-Shujaiyah neighbourhood Mohammad Khalaf Odeh al-Nawasra, 1, from Maghazi refugee camp in central Gaza Nidal Khalaf Odeh al-Nawasra, 3, from Maghazi refugee camp in central Gaza Ranim Jawdat Abdul-Karim Abdul-Ghafoor, 1, from Al-Qarara near the southern Gaza city of Khan Younis
Children killed on Tuesday
Hussein Yousef Hussein Karawe, 13, from the southern Gaza city of Khan Younis Basem Salem Hussein Karawe, 10, from the southern Gaza city of Khan Younis Mohammad Ali Faraj Karawe, 12, from the southern Gaza city of Khan Younis Abdullah Hamed Karawe, 6, from the southern Gaza city of Khan Younis Kasem Jaber Adwan Karawe, 12, from the southern Gaza city of Khan YounisSeraj Abed al-Aal, 8, from the southern Gaza city of Khan Younis Ahmad Nael Mahdi, 15, from Gaza City’s Sheikh Radwan neighborhood
The campaign said it was trying to confirm reports that at least three more children were killed on Wednesday.
Now imagine just for a minute if that list of children that we're killed had names like:
Johnny Smith- 12 years old Mark jones-11 years old Stephanie Johnson-11 years old Jack stevens-13 years old Etc. wonder what would happen then?
Now imagine just for a minute if that list of children that we're killed had names like:
Johnny Smith- 12 years old Mark jones-11 years old Stephanie Johnson-11 years old Jack stevens-13 years old Etc. wonder what would happen then?
True. But these youths watching the World Cup aren't real people. They're just brown-skinned terrorist savages, so the U.S will veto any and all U.N Resolutions critical of this latest Israeli slaughter, just as it always does.
The Israeli Defence Forces are again using a tactic in their attack on Gaza that they claim is aimed at saving lives—despite it having a track record of leading to the death of civilians, including women and children. So called “roof knock” strikes involve a drone firing a low- or none-explosive missile at the roof of a building that is to be destroyed. The missile is followed a short time later by a bomb that flattens the house—but exactly how long after is not known by the inhabitants.
The tactic first came to light after the 2008/9 offensive on Gaza. One of the case studies that we at Forensic Architecture produced for the UN Special Rapporteur on Counter Terrorism’s inquiry into drone strikes focused on an attack on the Salha family in Beit Lahiya on 9 January 2009. A missile was fired at the roof of the family’s home, but they did not know that this constituted a warning. After moments of terrified confusion, the family began to leave the house. However, before they could all safely leave, a bomb was dropped, and six women and children were killed.
At a time when most attacks in Gaza are on houses, the Israeli military is anxious to present themselves as trying to avoid civilian casualties. Yesterday it released a video showing a warning missile being fired at a house that it then decided not to strike. However, in the attack on the home of Odeh Ahmad Mohammed Kaware, Defence for Children International Palestine reported that a warning missile was followed by a bomb that killed seven people, including five children. This should be taken as further confirmation that the use of this tactic should be stopped immediately.
Not only is it illegal to fire a missile at a civilian to warn them, the missiles also frequently penetrate the roofs they are intended to bounce off, further endangering civilian lives. Israeli military lawyers argue that after residents of a building have been warned, they can be considered as combatants and legitimately targeted. This is a gross misuse of international law that enables the Israeli military to justify attacks on buildings in built up areas, populated by civilians, that they would otherwise be unable to legally carry out.
Yes, they have no right to defend themselves. They should allow indiscriminate bombing of civilians. Moron.
I never said they should, so maybe check your reading comprehension, (or stop projecting your persecution complex) before starting with the name calling. Any comment on the article I posted by James Marc Leas regarding findings of the International Court of Justice, citing reports and statements by Human Rights Watch, the National Lawyers Guild, the Palestine Center for Human rights, Amnesty International, the UN Human Rights Council, Defence for Children International, Al Mezan Centre for Human Rights, and the League of Arab States? or are they all morons too?
Yes, they have no right to defend themselves. They should allow indiscriminate bombing of civilians. Moron.
I never said they should, so maybe check your reading comprehension, (or stop projecting your persecution complex) before starting with the name calling. Any comment on the article I posted by James Marc Leas regarding findings of the International Court of Justice, citing reports and statements by Human Rights Watch, the National Lawyers Guild, the Palestine Center for Human rights, Amnesty International, the UN Human Rights Council, Defence for Children International, Al Mezan Centre for Human Rights, and the League of Arab States? or are they all morons too?
According to johnnies bballs those organizations aren't legit. And you shouldn't be affiliating yourself with such orgs. Or something like that, he's all over the place with throwing out lies and misrepresentations. I mean shit, byrnzie and you have put of facts after facts supported by links and sources, and he still calls bullshit. I just dnt get it, if something's wrong it's wrong. And what they're doing to the Palestinians is 100% wrong. Couple years ago they didn't allow strawberries and crayons into gaza! Really? Why? What's the purpose of that? Collective punishment and ethnic cleansing, no matter how you look at it, it is what it is. How can anyone defend this use of fucken force? Any human would be outraged at all this shit. The world was outraged at Germany in WW2 and got involved, maybe even too late, could've saved them from the holacust, but either way got involved. My how quickly we forget right? NEVER AGAIN, right? That's what everyone was saying then. Like byrnzie said, fucke them, they're brown skinned animals. Dnt deserve to share the same air as us all, right? It's fucken 2014, this shit shouldn't be happening in this fucken day.
According to johnnies bballs those organizations aren't legit. And you shouldn't be affiliating yourself with such orgs. Or something like that, he's all over the place with throwing out lies and misrepresentations. I mean shit, byrnzie and you have put of facts after facts supported by links and sources, and he still calls bullshit. I just dnt get it, if something's wrong it's wrong. And what they're doing to the Palestinians is 100% wrong. Couple years ago they didn't allow strawberries and crayons into gaza! Really? Why? What's the purpose of that? Collective punishment and ethnic cleansing, no matter how you look at it, it is what it is. How can anyone defend this use of fucken force? Any human would be outraged at all this shit. The world was outraged at Germany in WW2 and got involved, maybe even too late, could've saved them from the holacust, but either way got involved. My how quickly we forget right? NEVER AGAIN, right? That's what everyone was saying then. Like byrnzie said, fucke them, they're brown skinned animals. Dnt deserve to share the same air as us all, right? It's fucken 2014, this shit shouldn't be happening in this fucken day.
It wouldn't be happening without the full support of the U.S government, which is why it's important for people to speak out. You're not gonna learn anything watching U.S T.V news, or by reading the fucking New York Times, or the BBC. Maybe if enough Americans knew that $4 Billion of their taxes are being sent over to Israel every year and are being used to help murder women and children as part of Israel's ethnic cleansing campaign, then things could change.
I just feel the need to say - after going on Facebook and seeing a Photoshopped picture of Mark Zuckerberg saying "I stand with Israel" (bullshit, by the way, the original has a note that simply reads "Thanks"), I'm disgusted by the comments on it flying back and forth. How any side thinks that spewing hatred can EVER lead to any semblance of peace is so far beyond me. I understand being heated, but when you're posting pictures of disfigured people with their own genitalia in their mouths (posted by an Israeli, by the way) - that's nauseating and inhumane. Absolutely, 100% revolting.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
The bottom line in this situation is that as long as the occupation continues, Israel has no legal nor moral right whatsoever to military self defense against Palestinians. period.
I'm sorry, but that is utter nonsense. If I steal from you and you come after me with a knife I still have a right to defend myself. All the more so if you're coming after me in my own home. It is one thing for Hamas to use force against the Israeli military when they make incursions into Gaza. It is quite another to fire missiles into Israeli population centers. Deliberate targeting of civilians is unjustifiable, occupation or no.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Comments
http://www.timesofisrael.com/palestinians-yes-to-jews-no-to-settlers-in-our-state/
Hanan Ashrawi, a member of the PLO Executive Committee, told The Times of Israel that Jews and members of all religions would have the right to apply for Palestinian citizenship. But “Palestine” could not accept “ex-territorial Jewish enclaves” where residents maintained their Israeli citizenship status, she said.
...The source in the Israeli Prime Minister’s office said that “just as Israel has an Arab minority, the prime minister doesn’t see why Palestine can’t have a Jewish minority. The Jews living on their side should have a choice whether they want to stay or not.”
...Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has previously stated that no settlers would be allowed to remain in the Palestinian state, and his chief negotiator Saeb Erekat on Sunday repeated that not a single settler would be allowed to stay because, he said, Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal under international law.
LINK
LINK 2
Though here's what Yehuda Shenav, a professor of history at Tel Aviv University has to say on the matter:
"Any reasonable person, Zionist or non-Zionist, must acknowledge that the analogy drawn between Palestinians and Arab Jews is unfounded....Arab Jews arrived to Israel under the initiative of the State of Israel and Jewish organizations. Some arrived of their own free will; others arrived against their will. Some lived comfortably and securely in Arab lands; others suffered from fear and oppression."
The State of Israel in many cases actively precipitated Jewish emigration, sending emissaries to Arab countries in order to persuade Jews to leave. Their methods often involved violence; for example, in Egypt, where the situation of Jews deteriorated significantly in 1954 after a group of local Jews was caught carrying out acts of terrorism and sabotage at the behest of Israel. Israel publicly acknowledged responsibility for this only in 2005. Similarly, Jewish emigration from Iraq accelerated in 1951 after the bombing of a synagogue; this act was blamed at the time on Zionist agents. A claim lent credibility by the recent admission by a former member of the Iraqi Zionist underground that members of his group did employ such tactics.
As for the Arab Jews themselves, many have voiced their opposition to this new cynical campaign by the Netanyahu government:
"The property of the Jews of the Middle East is not a matter for the State of Israel," says Yehouda Shenhav, an associate professor of sociology and anthropology at Tel Aviv University, himself of Iraqi descent. "They are manipulating me for an ulterior motive."
As Jonathan Cook points out: "Many, if not most, Arab Jews left their homelands voluntarily, unlike Palestinians, to begin a new life in Israel. Even where tensions forced Jews to flee, such as in Iraq, it is hard to know who was always behind the ethnic strife. There is strong evidence that Israel’s Mossad spy agency waged false-flag operations in Arab states to fuel the fear and hostility needed to drive Arab Jews towards Israel."
by JAMES MARC LEAS
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/12/27/why-the-self-defense-doctrine-doesnt-legitimize-israels-assault-on-gaza/
Supporting all aspects of the Israeli assault on Gaza in November, President Obama gave Israeli forces a green light, saying “We are fully supportive of Israel’s right to defend itself.” Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu defended Israel’s targeting of civilian areas in Gaza saying “it’s our right to defend our people.”
Obama and Netenyahu disregarded law and facts:
* In 2004, the International Court of Justice rejected Israeli Government arguments and found that as an occupying power, Israel’s right to defend itself under a UN Charter provision does not apply against those living under its rule.
* The Court found that the right, and indeed the obligation, to protect citizens does not trump Israeli obligation to conform to international law when doing so.
* Israeli military assaults on Gaza, including “Operation Pillar of Defense,” caused a vast increase in rocket fire from Gaza, so the assaults endangered rather than defended Israeli citizens.
* Israeli political and military leaders have long known how to quickly halt or substantially dial down rocket fire that involves no bombs, no killing, and no destruction: ceasefire agreements. However, Israeli forces have repeatedly ended effective ceasefire agreements with aerial extrajudicial executions of Palestinians in Gaza that dialed up rocket fire.
Israeli Government argues self-defense
In its 2004 written advisory opinion regarding the wall that Israeli forces built across Palestinian occupied territory, the International Court of Justice included the Israeli government’s self-defense arguments:
* According to Israel “the construction of the Barrier is consistent with Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, its inherent right to self-defense and Security Council resolutions 1368 (2001) and 1373 (2001).”
* More specifically, Israel’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations asserted in the General Assembly on 20 October 2003 that “the fence is a measure wholly consistent with the right of States to self-defense enshrined in Article 51 of the Charter”; the Security Council resolutions referred to, he continued, “have clearly recognized the right of States to use force in self-defense against terrorist attacks,” and therefore surely recognize the right to use nonforcible measures to that end (A/ES10/PV.21, p. 6).
The Israeli government thus argued that self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter applies and that the wall should be considered as legitimate under this Charter self-defense provision– especially because the wall is a passive means of self-defense rather than a forcible measure. The Israeli government further implied that the two Security Council resolutions allow Israel’s right of self-defense against terrorism to trump the provision of international humanitarian law prohibiting Israel, as occupying power, to encroach on Palestinian territory.
International Court of Justice rejects Israeli self-defense
Rejecting the Israeli government arguments, the Court first found that the Article 51 right to self-defense “has no relevance” when the attacks on Israel, the occupying power, are from people living under Israeli rule rather than coming from a foreign state. The Court found:
Article 51 of the Charter thus recognizes the existence of an inherent right of self-defense in the case of armed attack by one State against another State. However, Israel does not claim that the attacks against it are imputable to a foreign State. The Court also notes that Israel exercises control in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and that, as Israel itself states, the threat which it regards as justifying the construction of the wall originates within, and not outside, that territory.
. . Consequently, the Court concludes that Article 51 of the Charter has no relevance in this case.
The Court thus concluded that self-defense under Article 51 does not apply to an occupying power with respect to those living under occupation. Although Israel withdrew its illegal settlers from Gaza in 2005, Israel still controls all aspects of life in Gaza, including air, land and sea borders, and therefore Israel continues to be regarded as an occupying power over Gaza.
The decision that an occupying power cannot invoke Article 51 self-defense is complementary to provisions of the UN Charter, UN General Assembly Resolution 2625, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights under which self-determination is a principle of international law.
More specifically, the decision is complementary to UN General Assembly Resolution 2649, adopted November 30, 1970, that “affirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples under colonial and alien domination recognized as being entitled to the right of self-determination to restore to themselves that right by any means at their disposal.” Resolution 2649 also “considers that the acquisition and retention of territory in contravention of the right of the people of that territory to self-determination is inadmissible and a gross violation of the Charter;” and “condemns those Governments that deny the right to self-determination of peoples recognized as being entitled to it, especially of the peoples of southern Africa and Palestine.”
The rejection of Israel’s Article 51 argument leaves Israeli forces and their US sponsors at risk of prosecution for the crime of aggression, the subject of another article.
Court Rejects Israeli argument that self-defense trumps international law
The Court also concluded that construction of the wall on occupied Palestinian land was not in conformance with applicable international law because the route of the wall across Palestinian territory was illegal. “The Court considers that Israel cannot rely on a right of self-defense or on a state of necessity in order to preclude the wrongfulness of the construction of the wall.” Thus, the Court established that defending its citizens does not relieve Israeli government officials of their responsibility to observe international law.
International law for an occupying power includes the responsibility to protect civilians living under occupation and their property and to provide for the humanitarian needs of the population living under the occupation. International humanitarian law requires all combatants to protect civilians and civilian property during any armed conflict.
continued below...
Court recognizes Israeli right to protect citizens if method conforms to international law
The Court recognized that “Israel has to face numerous indiscriminate and deadly acts of violence against its civilian population. It has the right, and indeed the duty, to respond in order to protect the life of its citizens. The measures taken are bound nonetheless to remain in conformity with applicable international law.”
Israeli argument before the court can be applied in reverse
The argument the Israeli permanent representative introduced is remarkable in that it can be applied in reverse in view of the Court’s decision: the Court rejected an occupying power’s right to use a non-forcible measure–the fence–in self-defense because the fence illegally encroached on occupied territory. Therefore, the Court would surely reject forcible measures that violate the law.
During Israel’s “Operation Cast Lead” from December 27, 2008 to January 18, 2009, Israeli military and political leaders failed to take heed of the decision of the International Court, as described in a report issued by a delegation from the National Lawyers Guild, and reports issued by Human Rights Watch, the Palestine Center for Human rights, Amnesty International, the UN Human Rights Council–“the Goldstone Report,” Defence for Children International (Palestine Section), Al Mezan Centre for Human Rights, and the League of Arab States, all available at Universal Jurisdiction. Instead, Israeli political and military leaders–and their US sponsors–wrongfully continued to rely on Israel’s supposed right to protect its own citizens as justifying measures, such as intentionally attacking civilians and civilian property, that violate international law.
Israel’s “Pillar of Defense” November 14-21 failed to heed both the decision of the Court and the law as described in those reports, as described in articles on Counterpunch, “Wrecking Gaza: Civilian Infrastructure Targeted by Israeli Military” and “Shattered Lives in Gaza: How the IDF Targeted Civilians.”
Reports by Human Rights Watch also describe Israeli violations during Operation Pillar of Defense, including “Gaza: Unlawful Israeli Attacks on Palestinian Media” and “Gaza: Israeli Airstrike on Home Unlawful.” An HRW report on November 15 warned both sides, “Gaza: Avoid Harm to Civilians.”
A December 24 report by Human Rights Watch, “Gaza: Palestinian Rockets Unlawfully Targeted Israeli Civilians” sharply criticizes Palestinian resistance groups that fired rockets at Israeli population centers:
Under international humanitarian law, or the laws of war, civilians and civilian structures may not be subject to deliberate attacks or attacks that do not discriminate between civilians and military targets. Anyone who commits serious laws-of-war violations intentionally or recklessly is responsible for war crimes. . .
The November 14 to 21 hostilities between Israel and Hamas and armed groups in Gaza involved unlawful attacks on civilians by both sides.
As will be further described in a forthcoming article, data on the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs web site, on the allied Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC) web site, and on the Palestine Center for Human Rights web site shows that Israeli forces have levers of control over rocket fire from Gaza. Data on the web sites shows that Israeli extra-judicial executions in Gaza dialed up rocket attacks on Israel to extremely high levels. The data also shows that Israeli government and military leaders dialed down rocket attacks to zero, or very close to zero, by using a readily available non-violent technique: a cease fire agreement.
Israeli political and military leaders who set the policy, those carrying out the attacks, and US government and corporate sponsors who provided the weapons and political backing are all liable for prosecution for war crimes because of their unlawful attacks on civilians and civilian property. The decision of the International Court of Justice on the wall indicates that liability for war crimes would not be precluded even if Israeli forces could prove they were acting to defend Israeli citizens. Similarly for the crime of aggression: particularly when Israeli forces violated effective ceasefires and initiated the military conflicts with their extra-judicial executions in Gaza. Claims that Israeli forces acted to protect their own citizens will have “no relevance” under Article 51.
Investigation and prosecution
With its upgrade in status to non-member state at the UN on November 29, Palestine can now bring its case against Israeli and US political and military leaders to the International Criminal Court (ICC) at the Hague. The International Criminal Court has jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute those responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. If the prosecutor of the ICC refuses the request to investigate, the Palestinian Authority can bring a proposal to the UN General Assembly to establish an International Criminal Tribunal for Israel as a ‘subsidiary organ,’ as provided under U.N. Charter Article 22 to conduct the investigation and prosecution.
The Palestinian Authority has been under intense pressure not to bring the case. Or to use the possibility of bringing a case at the ICC as a bargaining chip for other objectives, such as an agreement to halt illegal Israeli settlement building. However, pressure on Palestine not to bring a case and Palestine holding the possibility of criminal prosecution as a bargaining chip both threaten foundational principles of justice: respect for the rule of law, equal justice under law, and judicial independence. Rather pressure and bargaining are consistent with corruption and a culture of impunity for wrongdoers with powerful friends.
A worldwide campaign for justice is needed. The system of immunity and impunity enjoyed by Israeli political and military leaders and by their US government sponsors must end now. Without accountability for violations of international law, the law will become mere recommendation, the violations will be repeated, hundreds more Palestinians will be killed and wounded, more of their homes will be destroyed, rocket fire will be dialed up, and we will hear again about “Israel’s right to defend itself” while Israeli forces cynically take actions that put Israeli citizens more at risk for political goals. Only if those responsible are brought to justice can we expect that military and political leaders in Israel and the US would be inclined to think seriously before again initiating aggression while pleading self-defense. Public pressure is needed to ensure that the criminal cases are brought at the ICC–or, if the ICC refuses, to an Article 22 Tribunal–and to counter the vast US political influence to undermine an independent, impartial, and unbiased investigation and prosecution.
'Jews and members of all religions would have the right to apply for Palestinian citizenship. But “Palestine” could not accept “ex-territorial Jewish enclaves” where residents maintained their Israeli citizenship status'.
Basically, I imagine that extremist racist ex-settlers would be refused citizenship. Not too difficult to comprehend why.
Sorry to put a dent in your racist fantasy. You must have been frothing at the mouth with excitement when you thought that your mis-quoted piece of self-serving bullshit may have passed scrutiny.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/palestinians-yes-to-jews-no-to-settlers-in-our-state/
[The] minutes of a meeting between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators leaked by Al-Jazeera in June 2008 indicate that the Palestinians themselves proposed including some settlements within the territory of “Palestine.”
“As for settlements, we proposed the following: Removal of some settlements, annexation of others, and keeping others under Palestinian sovereignty,” Palestinian negotiator Ahmad Qurei (Abu-’Alaa) told then-foreign minister Tzipi Livni, in the presence of then-US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice and their negotiating teams.
Qurei suggested applying Palestinian sovereignty to Ma’aleh Adumim, the largest Israeli settlement in the West Bank, and using it as “a model of cooperation and coexistence.” The idea was rejected by [then-Israeli foreign minister Tzipi] Livni as “unrealistic.”
If you ever get the time, I'd love you to tell me how an illegal military occupation of a poor and largely defenseless people, which is supported by the Worlds only superpower, is not one-sided.
Bye bye.
http://community.pearljam.com/discussion/comment/4764084#Comment_4764084
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/10/israel-gaza-conflict-prompts-emergency-un-security-council-meeting-live-updates?view=desktop#block-53be5bb4e4b0bd8dbcd86a64
Gaza's health ministry says 22 Palestinian children have been killed since Israel's operation protective edge, was launched against Gaza on Tuesday.
The total deathtoll has increased to 78 people, the ministry claimed.
The campaign Defense for Children International Palestine said it has verified the deaths of 14 children, in the first two days of the offensive.
It provides the names and details in a daily list
Children killed in on Wednesday
Mohammad Ibrahim Fayeq al-Masri, 14, from the northern Gaza city of Beit Hanoun
Mohammad Fakher Mustafa Jamal Malaka, 3, from Gaza City's Zeitoun neighborhood
Mohammad Iyad Salem Areef, 9, rom Gaza City's Al-Shujaiyah neighbourhood
Amir Iyad Salem Areef, 11, from Gaza City's Al-Shujaiyah neighbourhood
Mohammad Khalaf Odeh al-Nawasra, 1, from Maghazi refugee camp in central Gaza
Nidal Khalaf Odeh al-Nawasra, 3, from Maghazi refugee camp in central Gaza
Ranim Jawdat Abdul-Karim Abdul-Ghafoor, 1, from Al-Qarara near the southern Gaza city of Khan Younis
Children killed on Tuesday
Hussein Yousef Hussein Karawe, 13, from the southern Gaza city of Khan Younis
Basem Salem Hussein Karawe, 10, from the southern Gaza city of Khan Younis
Mohammad Ali Faraj Karawe, 12, from the southern Gaza city of Khan Younis
Abdullah Hamed Karawe, 6, from the southern Gaza city of Khan Younis
Kasem Jaber Adwan Karawe, 12, from the southern Gaza city of Khan
YounisSeraj Abed al-Aal, 8, from the southern Gaza city of Khan Younis
Ahmad Nael Mahdi, 15, from Gaza City’s Sheikh Radwan neighborhood
The campaign said it was trying to confirm reports that at least three more children were killed on Wednesday.
Johnny Smith- 12 years old
Mark jones-11 years old
Stephanie Johnson-11 years old
Jack stevens-13 years old
Etc. wonder what would happen then?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/10/israel-gaza-conflict-prompts-emergency-un-security-council-meeting-live-updates
More than 80 Palestinians have been killed since the launch of an offensive aimed at preventing rocket attacks from Gaza. The victims include more than 20 children, according to Gaza's health ministry. In one of the most deadly attacks up to nine youths were killed in a coffee shop while watching last night's World Cup semi-final.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/10/israel-gaza-conflict-prompts-emergency-un-security-council-meeting-live-updates
"Knock on the roof" warnings do not help save civilians lives as the Israeli military claims, according to the University of London's Forensic Architecture centre at Goldsmiths which carried out a UN study into how the tactic operated during Operation Cast Lead in 2009.
Eyal Weizman, director of the centre, said:
The Israeli Defence Forces are again using a tactic in their attack on Gaza that they claim is aimed at saving lives—despite it having a track record of leading to the death of civilians, including women and children. So called “roof knock” strikes involve a drone firing a low- or none-explosive missile at the roof of a building that is to be destroyed. The missile is followed a short time later by a bomb that flattens the house—but exactly how long after is not known by the inhabitants.
The tactic first came to light after the 2008/9 offensive on Gaza. One of the case studies that we at Forensic Architecture produced for the UN Special Rapporteur on Counter Terrorism’s inquiry into drone strikes focused on an attack on the Salha family in Beit Lahiya on 9 January 2009. A missile was fired at the roof of the family’s home, but they did not know that this constituted a warning. After moments of terrified confusion, the family began to leave the house. However, before they could all safely leave, a bomb was dropped, and six women and children were killed.
At a time when most attacks in Gaza are on houses, the Israeli military is anxious to present themselves as trying to avoid civilian casualties. Yesterday it released a video showing a warning missile being fired at a house that it then decided not to strike. However, in the attack on the home of Odeh Ahmad Mohammed Kaware, Defence for Children International Palestine reported that a warning missile was followed by a bomb that killed seven people, including five children. This should be taken as further confirmation that the use of this tactic should be stopped immediately.
Not only is it illegal to fire a missile at a civilian to warn them, the missiles also frequently penetrate the roofs they are intended to bounce off, further endangering civilian lives. Israeli military lawyers argue that after residents of a building have been warned, they can be considered as combatants and legitimately targeted. This is a gross misuse of international law that enables the Israeli military to justify attacks on buildings in built up areas, populated by civilians, that they would otherwise be unable to legally carry out.
In the first two days of the offensive 15 women and children were killed amid claims that in four air strikes only women and children were killed. According to an emergency services spokesman, Ashraf al-Qudra, in one incident a missile struck a house in Al-Maghazi, a beachside refugee camp near Deir al-Balah in central Gaza, killing a mother and her four children. Earlier, another two women and four children died in a series of raids to the north and east of Gaza City.
http://m.ibtimes.co.uk/cristiano-ronaldo-palestine-israel-real-madrid-swap-449952
Any comment on the article I posted by James Marc Leas regarding findings of the International Court of Justice, citing reports and statements by Human Rights Watch, the National Lawyers Guild, the Palestine Center for Human rights, Amnesty International, the UN Human Rights Council, Defence for Children International, Al Mezan Centre for Human Rights, and the League of Arab States? or are they all morons too?
Maybe if enough Americans knew that $4 Billion of their taxes are being sent over to Israel every year and are being used to help murder women and children as part of Israel's ethnic cleansing campaign, then things could change.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1