Confused about Hamas, ‘rockets’, war in Gaza? Those plus: Israeli occupation, lawful versus unlawful war, Israel illegal weapons, targeting hospitals

3-minute video: Life in Gaza explained

Many Americans in social media and general conversation seem confused about the most important facts about Israel’s armed attacks upon Palestinians in GazaRobert Barsocchini (and here) and I discussed this, and will attempt to clarify:

  1. What is Hamas? Do they threaten Israel?
  2. Does Hamas shoot “rockets” at Israel?
  3. What does it mean Israel “occupies” Gaza? Is that legal?
  4. Are Israel’s armed attacks and military invasions of Gaza justified, or unlawful War of Aggression?
  5. Does Israel use unlawful weapons on Palestinians in Gaza?
  6. Can Israel target children, hospitals, schools, and other civilian-important infrastructure?
  1. What is Hamas? Do they threaten Israel?

Hamas is a political organization that won the most recent Palestinian elections in 2006 (new elections planned for 2014); called “completely honest and fair” by President Carter. Historically, Hamas was initially encouraged and supported by Israel in effort to divide Palestinian government from unified voice in having a two-state peace between Israel and Palestine. However, peaceful coexistence with Israel is what Hamas proposes (and here), including a 10-year truce.

Americans receive rhetoric that Hamas threatens destruction of Israel, but without substantiation of this damning claim. This claim is often linked to Iran. One example of such rhetoric is US Senate Resolution 498: “Whereas Hamas is a United States-designated terrorist organization whose charter calls for the destruction of the State of Israel…” Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Consul General Aharoni make this claim on US television repeatedly, in the most demonizing language imaginable.

Hamas’ Charter reveals US/Israel lies in omission, and more rationally provide direct refutation of this claim. In the section titled, “Our Attitudes Towards:” Section F, “Followers of other religions: the Islamic Resistance Movement is a humanistic movement,” Article 31:

“The Islamic Resistance Movement is a humanistic movement. It takes care of human rights and is guided by Islamic tolerance when dealing with the followers of other religions. It does not antagonize anyone of them except if it is antagonized by it or stands in its way to hamper its moves and waste its efforts.

Under the wing of Islam, it is possible for the followers of the three religions – Islam, Christianity and Judaism – to coexist in peace and quiet with each other. Peace and quiet would not be possible except under the wing of Islam. Past and present history are the best witness to that.

It is the duty of the followers of other religions to stop disputing the sovereignty of Islam in this region [Palestine], because the day these followers should take over there will be nothing but carnage, displacement and terror. Everyone of them is at variance with his fellow-religionists, not to speak about followers of other religionists. Past and present history are full of examples to prove this fact.

“They will not fight against you in a body, except in fenced towns, or from behind walls. Their strength in war among themselves is great: thou thinkest them to be united; but their hearts are divided. This, because they are people who do not understand.” (The Emigration – verse 14).

Islam confers upon everyone his legitimate rights. Islam prevents the incursion on other people’s rights. The Zionist Nazi activities against our people will not last for long. “For the state of injustice lasts but one day, while the state of justice lasts till Doomsday.”

“As to those who have not borne arms against you on account of religion, nor turned you out of your dwellings, Allah forbiddeth you not to deal kindly with them, and to behave justly towards them; for Allah loveth those who act justly.” (The Tried – verse 8).

The charter continues argument that peaceful coexistence is possible despite a history from the Crusades forward to remove Palestinian political voice through foreign military invasions.

For current consideration that Hamas just wants Palestinian freedom and independence from Israel’s military occupation: What does Hamas really want? Israeli journalist Gideon Levy on ending the crippling blockade of Gaza.

In 2012, Israel assassinated Palestinian Ahmed Jabari, the second-in-command of those leaders in Palestine with military intent, while they were negotiating with him to end hostilities. If that had happened to Israel’s second-in-command of the IDF, Israel would use that rhetoric forever to justify armed attack upon Gaza.

1b. Ok, so the threat to Israel is… ? The part of the 1988 Hamas Charter apparently referenced as a threat is a quote in the preamble from Hassan al-Banna in 1948:

“Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors.”

Let’s put the insertion of that quote into context; both from 1988 and 1948:

So, given the context that al-Banna was justified in opposing colonialism, spoke against the use of terror, made his quote in response to over 700,000 Palestinians removed from their homes when my own parents were in their early 20’s of age, and Hamas directly advocates for a peaceful two-state solution with honor to all religions, it seems most likely that this quote is being used as propaganda to demonize Hamas.

The term “eliminated” likely means political removal of control much like elimination of British political imperialism.

Importantly, we know for sure that US/UK/Israel openly lies that Iran threatens to “wipe Israel off the map;” directly refuted by the crystal-clear text in question by Iranian President Ahmadinejad in 2005 (more on Iran).

This is game-changing history that proves US/UK/Israel LIES in the most egregious way to accuse another nation to wish destruction upon another nation!

Given this game-changing, objective, and easily verifiable history by taking five minutes to read a speech, we know US/UK/Israel official voice of another nation’s intent of destruction is unreliable testimony.

Another game-changerIsrael attacked the USS Liberty in 1967, despite her clear markings, five by eight foot US flag, and 10 hours of close-range Israel multiple aircraft observation. After the attack, Israeli helicopters with machine guns observed, pulled back, and allowed another attack by Israel fighter jets with torpedos (apparently the helicopter mission was to kill survivors in the water after sinking the Liberty). Eventually, the US Navy responded with fighter jets forcing the abort of Israel sinking the USS Liberty with deaths of over 300 Americans (34 were killed, 171 wounded). The apparent motivation was for Israel to create a false flag attack, and blame Egypt to manipulate US support of their war.

Another: Israel planted bombs to kill Americans in Egypt in 1954. This false flag operation, known today as the Lavon Affair, was to incite US alliance with Israel against a political enemy of Israel.

AnotherIsrael soldiers dressed as Palestinians to hurl rocks at Israeli soldiers in 2005 to incite public opinion against Palestinians.

Finally: The US government assassinated Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to prevent his 1968 summer “Occupy DC” to demand the end of the Vietnam War. This is the legal verdict of the King Family civil trial with overwhelming evidence. If you are not familiar with this game-changer of government to protect their wars of choice, read this now.

Because the US/UK/Israel so brazenly lie and kill to justify military action, does it seem likely they would search for other “threats” to justify wanted wars, such as accusing Hamas of threatening Israel?

You’re welcome to your own conclusions; I’m just providing more comprehensive historical background than you’ll ever receive from US/Israel government and corporate media.

2. Does Hamas shoot “rockets” at Israel?

Again, the repetitive rhetoric of US/Israel government and corporate media make this claim, based upon Israeli government testimony. The “Qassam rocket” is a homemade projectile that appears to have killed 28 Israelis since 2004.

Israel’s publications admit they don’t know the source of the reported “rockets;” guessing 22% are from Hamas.

Hamas denies launching rockets, affirms a peaceful two-state solution, and we know that Israel violated the last ceasefire agreement (see “Hamas” section). Given a history of false flag attacks by Israel I’ll explain below, isn’t it possible that Israeli agents fire at least some of these rockets to provide political cover for Israel’s armed attacks?

If Israel is engaged in unlawful war on Gaza, such as subject to military siege by water and land as Israel does by sealing Gaza’s borders and imposing a naval blockade, then any Palestinian is lawfully able to act in defense of Israel’s war acts, including the shooting of homemade rockets. Let’s examine this next topic.

3. What does it mean Israel “occupies” Gaza? Is that legal?

The UN International Court of Justice found Gaza is an unlawful military occupied territory by a hostile Israel against the will of Palestine (other historical examples of unlawful military occupations). Israel and the US reject this court’s jurisdiction.

The Israeli naval blockade is a traditional act of war.

The military occupation to seal borders and navy blockade stops imports and exports, creating a type of concentration camp.

From Is Gaza still occupied and why does it matter?

Contrary to claims of humanitarian attentiveness, since 2007 Gaza has suffered a humanitarian crisis of staggering magnitude. Foodstuffs were restricted as a matter of policy, allowing in only so much (calculated in a ratio of gross calories to total population) to avoid massive malnourishment. The siege, enforced through a land-and-sea blockade and the aerial bombing of smuggling tunnels linking the Strip to the Sinai, deprived the population of access to medical supplies, building equipment, and all manner of essential goods.

The humanitarian impact of these deprivations intensified massively as a result of the wreckage and ruination of Operation Cast Lead, the full-scale military assault on Gaza in the winter of 2008-2009. By the summer of 2012, as the siege was entering its sixth year, the UN Office of Humanitarian Affairs reported that forty-four percent of Gazans are food insecure; a severe fuel and electricity shortage results in outages of up to twelve hours a day; and the economy has been so crippled that the GDP per capita is at least seventeen percent lower than in 2005 and the unemployment rate, especially for youth, is higher than ever.

UN human rights experts, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and other authoritative sources have condemned the siege as illegal. The crux of these condemnations is the fact that Gaza is still occupied.

And according to Hamas did not reject a ceasefire, Israel did:

It’s the siege, stupid. Talk to virtually anyone in Gaza and they will tell you the same. The siege is living death, slowly crushing the life out of Gaza. It has to end.

4. Are Israel’s armed attacks and military invasions of Gaza justified, or unlawful War of Aggression?

With complete explanation and documentation from Given US/UK/Israel wars and lust for more, what do two ‘supreme Law’ treaties say about lawful and unlawful war?

The short answer is war is lawful only in self-defense from armed attack by another nation’s government, and lawful response is to arrest US/UK/Israel leaderships for unlawful Wars of Aggression.

They are unlawful Wars of Aggression because Hamas claims it wants peaceful two-state resolution, argues against rocket attacks, and therefore by law this security concern should be applied to the treaty Israel accepts: the UN Security Council.

Despite the UN Security Council having just the one legal jurisdiction over government armed attacks to prevent the scourge of war, Israel has broken nearly 100 legally-binding UN Security Council Resolutions regarding Gaza.

A “rogue state” means a country that threatens peace, restricts human rights, sponsors terrorism, and seeks weapons of mass destruction. Including the fact that Israel has ~200 nuclear weapons, do the facts argue that not only are Israel’s armed attacks on Gaza unlawful, but their government’s actions meet the definition of a rogue state?

As I write, Israeli military armed attacks have killed over 600 Palestinians; including more than 100 children.

Unlawful War of Aggression is the worst act a nation’s government can take. Israel’s leaders, as well as those in the US and UK, should be arrested by their own militaries with broad public support for waging unlawful war on our world. In fact, military Oaths of Service require those arrests.

5. Does Israel use unlawful weapons on Palestinians in Gaza?

Yes. They’ve used white phosphorus upon Gaza civilians, a burning chemical agent that is an unlawful weapon (and here).

In 2006, 2009, and now in 2014, Israel is using DIME (dense inert metal explosives) that contain cancer-causing tungsten, and flechette shells on Gaza since 2002: thousands of metal darts.

White phosphorus is a banned incendiary weapon upon civilians, DIME and flechette shells are not banned, but the targeting of civilians with any weapon is unlawful.

Israel claims it does not target civilians. However, given its history of lying testimony and unlawful war, that testimony should be rejected.

6. Can Israel target children, hospitals, schools, and other civilian-important infrastructure?

No. Israel is violating war law by targeting childrenhospitals, Gaza’s one electrical power plant, and other civilian infrastructure (hereherehere). Norwegian doctor, Mads Gilbert, on duty in Gaza documents:

The last night was extreme. The “ground invasion” of Gaza resulted in scores and carloads with maimed, torn apart, bleeding, shivering, dying – all sorts of injured Palestinians, all ages, all civilians, all innocent.

The military occupation and blockade, along with bombardment, has destroyed Gaza water, electricity and food supplies. Protocol 1, Additional to the Geneva Conventions, 1977, makes such civilian infrastructure unlawful targets.

Israel again claims, such as with their armed attacks upon the USS Liberty, any such targets are only damaged by accident. You can conclude for yourself the reliability of such testimony.

Please also consider this visual media on Gaza water (and here),and olive trees destroyed by Israel.

In recent history, the US targeted and destroyed Iraq’s water treatment plants in 1991 to cause civilian epidemics and disease. This would be most dangerous to children and the elderly, with ~500,000 child deaths resulting. This policy would blame Saddam Hussein as the cause for unclean water and epidemics. Is Israel following the same strategy to cause widespread suffering to obtain political control of Gaza?

More resources:

Israel v. Gaza: The Big Picture

Who Wants All Your Attention on “Hamas” and “Rockets,” and Why

Facts All US Citizens Need to Know About Israel and Palestine

Knowing war law exposes ALL US/UK/Israel war ‘reasons’ as BS propaganda; Oaths require leaders’ arrests

This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Robert Barsocchini

    Wow. Fantastic work.

  • Dee

    As long as at least one side is justified in attacking the other , in this case, Hamas attacking Israel , then they can keep killing each other legally.. And you just proved Hamas is justified to attack Israel for numerous injustices. Of course being attacked justifies defending yourself or attacking back … So it looks like they are legal and good to go as long as they want. problem solved.

    Mahatma Gandhi once said “the purpose of non-violence is to make the violence visible”. Both sides using violence gives both sides justification to continue using violence.

    • Carl_Herman

      You are so wrong, Dee. Let’s prove this: if a person attacks one of your family members, you are justified to act in self-defense. By your argument, that provides legal cover for the attacker to use ongoing attacks over time that then escalate to your whole family.

      You are wrong because Israel’s “injustices” as you say are unlawful acts of war by military siege, then government armed attacks, and then using unlawful weapons. You are wrong because Israel ignores 100 UN Security Council Resolutions to stop this action.

      What is your evidence for the Hamas government “attacking” anyone, as you allege????

      You provide none so far, Dee. The evidence we have is unlawful war by Israel upon Gaza, fully supported by US “leadership” and corporate media.

      The unlawful war isn’t working for Gaza. Gee, Dee, you’re so helpful to Israel by providing excuses to keep killing Palestinians.

      How’s that working for you?

      • Dee

        I think you are wrong, you think I am wrong yada yada yada. The evidence is the real world.. you know there is one? Right? You know what an obscure minority view you hold? Right? And what a bizarre twist you have on the situation and what you call evidence? .. and both sides have UNSCR against them, Hamas is a terrorist organization, There is a whole category of UNSCR’s for that. You know that a couple million Palestine live in Israel, many as citizens, and that there are Palestinian members of the Knesset and have been since Israel was first a state.
        If they want peace in the Middle East, folks will learn to come to the table.. eventually. Took Egypt three tries to figure they weren’t going to win militarily and come to the table, and a true leader who could see beyond the old ways.
        At some point folks are responsible for their own situation and their own fate.
        Much of the Middle East is at war with itself .. don’t need Israeli’s or Americans to have a war, Just having Sunni Muslims and Shiite Muslims close enough to say good morning to each other and the blood bath starts. Or a tin pot tyrant and a oppressed population .. Or a dead tyrant and a formerly oppressed population, or it is Thursday or some other reason .. Nobody’s very picky about why the fight, just as long as they can destroy stuff and kill and kidnap people and commit atrocities.
        You think you can bring peace by excusing one side but not the other, not giving credit where it is due and not holding everybody accountable .. okay lets do it your way for a while and see if anything changes … the whole validity and veracity of anybody’s idea’s are if they change anything in the real world.
        Personally, I think the cruel truth is , the world has given up on the Arabs/ Muslims, so long as the oil flows, and for the most part no longer cares if they kill each other or die trying to spread the terrorism outside their home countries.
        Neither side is going to force terms on the other militarily.. sooner or later somebody will figure that out.

        • Carl_Herman

          Facts are provable, Dee. You are wrong about the facts of what war law means, and then you yada yada to excuse all the wars in our world.

          You are a war apologist, Dee.

          You dismiss, insult, and destroy the sacrifices all our families made through two world wars to pretend war law is something other than the crystal-clear limit: NO NATION CAN USE ARMED ATTACK UNLESS IN SELF-DEFENSE FROM ATTACK BY ANOTHER NATION’S GOVERNMENT.

          “Obscure minority view”? You go for your war excuses, Dee. You insult Sunni and Shiite and ordinary human beings when it’s the colonial powers and Israel engaging in war-murder, false flags, and propaganda. It’s sooner rather than later that people see you for who you are: saying kill, kill, kill – it’s all legal and gee, nobody cares about those blood-bathing Arabs/Muslims anyway.

          Thank you so much, Dee, again, for helping readers see the difference between justice under the law versus your yada yada to continue these wars with racist rhetoric against Arabs, loveless view of human concern, and whatever other bullshit you imagine to argue that the world do nothing to stop these war-murders.

          Readers: choose well between using clear law to end war-murders versus racist bullshit to watch the butchering and blame the victims.

          • Dee

            If there is clear law, then why aren’t you using it to stop wars? in Fact, I can’t think of any war that was stopped because it was illegal, or prevented because it was illegal.

          • Carl_Herman

            “If”? Let’s see: explain what war law means by its two treaties: the Kellogg-Briand Pact and the UN Charter, Dee.

            Let’s see if this is clear or not.

            For example: stop sign law means you bring your vehicle to a complete stop before the stop line in front of the stop sign, or intersection without a stop line.

            Wow! That’s really clear. Your turn, Dee. Explain what war law means.

          • Dee

            Carl, if people are stopping for stop signs, then it means they feel there is a reasonable chance the law might be enforced ..
            War law the same way.. if folks are stopping wars or not starting them because of war law it means somebody is or might enforce it… however nobody stops wars because of war law and nobody doesn’t start wars because of war law ..
            That means war law is unenforceable feel good do nothing pleasant words on paper with nothing backing it.
            War is immoral, inhumane, and just plain wrong.. I have seen wars stopped by large public movements and demonstrations, I’ve seen the opinions of nations change because of public pressure and people in the streets.
            But this time you want to go with this “war is illegal” that means some higher authority is going to stop the wars.. the people can stay home because Carl says it is illegal and he is going to enforce the law.
            So do it. arrest somebody

          • Carl_Herman

            Dee: war law is…?

            I think you evaded this question 4 times last time I attempted to have you answer (and never answered). This is evasion number 1.

            Now you add by insulting law enforcement and US military by saying the most important law, war law, is “unenforceable” while refusing to state the law. So are US law enforcement and US military too stupid to enforce this, Dee? Too weak? You then add a ridiculous strawman argument I oppose: I agree that people will need to show themselves, Dee. Their presence is strengthened with law being on their side, and those with Oaths to take lawful and authorized action for arrests are strengthened with public recognition of these obvious War Crimes.

            But to the point: similar to what stop sign law means, war law is… ?

          • Dee

            Well I guess that if my answer isn’t your answer then you say I haven’t answered. Why not just disagree with the answer I gave?
            I have no idea what you are talking about when you start bringing in Law Enforcement and the US Military.. Regular Law Enforcement would have nothing to do with the Law or War. Deal with it, you have never heard of Regular Law Enforcement enforcing the Law of land warfare because they don’t have jurisdiction and our civilian courts are not involved either. The US Military can and does enforce the laws about war crimes that US Troops violate, But war crimes are illegal acts commit during the course of war. We only get to prosecute out own troops under most conditions .. crimes committed by POW’s after they are captured in most cases can be punished, but mostly that is administrative, not court action, for violating camp rules, occasionally a tribunal for crimes like murder committed while trying to escape. Just trying to escape, which is every soldiers duty, gets you punishment like solitary.
            You are talking about Nations breaking or violating treaties when you talk about Illegal wars.. US doesn’t have jurisdiction to determine if other nations are breaking international treaties, no nation does. Most we can do is report it to international organizations .. just like we do when we think somebody is violating international agreements of trade.. we report it to the WTO, we make our case before them , WTO investigates, and if needed, makes a ruling. Treaties all have some sponsoring international agency that has the jurisdiction and mechanisms to enforce their treaty. The UN and the international court in the Hague decide if wars are illegal and enforce what they can enforce in the UN Charter, Hague and Geneva conventions. Nations get to claim and prepare a legal brief saying their going to war is legal and how they conduct a war is legal. Only if another nation disagrees and can make a better case in the UN Security Council or International court is anything about starting wars ever looked at as being legal or illegal.
            That a war is legal or illegal is not something the US, or any nation, can determine. Only the Agencies set up by international treaties or Charters and then only if the nations involved are signatories to , can determine that, and it takes a formal ruling by that agency. ( example the UNSC can rule a war illegal, The international Court can do the same. And how would you imagine such a ruling would be enforced? Send in troops?, that is just more war.. International court can levy fines, but they have no way to collect them .
            The International Court ruled something we did down in Nicaragua with the Contras or to the Contras was illegal and fined us a couple hundred million dollars.. we disagreed and refused to pay .. and there is nothing anybody can do to collect. At Nuremburg the authority to try Germans was part of the Unconditional Surrender Terms, not any voluntarily signed treaty by the Germans or any other nation .. if that had not been the case , if the Germans had said no.. then the option was more war until they said yes or not prosecuting anybody at Nuremburg. In fact, Historians for the most part, agree that our pushing for unconditional surrender by the Japanese prolonged the war and brought about the use of nuclear weapons to force an unconditional surrender .. the last sticking point being the status of the Emperor, and we gave a little on that point to get a surrender.
            you have come up with the term “War law” You are going to have to define it, Does that include Hague and Geneva about the conduct of war? Or things like the UN charter that say unprovoked attacks against other nations are a violation of the Charter.
            Nations that are signatories to Hague and Geneva have a responsibility to try their own troops who violated the provisions of those treaties while conducting war. But only international agencies like the UN can determine if a nation has violated the UN Charter and only the UN’s appropriate internal mechanisms can make the ruling and assign the penalty, The only enforcement is expelling a nation or using armed force ( more war) to enforce it and impose the penalty. In the case of the Korean War , The UN ruled the North’s invasion or the South was illegal ( and they only managed to do that because the Russian delegation was out of town) .. The enforcement was the “police action” aka the Korean War and the UN’s contribution was the specific authorization for member nations to fight under the UN Flag. Not every cop can enforce every law .. A cop from another county or city on his way to a seminar in uniform and driving a police car driving thru your county or city, and seeing a motorist run your stop sign, cannot stop them and give them a ticket. They are out of jurisdiction, the Court from this cops county can’t impose a fine or any penalty for somebody running a stop sign in your county or city, they have no jurisdiction .. The US has no jurisdiction to declare somebody else’s war illegal , US civil law enforcement have no jurisdiction in enforcing the UN Charter , they can however enforce US Law made in compliance with US membership in the UN . The US Military has no jurisdiction in enforcing the UN Charter or any treaty .. but they can be deployed by the US Government at the request of the UN to enforce a UNSC ruling, but we can’t be forced to use our troops just because the UN asked. We seldom get asked, because we are expensive. Pakistan and Bangladesh get asked often and act as peace keepers often because the UN pays more than it costs for Pakistan and Bangladesh to send troops and Pakistan and Bangladesh are poor countries and need the money.
            US protestors protesting a US war can change US policy.. but they can’t force the UN to declare any US war illegal or prevent the US from vetoing any UNSCR that would declare any US military Action Illegal.
            And whether you like it or not, accept it or not, The only agency that can declare that anything is a violation or the UN Charter is the UN , mostly the UNSC with regards to armed conflict. Same for any International Treaty, every treaty has a controlling international agency that is the only authority that can say if a treaty is broken.. I do not care how obvious violations seem to folks like you that only flack for one side.. there is always two sides to every story and international treaty agencies have to act and appear fair to all sides , hear both sides , and come down with a ruling that is diplomatic and fair enough that member nations do not leave the treaty altogether. Or in the case of the UNSC a ruling that is so fair that none of the Permanent Members just Veto it because they feel the UN is taking sides.
            Again, the prime example is the Korean War, the UN declared it a violation of the Charter , authorized all members to help the Souh and to do so under the Flag of the UN .. The Russians and Chinese , both members of the UN , supported the North ( the declared violator) with arms and troops and suffered no penalties for doing so.
            You have the UN charter and you have the official US position of the legality of our most recent wars.. nobody with the jurisdiction or authority to say otherwise has said anything. And I think the proper term is violation of the Charter, but have it your way .. the US has an official explanation of how and why the most recent US wars are legal and strongly bases that on UNSCR’s and the very treaties you keep referring to. None of the treaty agencies or the UN has never said otherwise .. in fact declaring terrorist organizations in general an international threat and encourages all member nations to use all means available to stop or destroy terrorist organizations, Both Iraq and Afghanistan were in violation of UNSCR’s and the US and Britain were declared official occupying powers in Iraq by the UN and endorsed by the UN as counterterrorism by the UN in Afghanistan.
            You don’t accept my answers as answers because you don’t understand how treaties and the UN Charter work , you think the cop on the street can see a war on TV pronounce it illegal and go arrest the combatants or something or that the US gets to declare other folks wars illegal … that’s not how any of this works .. ONLY the agency or organization that administers the treaty can declare a violation of their treaty and only then impose a penalty.. hwever short of more war there is not any way to enforce any ruling of a violation involuntarily and there is no penalty that is enforceable for ignoring a ruling..

          • Carl_Herman

            This is your second evasion and failure to answer a simple, simple, simple question. You insist on conflating what the law states with failure of law enforcement, which are two distinct areas. I quote from my first response: “explain what war law means by its two treaties: the Kellogg-Briand Pact and the UN Charter, Dee.

            Let’s see if this is clear or not.

            For example: stop sign law means you bring your vehicle to a complete stop before the stop line in front of the stop sign, or intersection without a stop line.

            Wow! That’s really clear. Your turn, Dee. Explain what war law means.”

  • Franklin Beenz

    This post is a stupid and value-less law-school-like intellectual exercise that does absolutely nothing to bring peace and harmony to all peoples. In fact, the author of this nonsense can be considered a war-monger.

    • Carl_Herman

      Your post is a stupid and value-less law-school-like intellectual exercise that does absolutely nothing to bring peace and harmony to all peoples. In fact, the author of this nonsense can be considered a war-monger.

      There! That helps us all understand the issue better!

  • Ariel

    “Hamas is a political organization..” – WOW !!! They are terror organisation , they use children to suicide and want to kill all Jews, just watch this video and read the Hamas covenant! Please just look..

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp – please search for the word “jew” and see the contast !

    • Carl_Herman

      Hamas wants to kill all Jews, eh? Racist much? Yes, please read their charter and consider all history.

    • Eyes Open

      This video propaganda is a moot point – the future of Gaza’s children is changed by Israel in a most definitive way – by murdering them!

  • Yaniv

    It’s amazing how you can take the truth, twist it 3 times and show a totally different story. ISRAEL HAS NEVER SUPPORTED HAMAS, A TERROR ORGANIZATION THAT IDENTIFIES WITH WORLD JIHAD. Hamas was elected with the power of corruption, and not legally. It is now using its “voters” as a human shield. BUT IT DOESN’T REALLY MATTERS, AS LONG AS NEWSPAPERS ARE BEING SOLD, RIGHT?

    • Carl_Herman

      Wow! Look at all these pro-Israel war comments all coming at the same time!!! It’s like they’re all the same person, or all sitting in the same room or something!

      More unsubstantiated claims in support of Israel’s unlawful military occupation and War of Aggression.

  • Earl

    Really?? How the HELL can that be allowed to be online?!??
    How many outright LIES can be told and people will believe???

    Here some real world facts:
    Israel NEVER supported Hamas.
    Hamas declerated motto is “We love death as much as the jews love lies”
    Hamas fires 100% of the rockets that fall in Israel! Not 22%, 100%!

    I can go on..this is propaganda of the lowest kind

    • Carl_Herman

      Really? Documentation of your claims? Or is that the best you’ve got?

  • fild

    Here is the Hamas Charter , read up :
    http://www.palestine-studies.org/files/pdf/jps/1734.pdf

    The Preamble to the Charter states: ″Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it″.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas_Covenant

    • Carl_Herman

      fild: yeah, and what about the context documented above that includes that quote from a guy who was a hero opposing British imperialism in Palestine???

      You didn’t even read it, so can’t/won’t address it. You are a propagandist, fear and war-mongering in support of Israel’s War of Aggression. You are a participant in war-murders.

      Good luck with that.

      • fild

        Yet you did not react at all to anything I have said …

      • ryan

        There’s not a context in which this is acceptable. Nice try, though.

        • Carl_Herman

          So again, print your comments and this article, go to your local mosque, and get their views. Do you accept?

          And speaking of context: please summarize what war law is, and if you conclude Israel’s siege and armed attacks on Gaza are lawful.

  • http://bigdanblogger.blogspot.com/ Big Dan

    Point #2: “ROCKETS FROM GAZA”
    EXCELLENT!!!!! THANK YOU!!!!!!!!
    I’ve been saying for YEARS I don’t believe these “ROCKETS FROM GAZA” stories, and finally someone I respect says the same thing! A very big THANK YOU!

  • Rico

    What a load of hog wash

  • Rico

    What a load of hog wash

    • Carl_Herman

      Yes, thank you. The propaganda from Israel/US to hog Gaza requires a washing to clarify the facts. I’m glad you appreciate it :)

  • dee

    Turks Rule Black Lands!

     

    In these pages, we have made every effort to clearly say, and prove, that the White, and White-like, rulers and ruling elite in the former lands of Black civilizations, are not who they claim to be. Specifically; those of Egypt are NOT Egyptians, those of North Africa are NOT Berbers, those of Arabia are NOT Arabs, those of Palestine are NOT Hebrews, those of Lebanon are NOT Phoenicians, those of Iraq are NOT Mesopotamian’s, those of Iran are NOT Persians or Elamites, those of Turkey are NOT Anatolians – THEY ARE ALL CENTRAL ASIAN TURKS!

    That said with the understanding that in earlier times, Greeks and Romans settled in these areas: and in North Africa, they were followed by Alan’s, Vandals, and Goths. And also in the 19th. century, French and Italians invaded, and settled in North Africa. And with the understanding that when the Turks of the Ottoman Empire, relinquished hegemony over those lands after WW I, they and the European powers, merely handed control over to local Turk elites.

    But understanding that our say-so, and proofs, may be insufficient for some: We quote the eminent François Auguste Ferdinand Mariette (1821 – 1881) French scholar, Archaeologist, Egyptologist, and the founder of the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. We quote from his book:

    “OUTLINES OF ANCIENT EGYPTIAN HISTORY”

    TRANSLATED AND EDITED, WITH NOTES, BY MARY BRODRICK 
    With, an Introductory Note by William C. Winslow, D.D., D.C.L. 
    LL.D., Vice-President of the Egypt Exploration Fund for the United States

    CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS, NEW YORK, 1892

    Page 28

    Click here for link to Online Book

    Here he is discussing the origins of the Hyksos:

    Quote:

    “How often do we see in Eastern monarchies and even in European states a difference of origin between the ruling class, to which the royal family belongs, and the mass of the people! We need not leave Western Asia and Egypt; we find there Turks ruling over nations to the race of which they do not belong, although they have adopted their religion. In the same way as the Turks of Baghdad, who are Finns, now reign over Semites, Turanian kings may have led into Egypt and governed a population of mixed origin where the Semitic element was prevalent. If we consider the mixing up of races which took place in Mesopotamia in remote ages, the invasions which the country had to suffer, the repeated conflicts of which it was the theatre, there is nothing extraordinary that populations coming out of this land should have presented a variety of races and origins.”

     

    Turks Rule Black Lands!

     

    In these pages, we have made every effort to clearly say, and prove, that the White, and White-like, rulers and ruling elite in the former lands of Black civilizations, are not who they claim to be. Specifically; those of Egypt are NOT Egyptians, those of North Africa are NOT Berbers, those of Arabia are NOT Arabs, those of Palestine are NOT Hebrews, those of Lebanon are NOT Phoenicians, those of Iraq are NOT Mesopotamian’s, those of Iran are NOT Persians or Elamites, those of Turkey are NOT Anatolians – THEY ARE ALL CENTRAL ASIAN TURKS!

    That said with the understanding that in earlier times, Greeks and Romans settled in these areas: and in North Africa, they were followed by Alan’s, Vandals, and Goths. And also in the 19th. century, French and Italians invaded, and settled in North Africa. And with the understanding that when the Turks of the Ottoman Empire, relinquished hegemony over those lands after WW I, they and the European powers, merely handed control over to local Turk elites.

    But understanding that our say-so, and proofs, may be insufficient for some: We quote the eminent François Auguste Ferdinand Mariette (1821 – 1881) French scholar, Archaeologist, Egyptologist, and the founder of the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. We quote from his book:

    “OUTLINES OF ANCIENT EGYPTIAN HISTORY”

    TRANSLATED AND EDITED, WITH NOTES, BY MARY BRODRICK 
    With, an Introductory Note by William C. Winslow, D.D., D.C.L. 
    LL.D., Vice-President of the Egypt Exploration Fund for the United States

    CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS, NEW YORK, 1892

    Page 28

    Click here for link to Online Book

    Here he is discussing the origins of the Hyksos:

    Quote:

    “How often do we see in Eastern monarchies and even in European states a difference of origin between the ruling class, to which the royal family belongs, and the mass of the people! We need not leave Western Asia and Egypt; we find there Turks ruling over nations to the race of which they do not belong, although they have adopted their religion. In the same way as the Turks of Baghdad, who are Finns, now reign over Semites, Turanian kings may have led into Egypt and governed a population of mixed origin where the Semitic element was prevalent. If we consider the mixing up of races which took place in Mesopotamia in remote ages, the invasions which the country had to suffer, the repeated conflicts of which it was the theatre, there is nothing extraordinary that populations coming out of this land should have presented a variety of races and origins.”

     

  • ryan

    I’m sorry, author of this post, I thick you are guilty of lying by omission. There are statements so unbelievably reprehensible in the Hamas Charter that I’m not sure anyone could come away from it without thinking anything other than “They want to wipe Jews off the face of the earth.”

    You argue that they are “humanistic.” Yeah, um, it says “Sure you can be Christian or Jew but only if you let the Muslims dominate”….say what????????????

    I do not want a Hamas state. No way.

    • Carl_Herman

      You’re full of spin, ryan. Document threats to “wipe Jews off the face of the earth,” and then explain them in light of Article 31 of their charter. Some history here: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/07/game-changing-usisrael-lies-hamas-iran-demand-palestinian-justice-destroy-israel.html

      They have elections, ryan, so if the public wants Hamas they can have a government run with religious ideas. If the public seek other leadership, that’s up to them.

      Don’t want a Hamas state? Don’t live in Palestine under this elected government. Oh, wait, Israel has military occupation to restrict what move in over land, sea, and air.

      • ryan

        From your article 31: “Peace and quiet would not be possible except under the wing of Islam.” Sooooooo we’ll let you exist…it’s just that Islam has to be in charge…wow, thanks.

        • Carl_Herman

          First, ryan: no apology from you after smearing Hamas by claiming they want to “wipe Jews off the face of the Earth?” Wow. Not too generous of you.

          Second: Hamas is a freaking religious organization working for their independence! Are you stupid, ryan? They have as much right competing for votes in an election as other groups who claim a religion. But go ahead, pal: judge them. Be a normal “developed” world man from a history of slavery, colonialism, world wars, and now invasive wars on “terror” while Israel keeps a concentration camp in Gaza, AND BLAME THE VICTIMS.

          We’d have more peace and quiet under the wings of good Muslims, rather than the fear-mongering of you, and your cheering Israel’s hostile military siege and War of Aggression, ryan, while Hamas keeps their peace proposal on the table.

          • ryan

            You seem rather on tilt. I didn’t know I owed you an apology. But since you asked let’s look at some statements in the charter that support the idea that Hamas wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth:

            ‘Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will
            obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.” – Preamble

            ‘Palestine is an Islamic land… Since this is the case, the Liberation of Palestine is an individual duty for every Moslem wherever he may be.’ (Article 13) Note: Gonna be kind of hard for Jews to live on land that is somehow Moslem…I didn’t know that rocks and dirt had a religion…I stand corrected.

            ‘The day the enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem. In the face of the Jews’ usurpation, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised.’ (Article 15) Note: Is Jihad in this case used to mean “picnic with tea and crackers?” Maybe I don’t know what Jihad means. Oh wait, here’s a clue… ‘[Peace] initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement… Those conferences are no more than a means to appoint the infidels as arbitrators in the lands of Islam… There is no solution for the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility.’ (Article 13) Note: Carl, man, I must be uninformed…THIS is the tea and cracker picnic Jihad, n’est-ce pas?

            ‘Ranks will close, fighters joining other fighters, and masses everywhere in the Islamic world will come forward in response to the call of duty, loudly proclaiming: ‘Hail to Jihad!’. This cry will reach the heavens and will go on being resounded until liberation is achieved, the invaders vanquished and Allah’s victory comes about.’ (Article 33) Note: Vanquished…cool bro, my bad. They don’t want to wipe them out, just vanquish them. I stand corrected!!!

            Now, Carl, is this where you apologize to me now or….?

          • Carl_Herman

            Who invades who, ryan? Hamas has had on the table a proposal for 1967 boundaries, but Israel chooses military siege to starve Gaza, with invasion.

            So, bro, Israel is an invading hostile military force, so Hamas is a resistance group. What would you do when under siege, bombed, and invaded? Maybe resist?

            You ignore the guy’s quote in the preamble that “eliminate” means political removal ‘cuz he specifically states Islam rejects terrorism. But hey, let’s try this: take your comments and this article to your local mosque. Ask to get their opinion. Get to know them, and their views. Then come back to me. Care to talk to real-live Muslims, bro, or are you racist?

            I challenge you, ryan, to do this. Do you accept?

  • wtf

    this is the most bs article i’ve ever read in my entire life

    • Carl_Herman

      Dearest “wtf,”
      Your comment is classified as “denial” in academic/professional discourse, and rejected immediately without consideration because it fails to address any of the factual claims under consideration.

      Indeed, we professionals might officially respond to such a comment with, “Wtf. Next!”

  • Right Click

    After watching an Al-Jazeera interview with Meshaal I thought there was hope for peace with Hamas. After reading this article I know there is not. Thanks for clarifying it for me.

    • Carl_Herman

      Right Click: there is no hope for peace because the US/UK/Israel “leaders” want empire over others. Because 95% of the public want peace, US/UK/Israel have to pretend to also want peace while they destroy and take land/resources/control, all with BS propaganda to spin their wars as somehow “self-defense.”

      The only hope is with arrests of those leaders for OBVIOUS War Crimes.

 

 

Twitter