web analytics
December 6, 2016 / 6 Kislev, 5777

Posts Tagged ‘responsible’

Who is Responsible under International Law for the New Gaza Wars?

Tuesday, September 6th, 2016

{Originally posted to the Gatestone Institute website}

“The safety of the People Shall be the highest law.” — Cicero, The Laws.

It is beginning again. As Hamas terrorists are attacking Israeli civilians with indiscriminate rocket fire, most recently in the southern city of Sderot, Israeli self-defense reactions are already being labeled “excessive” and “disproportionate.” As usual, international public opinion is quickly, if bizarrely, mobilizing against Israel’s underlying supposed “occupation” of Jews living in their own Biblical land.

But what of the facts? In Gaza, since 2005 at least, when every last Jew left, there has been no “occupation.” There are no Israelis in Gaza.

Systematic Hamas misrepresentations get progressively worse.

Any such blame, however, has no basis in law. Regarding “proportionality,” the actual legal requirement of proportionality contained in international humanitarian law (the law of armed conflict) has nothing to do with how many unfortunate deaths there might be on either side. Proportionality has nothing to do with each side incurring an equivalent number of deaths.

Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Chief Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court, investigated allegations of war crimes during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and in 2006 published an open letter containing his findings. Included was this section on proportionality:

Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives, even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur.

A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality).[1]

Under no circumstances, at least documented ones, have Israeli retaliations been guilty of any such excess.

Recurrent Hamas rocket attacks upon Israeli noncombatants are, basically, examples of terrorism. Such terrorism – all terrorism, irrespective of so-called “just cause” — represents a distinct crime under international law.

When Palestinian terrorism reflects populations that enthusiastically support terror attacks, and where the terrorists can find hospitable refuge among local populations, the legal responsibility for all ensuing counterterrorist harms lies with the perpetrators.

Understood in terms of a still-ongoing cycle of Palestinian terrorism, and Israeli self-defense against terror, the Palestinian side must accept full legal responsibility for civilian casualties in Gaza. Without their premeditated terror attacks on Israeli civilian populations, there would never be any Israel-inflicted Palestinian harm.

It is that simple.

Under international law, which also happens to be part of the law of the United States,[2] all Palestinian terrorists are hostes humani generis: “Common enemies of humankind.” Significantly, in law, such murderers should be punished severely, wherever they are found. Concerning their prospective arrest and prosecution, jurisdiction is now, after the post-WWII Nuremberg trials and principles, expressly “universal.”

Terrorism, including Palestinian terrorism, is always cruel. In addition to rockets, Palestinian murderers, often using bombs filled with nails, razor blades, and screws dipped in rat poison, seek to maim and burn Israeli civilians. This objective is generally announced with cheers, and abundant blessings from the leading Islamic clergy.

In the recurring indictments offered by Hamas-appointed clergy is the claim that “the Jews lack sanctity.” The lack of distinction here between “Jews” and “Israelis” is intentional. It underscores what most observers still do not seem to understand: For Hamas, the true enemy is identifiable by religion, not territory, and is therefore irremediable.

If the Hamas enemy were merely “the Israelis,” and not “the Jews,” there might still be good reason for seeking a political or diplomatic “peace process.” But for the Palestinians, especially Hamas and its terror-group allies, the enemy is, as expressed in the Hamas Charter, unalterably “the Jews.”[3]

With such an enemy, there can never be a compromise. For “the Jews,” whether in Israel proper, or in “occupied territory,” this means that the only way to avoid Arab terror is to disappear, or submit to Islamic control — supposedly for the Jews once again to become persecuted, second-class dhimmi citizens in their own country, just as the indigenous Christians are now in Egypt and much of the Middle East.

There are additional ironies. Those more-or-less wealthy Palestinian commanders who directly control the suicide-bombers’ mayhem (made wealthy with huge sums of money systematically stolen from UN agency funds), evidently prefer to cower fearfully in their towns and cities, usually taking great care to find personal safety amidst densely-packed Arab populations.

Together with assorted Israel Air Force (IAF) units, special IDF counterterrorism and commando elements meticulously identify and target only terrorist leaders. Always, Israel seeks to minimize any collateral damage. Still, such harm cannot always be avoided even by the IDF, which follows its “Purity of Arms” code more stringently than any other military in the world.

Deception can be legally acceptable in armed conflict, but the Geneva Conventions disallow placement of military assets or personnel in heavily populated civilian areas. To place military assets in heavily populated civilian areas is considered, under international law, “perfidy.” It is widely recognized that these rules are also binding on the basis of customary international law.

Perfidy represents an especially serious violation of the Law of War, one identified as a “grave breach” at Article 147 of Geneva Convention IV, which states that,

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.

The critical legal effect of perfidy committed by Palestinian terrorist leaders in Gaza is to immunize Israel from any responsibility for any unintended counterterrorist harms done to Arab civilians. Even if Hamas did not deliberately engage in perfidy, any Palestinian-created link between civilians and terrorist activities would grant Israel full legal justification for undertaking all necessary defensive actions.

Under law, all uses of force are governed by established rules. All combatants, including Palestinian insurgents, are bound by the international Law of War. This requirement is found at Article 3, common to the four Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949, and also at the two protocols to these Conventions.

Protocol I applies humanitarian international law to all conflicts fought for “self-determination,” the stated objective of all Palestinian fighters. A product of the Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts (1977), this Protocol brings all irregular forces within the full scope of international law. In this connection, the terms “fighter” and “irregular” are conspicuously generous in describing Palestinian terrorists, fanatical criminals who “normally” target only civilians, and whose characteristic mode of “battle” is not military engagement, but rather what amounts to religious sacrifice.

In the ancient world, the Roman statesman Cicero wrote in The Laws: “The safety of the People Shall be the highest law.”[4] Nothing has really changed. Under current international law, Israel has both the right and the obligation to protect its citizens from criminal acts of terrorism.

 

Louis Rene Beres

Can You Make a Profit From Socially Responsible Investing?

Monday, July 18th, 2016

Many investors find the idea of socially responsible investing (SRI), appealing.
What makes a company socially responsible? How can you solve ethical dilemmas that can arise in business?
Rabbi Shaya Karlinsky, head of Darche Noam institutions, explains how Jewish thought can answer some of the most difficult moral questions in the investment world today.
Should you invest in a self-driving car company that pre-programs its cars to kill pedestrians? Is it appropriate to invest in a tobacco company?

Apart from moral issues, another question that investors often ask is what form their investment should take – stocks and bonds, or real estate? Find out what you need to know about investing in real estate and being a good landlord.

The Goldstein On Gelt Show is a financial podcast. Click on the player below to listen. For show notes and contact details of the guest, go to www.GoldsteinOnGelt.com

Doug Goldstein, CFP®

Is Barack Obama Responsible For The Dallas Anti-Cop Terror Attack?

Tuesday, July 12th, 2016

{Originally posted to the author’s website, The Daily Wire}

On Thursday, President Obama reacted to the cell-phone-captured footage of the police killings of Alton Sterling in Louisiana and Philando Castile by suggesting that such killings were “not isolated incidents.” Instead, he said, “They are symptomatic of challenges within our criminal justice system, the racial disparities that appear across the system year after year, and the resulting lack of trust that exists between law enforcement and too many of the communities they serve.”

In effect, Obama said – just as he’s been saying for years – that what he believes are extrajudicial murders of black men by police officers are the result of systemic racism, reflected in disproportionate arrest and imprisonment statistics.

Then, on Thursday night, anti-white racist snipers began firing on white police officers in Dallas. When the smoke had cleared, five officers were dead and another seven were wounded, some grievously.

This raises an obvious question: what sort of responsibility does President Obama bear for the massacre?

This isn’t the first time such questions have been raised about leftist anti-cop rhetoric. After the death of Eric Garner in New York City in 2014, New York Mayor Bill De Blasio echoed Obama’s message: “We are dealing with centuries of racism that brought us to this day.” Obama promptly called De Blasio to thank him. De Blasio bragged that he had met Obama at the White House, and said that he had told his son, who is black, “about the dangers he may face” from police. Days later, two police officers in New York City were murdered in cold blood by a black criminal who pledged to put “wings on pigs” on social media. The NYPD turned their backs on De Blasio when he attended the funeral for one of the officers.

Yet the media today – and President Obama himself – blame lack of gun control for Dallas, or claim that motives are unclear. They certainly distance the Black Lives Matter movement from the shootings, even as the Democratic National Committee released a statement essentially lumping together BLM with the anti-cop terrorist attack: “while most protesters have made their voices heard peacefully, tonight’s shooting of officers in Dallas is unacceptable and a reminder that the time to address these tensions and find common ground is long overdue.”

So, what is the relationship between anti-cop rhetoric and the racist murder of cops?

First off, let’s point out the obvious double standard from the left: when a white racist, Dylann Storm Roof, shot up a Charleston black church, the left immediately blamed a widespread culture of racism, and insisted that states across the country tear down Confederate war memorials and stop sponsoring the Confederate flag at state capitols. When non-black cops shoot black suspects, the left insists – without a shred of evidence – that such killings are endemic among police officers, and that the entire system is racist. When anti-Donald Trump protesters riot against Trump supporters, the left blame Trump’s rhetoric. When a nutcase shoots up an area near a Planned Parenthood, the left blames the pro-life movement. When another nutcase shoots Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, the left blames Sarah Palin’s Congressional targets map. But when obvious anti-white racists murder white cops, the left suggests that gun control is the issue; when obvious Islamic terrorists murder gay people in a nightclub in Orlando, the problem is white Christians who don’t support same-sex marriage and Republicans who defend gun rights.

In other words, for the left, rhetoric can only connect with murder when it’s rhetoric they don’t like. If they do like the rhetoric — or at least if they want to defend the people responsible for the rhetoric — then the actual motivation for murder will be [omitted].

But now let’s tackle the real question: when is rhetoric responsible for violence? Rhetoric is responsible for violence when it calls for violence. Radical Islam calls for jihad. Protesters chanting “pigs in a blanket, fry ‘em like bacon” calls for violence against cops. Barack Obama didn’t call for violence against cops.

That said, he did do three things that are particularly despicable:

He denied that murder charges require evidence;
He denied that charges of racism require evidence;
He ignored the actual cause of anti-cop violence.

Obama didn’t cause the Orlando shooting attack, but his failure to label it Islamic jihadism surely stopped America from fighting it properly. Obama didn’t cause the Dallas shootings, but his attempts to turn the conversation toward gun control or police brutality are just another way to avoid a real conversation about anti-white racism.

So no, of course Obama isn’t responsible for the Dallas shootings. But he’s surely responsible for cultivating a racially polarized culture, ignoring the real causes of anti-cop violence, and leaving cops out in the cold to fend for themselves.

Ben Shapiro

3 Doctors and a Nurse Arrested for Hizmeh Terror Bombing

Sunday, June 26th, 2016

This has got to be one of the strangest Arab terror cells captured to date in Israel.

On the eve of Israel’s Memorial Day a series of bombs exploded in the Hizme junction, seriously wounding an IDF officer.

The Shabak announced today that in a combined effort between the Shabak and the IDF’s Duvdevan unit, the terror cell which exploded the bombs has been captured. The cell had been planning additional attacks near Maale Adumim.

What is surprising is the makeup of the terror cell.

Three of the five Arab terrorists are dentists, one is a (male) nurse who works in a hospital (which wasn’t named). Two of the suspects had been arrested earlier which apparently led to the capture of the entire cell.

The terror suspects arrested in this raid were:

Dr. Samer Mahmoud Daoud al-Halabi, born in 1980, a resident of Abu Dis, a dentist – he placed and activated the bombs by cellphone.

Dr. Dagana Faiz Gamil Nabhan, born in 1980, a resident of the Kalandia, a dentist – he assisted al-Halabi.

Daoud Mahmoud Shehada al-Halabi, born in 1952, a resident of Abu Dis, a (male) nurse in a hospital – the father of the perpetrator.

Dr. Daoud Mahmud al-Halabi Shehadeh, born in 1974, a resident of Abu Dis, a dentist – the terrorist’s brother and his assistant in the bombing.

Shadi Mohamed Ahmed Muhsen, born in ’84, a resident of Abu Dis – the perpetrator’s cousin and an assistant in the bombing.

The surname al-Halabi indicates the family immigrated to Israel from Aleppo [Haleb], Syria.

The medical terrorists

The medical terrorists

The bombs were originally made and stored in one of the dental clinics in the village of Akav.

Security forces found 56 small pipe bombs, as well as one larger bomb, and two Molotov cocktails.

The professional assessment was that all the bombs were very lethal.

So much for the theory that well-educated, upper-middle class Muslims will not get involved in terror.

56 small but powerful pipe bombs.

56 small but powerful pipe bombs.

Jewish Press News Briefs

Hamas Admits: We Dug Up the Tunnel to Kidnap Israelis

Monday, October 21st, 2013

The Hamas organization accepted responsibility on Sunday for the digging of the “terror tunnel” exposed by the IDF a week and a half ago in the area between Kibbutz Ein Hashlosha and the Gaza Strip border.

It turns out the Hamas has a “military arm,” which is responsible for doing the bad things, while the “civilian arm” continues to receive donations from the nice folks in Europe. This way they make sure that the money donated to Hamas is only used to feed orphans and widows, all of them 100 percent victims of Israeli genocide.

On Sunday, a spokesman for the bad Hamas, a gentleman nicknamed Abu Ubaida, after a medieval Muslim language scholar (on account of the talking, you get it, right?), told the Hamas radio station in Gaza that the Hamas military force “dug the tunnel and were responsible for it.”

Abu Ubaida stated that the tunnel was dug in an attempt to kidnap an Israeli soldier or civilian, and use them to force Israel to release the remaining thousands of Palestinian prisoners in its jails.

Israel has established many times in the past that not only is it happy to negotiate with terrorist, but that it’s willing to give away the story. The going rate for 1,000 jailed Arabs is one captured Israeli.

In 2011, 1,027 Palestinian prisoners, who were collectively responsible for 569 Israeli deaths, were released in exchange for Gilad Shalit. The campaign to release him (see the girls below painting his portrait on the pavement) reassured Hamas that they don’t need to ever give up anything in negotiations, or recognize, not even on paper, the Jews’ right to live. All they need is to get them a succulent Israeli with good, middle class parents.

Free_Gilad_Shali

It should be noted that the IDF blamed Hamas for the tunnel as soon as it was discovered. It also blamed winter for rain, and summer for those long, hot days in August.

It should also be noted that the tunnel required some 500 tons of cement, which was produced in Israel and provided to the Arabs in Gaza for the explicit purpose of rebuilding their neighborhoods following the 2012 Operation Pillar of Defense.

It appears that the Arabs went ahead and used that precious cement to aggressive ends, rather than to construct their homes. In fact, the IDF estimated that an astounding 20% of Hamas’s annual budget goes into building terror tunnels.

This is astonishing, in light of the fact that they’ve never done anything like that before, and no one in Israel could have imagined this kind of treachery. This is a moral failure on the part of the bad Hams, and we certainly hope the good Hamas will give them a sound rebuke!

The tunnel, incidentally, was 45 feet deep in places, and looks like a mini subway tunnel, complete with a track and a small car that could be used to whisk away the kidnapped soldier, even as his or her parents are being called and urged to start organizing a mass grassroots movement to release a thousand murderers.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu congratulated the IDF for the discovery, saying it’s all part of Israel’s new, aggressive security policy, which is the reason why we’ve had the “quietest year in a decade” in Gaza, despite the rise in terrorist activity in recent years.

Of course, it could be that the reason the Arabs have been so quiet is that they’re all underground, digging up tunnels.

It’s interesting to note that the Egyptian Army has found a very effective way of securing its own border with the Gaza Strip: they caved in all the tunnels with bulldozers, then used the same bulldozers to raze a swath of several kilometers worth of buildings, creating a no man’s area where Arabs who dare to enter will be shot.

Could we contract the same Egyptians to fix our Gaza problem?

Yori Yanover

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/hamas-admits-we-dug-the-tunnel-to-kidnap-israelis/2013/10/21/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: