First, find out what isn't true…

October 11, 2015

Israeli Defense Forces story does not add up again


ShortLink http://wp.me/pDB7k-1eq

From Haaretz Oct 11, 2015 7:32 AM

On Saturday, an Iron Dome defense system intercepted a rocket fired from the Gaza Strip toward southern Israel’s Hof Ashkelon Regional Council. In response, the Israel Defense Forces attacked what they said were two Hamas weapons manufacturing sites in north Gaza.

If they knew they were weapons manufacturing sites, why didn’t they attack them BEFORE? Why wait until a rocket is fired?

October 7, 2015

Hadeel al-Hashlamoun – the Israeli Defense Forces story does not add up


ShortLink http://wp.me/pDB7k-1eg

On September 22 2015: 18 year old Palestinian Hadeel al-Hashlamoun was shot to death at a Hebron checkpoint by Israeli soldiers.

Justified?
You decide!

The IDF claim she was coming at them with a knife.
But after having been shot in both legs and falling to the ground,
she somehow miraculously made it back thru the barrier to the opposite side,
where she was again shot some five or six times at close range, in the torso.

In fact, she was laying on the opposite side of the barrier when, while she was still alive, dis-armed and helpless, they dragged her by the feet thru the dirt, under the barricade, to the IDF side.

In this photo, we see the rubbish bin has been moved to the opposite side of the supporting uprights.

Sure we see the alleged knife, however, they’ve already dragged a girl, still alive, under the barricade to the IDF side, then shot her and the evidence has already been tampered with by moving the bin. Why would anyone choose to believe anything they say without their being definitive evidence?

An account by Marcel Leme, International Human Rights Observer

Did they think she was a suicide bomber? Very doubtful. Suicide vests are exploded by the release of the trigger and they had already shot her AND dragged her by the feet through the dirt to the IDF side of the barrier and;
Only a complete moron would shoot a person at close range if they though that person was wearing explosives. Furthermore she was shot in the torso, where the explosives of a suicide belt would be!

It simply does not make sense.

October 1, 2015

One step for Palestine a giant leap for mankind


ShortLink http://wp.me/pDB7k-1e8
One step for Palestine a giant leap for mankind

The raising of the flag of the STATE OF PALESTINE!

http://webtv.un.org/watch/raising-of-the-palestinian-flag-at-the-united-nations/4521239871001

UN speech by Mahmoud Abbas

http://webtv.un.org/watch/palestine-general-debate-70th-session/4521133284001

May 30, 2014

Palestinians continue to die in their own country at the hands of the Occupying Power


15th May 1948 Letter From the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States, “MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.” Israel has never legally acquired any further territory!

ShortLink http://wp.me/pDB7k-1bM

An analysis of some of the information available relating to the deaths of Nadim Nuwara and Mohammad Abu Thaher in Beitunia on May 15th 2014 in the occupied State of Palestine


“He fell forward. A bullet would have knocked him away from the fire, he should have fallen back…” Bullsh*t! A rabbit isn’t even knocked away from the fire of a .22 bullet

The Palestinians ask for their legal rights under the Laws and UN Charter Israel agreed to uphold.

Meanwhile, “Israel, the Occupying Power” makes demands that have no legal basis what so ever. Read UNSC res 476, one of EIGHT reminders to Israel of its legal obligations and giving Israel the OPPORTUNITY to adhere to the law. Unfortunately the Jewish state has failed to live up to the promises it made when it was proclaimed and when it became a UN Member state.

May 24, 2013

Kerry and the Question of Palestine. In perspective


ShortLink http://wp.me/pDB7k-19a

Kerry and the Question of Palestine.

In perspective

kerry is just another us politician

kerry is just another us politician

UNSC res 252 has EIGHT reminders…. Does Kerry really think they care?

May 10, 2013

The three No’s of Khartoum – no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel and no negotiations with Israel


ShortLink http://wp.me/pDB7k-18N

The three no’s of the khartoum conference. “no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel and no negotiations with Israel”

Right, wrong? Just, unjust? Reasonable? Biased? Antisemitic? Most importantly, what were the conditions that prompted the Arab states to adopt this stance?

2. The conference has agreed on the need to consolidate all efforts to eliminate the effects of the aggression on the basis that the occupied lands are Arab lands and that the burden of regaining these lands falls on all the Arab States.

3. The Arab Heads of State have agreed to unite their political efforts at the international and diplomatic level to eliminate the effects of the aggression and to ensure the withdrawal of the aggressive Israeli forces from the Arab lands which have been occupied since the aggression of June 5. This will be done within the framework of the main principles by which the Arab States abide, namely, no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it, and insistence on the rights of the Palestinian people in their own country.

This is simply a reflection of UNSC res 476 1. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;

No peace with Israel: While territory sovereign to Egypt was under Israeli occupation the two states were technically at war. In the eventual Egypt Israel Peace Treaty Israel was first required and agreed to begin withdrawal before peaceful relations were assumed.

No recognition of Israel: There is no legal basis for demanding recognition.

A) States plead for recognition

B) ” ..in the view of the United States, International Law does not require a state to recognize another state; it is a matter for the judgment of each state whether an entity merits recognition as a state. In reaching this judgment, the United States has traditionally looked of the establishment of certain facts. The United States has also taken into account whether the entity in question has attracted the recognition of the International community of states.” There are numerous UN Member states who do not recognize other UN Member States.

All states are never the less required to show “respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force”. This is reflected in UNSC res 242.

No negotiations: Israel is in breach of numerous UNSC resolutions, International Law, the UN Charter, relative conventions. There is no legal requirement for negotiations. For example the words ‘negotiate’, ‘negotiations’ do not appear in UNSC res242 on which the Egypt Israel Peace Treaty is based. Israel was and still is required to adhere to the law, negotiations or not. Egypt and Jordan were correct in refusing negotiations while Israel was in breach of its legal obligations in respect to their sovereign territory.

The signing of a negotiated peace treaty between Egypt and Israel was by default an act of recognition and; after Israeli withdrawal peaceful relations were assumed. Likewise with Jordan. Both are examples of what UNSC res 242 was formulated to achieve. The end of hostilities between UN Member States.

However, while Israel occupies non-Israeli territories in Palestine, the Golan Heights, Shebaa Farms, the Alghajar village UNSC res 425 and UNSC res 426, Israel is technically at war and those states have a right to “restore” sovereignty over their territories. Professor Stephen M. Schwebel / Elihu Lauterpacht

The Palestinians meanwhile are under no legal obligation to sign a peace agreement with an Occupying Power, to recognize an Occupying Power or to negotiate with an Occupying Power. Negotiations mean only one thing, the Palestinians forgoing some of their legal rights so that Israel may keep non-Israeli territory illegally acquired by war, illegally annexed and illegally settled by Israel since 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time)

March 28, 2013

Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Quran? It’s irrelevant to the International Law


ShortLink http://wp.me/pDB7k-18m

Propagandists trying to justify Israel’s illegal acquisition of non-Israeli territory are so stupid they beggar belief

Their narrative goes something like this: “Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Quran”

So what? It is entirely irrelevant to the Internationally recognized sovereign extent of the State of Israel and Israel’s responsibilities & illegal activities as the Occupying Power over non-Israeli territories.

Never the less …

The Quran is written in Arabic. Jerusalem translated to Arabic is القدس. The word “القدس” appears in 4 verses in Quran

I’ve been shown to be incorrect. Edited accordingly

March 27, 2013

The wholly holey olde Hasbara – Palestine vs Israel the I/P conflict – Israeli propaganda is really weird


ShortLink http://wp.me/pDB7k-18d

The wholly holey olde Hasbara, is really weird

The Israeli narrative goes something like this: “The international court only gave an advisory opinion, not a binding legal decision” Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Request for advisory opinion)

Quite true and the court’s advisory opinion was that had they been asked to make a legal decision, binding law would not fall in Israel’s favour!

Only an idiot would proudly hold up the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice pointing to the illegality of Israel’s actions… while claiming it as some kind of evidence in one’s favour…

It’s

really

twisted.

A state which according to the UNSC is in breach of laws, the UN Charter and relative conventions adopted at the end of WWII in large part because of the treatment of Jewish folk under the Nazis is in respect to those laws behaving no better than the Nazis. That some folk seem to be as oblivious as the German population of their state’s crimes, should be ringing alarm bells.

It’s

really

twisted.

June 18, 2012

The Hasbara. Another blatant Israeli lie: “Never has a country gone to such extraordinary lengths to remove the enemy’s civilian population from harm’s way.”

Filed under: Israel & the Palestinians — Tags: , , , , , , — talknic @ 10:04 am

ShortLink http://wp.me/pDB7k-11z

Maimonides
“It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons
than to put a single innocent one to death.”

The Leader of the Jewish State made a speech at the UN General Assembly 24th September 2009 stating: “Never has a country gone to such extraordinary lengths to remove the enemy’s civilian population from harm’s way.”

Despite issuing warnings, the State of Israel had all means of escaping the violence of war closed, under the 2005 agreement with Egypt, thereby preventing civilians from fleeing a war zone.

If the State of Israel doesn’t adhere to even the most basic tenets of Judaism, why call it the Jewish State?

Geneva Convention 1V Section II Occupied territories Art49 The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.

Not even the mercy of fleeing by boat after being driven into the sea. Israel controls all Palestinian territorial waters off Gaza’s coast.

If the Jewish State doesn’t adhere to the Customary Laws of War, why is it in the UN?

Think about the warnings, if you dare. We’re expected to believe only civilians are going to read the leaflets or listen to the warnings? Does that really make sense? Like all Hasbara, it simply does not add up.

“Hey Mahmoud, what do you think you’re doing? You can’t read that, it’s for civilians only ………….. pssst….. what does it say?”

“It says civilians only should flee the war zone to… to… uh… to… oh, some other part of the war zone, because one of the most modern equipped militaries in the world with their tanks, artillery, fighter bombers, missiles, fletchettes, cluster bombs, white phosphorus, infantry and billions of loverly dollars of US military aid, is coming to get us”

“Uh huh. Nice of them to give everyone warning”

“But they’re only warning civilians”

“Too late now, we’ve read th’ leaflet”

“We could pretend we haven’t

“WHY?”

Well, doesn’t that sort of screw their plan?”

“Not if you’re an Israeli propagandist pretending to be concerned about civilian casualties.”

“Ah. I see….So…..how much time have we got?”

“A few hours”

“OK…. hand me another one of them rickety olde home made rockets. Maybe we can hit something other than sand before we get outta here!”

“Right…. Uh… when you say … “get outta here” … er … th’ crossings are all closed, there’s only here to go unless we swim out to sea “

“They control that too! Not even being driven into th’ sea for these lil’ semites.”

October 20, 2009

Lying for Israel. Where ‘Facts are Sacred’, Harold Evans does it in bulk. Fact is purged, again!


…It’s actually quite simple. If it isn’t the “acknowledged” Sovereign Territory of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt or Israel,
then it’s a territory of Palestine…

Shortlink http://wp.me/pDB7k-gw

Almost every statement in Harold Evans’ CiF article is either a lie or an unsubstantiated statement of opinion. How can such blatant lies be allowed space where “Facts are Sacred”? Different points of view, certainly should be allowed. However, absolute bullshite in this article, is quite beyond the pale. Talknic posts pointing to substantiated facts, from verifiable, irrefutable sources have been completely purged (ironically, at the appearance of PetraMB & Sydk)

The headline is enough to tell us that this is going to be a propaganda pack of bullshite straight from the Israeli handbook.

Harold Evans – A moral atrocity – Judge Goldstone has been suckered into letting war criminals use his name to pillory Israel

Who are these war criminals Harold Evans speaks of, he fails to mention any.

“It was to be expected that the usual suspects of the risible UN human rights council would be eager to condemn Israel for war crimes in defending itself against Hamas.”

Defend itself? It’s defending the notion that Israeli citizens can live in non-Sovereign territory. The areas in reach of Hamas’ weapons are not Israeli. They reach only into non-annexed areas, illegally acquired by war. Areas cleansed of many of their rightful inhabitants by war, by 1949.

“If you treat people as the Chinese do the Tibetans or Uighurs (“Off with their heads!”); or as the Russians eliminate Chechen dissidents; or as the Nigerians tolerate extrajudicial killings, the evictions of 800,000, rape and cruel treatment of prisoners; or as the Egyptians get prisoners to talk (torture) and the Saudis suppress half their population … well, go through the practices of all 25 states voting to refer Israel to the security council for the Gaza war, and you have to acknowledge they know a lot about the abuse of humans. Anything to divert attention from their own atrocities.”

I’d’ve thought a journalist would at least familiarize themselves with the mandate under which the UN and it’s instruments are enabled. The UN cannot interfere in internal matters of Sovereign countries. At best all the UN can do through the UNHRC is support the victims. So, as ghastly as they might be, his examples are quite pointless.
“..the Chinese do the Tibetans or Uighurs” – Internal & does China even allow UNHRC in? NO!
“..the Russians eliminate Chechen dissidents” – Internal & does Russia even allow UNHRC in? NO!
“..the Nigerians tolerate extrajudicial killings, the evictions of 800,000, rape and cruel treatment of prisoners”– Internal
“..the Egyptians get prisoners to talk” – Internal
“..the Saudis suppress half their population” – Internal
Have any of the countries railed against prevented ALL the civilians of their neighbour from fleeing a war zone by having ALL means of escape closed, including the closure of border crossings that are NOT it’s own (Gaza / Egypt under the 2005 agreement), including flight into the sea. Then proceeded to attack the territory with some of the world’s most advanced weaponry? Geneva Convention 1V…Section II..Occupied territories…….Art49…The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.

“Poor Judge Goldstone now regrets how his good name has been used to single out Israel. The Swiss paper Le Temps reports him complaining that “This draft [UN human rights council] resolution saddens me … there is not a single phrase condemning Hamas as we have done in the report. I hope the council can modify the text.” Fat hope.”

Harold Evans’ link leads to Haaretz reporting, Israeli Army radio reporting, Le Temps.

A) Mr Goldstone did NOT say he ” regrets how his good name has been used to single out Israel” It simply does not appear anywhere other than in unsubstantiated accusations. Why does Harold Evans lie?
B) The original Le Temps goes on to say: The judge, however, defends its conclusions: “The Americans talk about errors in our report, but they do not advance a single fact to demonstrate tangible.” Despite the politicization of his report – including Hamas – it can only regret, he remains confident that it will make its way and will support peace in the region. As for the virulence of Israeli attacks, he expected, “but not to such venom. It is a sad experience. “

Meanwhile the UNHRC has altered the text to include Hamas. The report was adopted in Geneva on Friday. The resolution proposed by Palestine on crimes committed by Israel and Hamas in Gaza has been approved by 25 votes to six against and 11 abstentions. Why does Harold Evans lie?

“The truth is he was suckered into lending his good name to a half-baked report – read its 575 pages and see. He said that, as a Jew himself, he was surprised to be invited. He shouldn’t have been, and should never have accepted leadership of a commission whose terms of reference were designed to excuse the aggressor, Hamas, and punish the defender, Israel.”

Why does Harold Evans lie? The truth is, Mr Goldstone demanded that Hamas be included BEFORE he took the position and there are nine pages in the report condemning Hamas.

“The council’s decision was to “dispatch an urgent, independent, international fact-finding mission … to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law by the occupying power, Israel, against the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, due to the current aggression, and [it] calls upon Israel not to obstruct the process of investigation and to fully co-operate with the mission”.”

Why does Harold Evans lie? The council’s decision was changed at the demand of Goldstone to include Hamas.

“Israel is not an “occupying power” in Gaza in either fact or international law. Four years ago it voluntarily pulled out all its soldiers and uprooted all its settlers.”

The UNSC tells us that Gaza is a part of the Occupied Territories.

The Security Council“Recalling all of its relevant resolutions, including resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), 1397 (2002), 1515 (2003) and 1850 (2008), “Stressing that the Gaza Strip constitutes an integral part of the territory occupied in 1967 and will be a part of the Palestinian state,

“Here was a wonderful chance for Gaza to be the building block of a Palestinian state, and for Hamas to do what the Israelis did – take a piece of land and build a model state. They didn’t. Instead of helping the desperate Palestinians, they conducted a religious war.”

A) A part of a proposed state cannot declare Sovereignty. In order to declare, the entity must have control over ALL it’s territories. Same rules applied to Israel.
B) A religious war? No Mr Evans, it’s a war against a neighbour who has continued to steal Palestinian territory for 61 years.

“The terms of reference he accepted validate the torment of Israeli civilians.”

Why does Harold Evans lie? Goldstone demanded the terms of reference be change BEFORE he accepted the position

“The rockets were war crimes and ought to have been universally condemned as such. While new rockets hit Israel ….”

A) They have been condemned by HRW as War Crimes. They were condemned by the Goldstone report as War Crimes.
B) Israel’s Sovereign territories are those recommended by UNGA resolution 181. Israel has never legally annexed any territory outside of it’s Sovereign territory.

“…over many months there was no rush by the world’s moralisers – including Britain – to censure Hamas”

Miliband criticized Hamas’ rocket attacks on Israel and implicitly urged Syria to exert its influence on the group to stop such attacks.
“I argue that Hamas’ violence hurts Syria, which says it believes in a comprehensive peace,” Miliband said. “The rockets are a threat to the successful process.

“…no urgency as there was in “world opinion” when Israel finally responded. Then Israel was immediately accused of a “disproportionate” response without anyone thinking: “What is a ‘proportionate’ attack against an enemy dedicated to exterminating your people?” A dedication to exterminating all of his?”

Perhaps a better question is, what is the justification for illegally acquiring your enemies territory over 62 years and thus prompting them to want rid of you?

Israel risked its own forces by imposing unprecedented restraint. In testimony volunteered to the human rights council (and ignored), Colonel Richard Kemp, a British commander in Bosnia and Afghanistan, stated: “The Israeli Defence Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.”

By preventing civilians from fleeing a war zone, then attacking the territory with some of the most modern war technology in the world.

“No doubt there were blunders. A defensive war is still a war with all its suffering and destruction. But Hamas compounded its original war crime with another. It held its own people hostage. It used them as human shields.”

Mr Evans’ rhetoric is straight out of the Israel propaganda handbook.

Had Israel allowed civilians from fleeing the war zone, they’d not have been in this alleged predicament. I say alleged, because it is a well known, transparent and age olde propaganda ploy, to demonize one’s enemy. It is a fact however, that Israel prevented them from fleeing the war zone, by having all means of escape closed, even the borders between Gaza and Egypt, under the 2005 agreement. On the other hand, it is only alleged, by Israel, that Hamas held it’s own people hostage. Furthermore, Hamas did not just drop out of the sky they are all volunteers, Palestinians, their own people, fighting for the cause of their own people. They can exist only with the support of their own people. So it does not make one iota of sense to have their own turn against them.

“The Goldstone report won the gold standard of moral equivalence between the killer and the victim. Now Britain wins the silver. Who’s cheering?”

Harold Evan$ perhaps? I can think of no other reason why one would stoop so low. Statistics show us who the killers are, by a ratio of about 100 :1

The “moral atrocity” is the absolute shite dished up by one Harold Evans.

October 6, 2009

Liars for Israel, again. Obadiah Shoher breaks the basic tenets of Judaism!


ShortLink http://wp.me/pDB7k-dn

From Obadiah Shoher – Samson Blinded Org. A rebuttal of the Goldstone report – The actual Goldstone Report

The lies begin in the 1st sentence…Comments in green
Goldstone report: the rebuttal
The Goldstone report’s title, Human rights in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories, reveals its leanings. Since Gaza is also a part of Palestine, “other occupied Arab territories” can only refer to Israel proper.
“Israel ‘proper'”? Israel has never legally annexed any territory, Arab or otherwise. Israel proper is Sovereign Israel, as defined by the borders Israel Declared Sovereignty over May 14th 1948.

The UN commission was composed of professional human rights advocates, none of whom were experienced in military or anti-terrorism realities. To cover that glaring gap, the commission included one Colonel Travers, a human rights activist with no meaningful wartime experience.
Desmond Travers is a recently retired Colonel of the Army of the Irish Defence Forces. His last appointment was as Commandant of its Military College. In a career spanning over forty years, he served in various command and instructional appointments in the Infantry Corps. He was a founder of two of the Forces’ teaching and training institutions. He also served in command of troops and in key operational appointments with various UN and EU peace support missions. These were in the Middle-East (Cyprus, Lebanon) and in the Former Yugoslavia (Croatia and Bosnia and Hercegovina).

The fact that the Goldstone commission received the “full support” of the Hamas government (page 6) despite its nominal mandate to investigate Hamas’ crimes suggests that the terrorist group was assured of slap-on-the-wrist treatment.
The author attributes his own suggestion to the report.

The official Palestinian participant in the hearings, Muhammad Srour, was arrested in Israel immediately thereafter on security grounds.
Muhammad Srour was not charged with anything. He was released on 23 July 2009.

“The Goldstone commission heavily relied on the testimony of terrorists from both the Hamas and PA sides.”
An assumption by the author, with nothing to back it up.

The conclusions were predetermined by limiting the inquiry to the events following the July 2008 ceasefire (page 7). During the ceasefire, naturally, relatively few rockets were fired at Israel until the December escalation. As a result, Palestinian war crimes—indiscriminately launching 8,000 rockets at Israeli population centers over the last nine years—are only sketched in the report.
103. Palestinian armed groups have launched about 8000 rockets and mortars into southern Israel since 2001 (Chapter XIII). While communities such as Sderot and Kibbutz Nir-Am have been within the range of rocket and mortar fire since the beginning, the range of rocket fire increased to nearly 40 kilometres from the Gaza border, encompassing towns as far north as Ashdod, during the Israeli military operations in Gaza.
104. Since 18 June 2008, rockets fired by Palestinian armed groups in Gaza have killed 3 civilians inside Israel and 2 civilians in Gaza when a rocket landed short of the border on 26 December 2008. Reportedly, over 1000 civilians inside Israel were physically injured as a result of rocket and mortar attacks, 918 of which were injured during the time of the Israeli military operations in Gaza.
105. The Mission has taken particular note of the high level of psychological trauma suffered by the civilian population inside Israel. Data gathered by an Israeli organization in October 2007 found that 28.4% of adults and 72-94% of children in Sderot suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. 1596 people were reportedly treated for stress-related injuries during the military operations in Gaza while over 500 people were treated following the end of the operations.
106. Rocket and mortars have damaged houses, schools and cars in southern Israel. On 5 March 2009, a rocket struck a synagogue in Netivot. The rocket and mortar fire has adversely impacted on the right to education of children and adults living in southern Israel. This is a result of school closures and interruptions to classes by alerts and moving to shelters and also the diminished ability to learn that is witnessed in individual experiencing symptoms of psychological trauma.
107. The rocket and mortar fire has also adversely impacted on the economic and social life of the affected communities. For communities such as Ashdod, Yavne, Beer Sheba, which experienced rocket strikes for the first time during the Israeli military operations in Gaza, there was a brief interruption to their economy and cultural brought about by the temporary displacement of some of their residents. For towns closer to the Gaza border that have been under rocket and mortar fire since 2001, the recent escalation has added to the exodus of residents from these areas.
108. The Mission has determined that the rockets and, to a lesser extent, mortars, fired by the Palestinian armed groups are incapable of being directed towards specific military objectives and were fired into areas where civilian populations are based. The Mission has further determined that these attacks constitute indiscriminate attacks upon the civilian population of southern Israel and that where there is no intended military target and the rockets and mortars are launched into a civilian population, they constitute a deliberate attack against a civilian population. These acts would constitute war crimes and may amount to crimes against humanity. Given the seeming inability of the Palestinian armed groups to direct the rockets and mortars towards specific targets and given the fact that the attacks have caused very little damage to Israeli military assets, the Mission finds that there is significant evidence to suggest that one of the primary purposes of the rocket and mortar attacks is to spread terror amongst the Israeli civilian population, a violation of international law.

The UN commission set an incredibly high standard of criminal behavior: “restrictions on human rights and fundamental freedoms relating to Israel’s strategies and actions in the context of Israeli military operations (page 7).“ Certainly, all military operations involve certain restrictions on rights and freedoms, and any army could be condemned with such a sweeping inquiry. Conspicuously, the commission chose not to investigate numerous violations of Israeli human rights by Palestinians, including a prohibition on visits to Palestinian-controlled areas by Jewish Israeli citizens.
A) Israel, under the 2005 agreement had ALL crossings into Gaza closed. It didn’t even allow journalists into Gaza. B) The report was a Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict

While accusing Israel of war crimes, the Goldstone report states explicitly that it does not “pretend to reach the standard of proof applicable in criminal trials (page 9).” In the same paragraph, the commission explicitly abrogates presumption of innocence for institutional bodies such as IDF or Israel, reserving the principle to individuals. The result of this approach is that Israel is blamed by default for all injuries to human rights in Gaza, whether she is culpable or not.
25. On this basis, the Mission has, to the best of its ability, determined what facts have been established. In many cases it has found that acts entailing individual criminal responsibility have been committed. In all of these cases the Mission has found that there is sufficient information to establish the objective elements of the crimes in question. In almost all of the cases the Mission has also been able to determine whether or not it appears that the acts in question were done deliberately or recklessly or in the knowledge that the consequence that resulted would result in the ordinary course of events. The Mission has thus referred in many cases to the relevant fault element (mens rea). The Mission fully appreciates the importance of the presumption of innocence: the findings in the report do not subvert the operation of that principle. The findings do not attempt to identify the individuals responsible for the commission of offences nor do they pretend to reach the standard of proof applicable in criminal trials.
26. In order to provide the parties concerned with an opportunity to submit additional relevant information and express their position and respond to allegations, the Mission also submitted comprehensive lists of questions to the Government of Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the Gaza authorities in advance of completing its analysis and findings. The Mission received replies from the Palestinian Authority and the Gaza authorities but not from Israel.


Need one go on? Why do so many who defend Israel’s illegal activities break the basic tenets of Judaism?

About : Google banned our site from the AdSense advertising program for “unacceptable content,” “advocating against a group,” and “sensitive content.” Yahoo/ Overture restricted our ads to a few odd keywords. Adbrite closed our account. Amazon deleted all reviews to stop the discussion. Russian ad provider Begun rejected our ads as “extremist.” Many other sites and conventional media outlets refused our ads. China blocked our site

Is it any wonder?

October 1, 2009

CiF on ‘alleged’ War Crimes. Israel vs the UN. Should Ehud Barak have immunity?


The Guardian CiF Afua Hirsch guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 30 September 2009The attempt to arrest the Israeli minister in Britain has rekindled a lively debate on diplomatic immunity from international law

First we should look at what International Law actually says. Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

Preamble: The undersigned Plenipotentiaries of the Governments represented at the Diplomatic Conference held at Geneva from April 21 to August 12, 1949, for the purpose of establishing a Convention for the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, have agreed as follows:

Part I. General Provisions
Art 1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.
Art. 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace-time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

The UK, as a signatory to the Conventions, is a High Contracting party.

Art. 146.The High Contracting Parties undertake to enact any legislation necessary to provide effective penal sanctions for persons committing, or ordering to be committed, any of the grave breaches of the present Convention defined in the following Article.

Each High Contracting Party shall be under the obligation to search for persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, such grave breaches, and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts. It may also, if it prefers, and in accordance with the provisions of its own legislation, hand such persons over for trial to another High Contracting Party concerned, provided such High Contracting Party has made out a prima facie case.

Each High Contracting Party shall take measures necessary for the suppression of all acts contrary to the provisions of the present Convention other than the grave breaches defined in the following Article.

In all circumstances, the accused persons shall benefit by safeguards of proper trial and defence, which shall not be less favourable than those provided by Article 105 and those following of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949.

Art. 147. Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the present Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in the present Convention, taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.

Art. 148. No High Contracting Party shall be allowed to absolve itself or any other High Contracting Party of any liability incurred by itself or by another High Contracting Party in respect of breaches referred to in the preceding Article.

Art. 149. At the request of a Party to the conflict, an enquiry shall be instituted, in a manner to be decided between the interested Parties, concerning any alleged violation of the Convention.

If agreement has not been reached concerning the procedure for the enquiry, the Parties should agree on the choice of an umpire who will decide upon the procedure to be followed.

Once the violation has been established, the Parties to the conflict shall put an end to it and shall repress it with the least possible delay.

The answer seems to be NO! The operative words are ‘alleged to have’.

Furthermore, it is an indisputable fact that Israel confined the entire population of Gaza, preventing them from fleeing a war zone, by having all crossings closed under the 2005 agreement, including those between Gaza & Egypt. Escape was not possible, ironically, not even into the sea.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.