Showing posts with label Francesca Albanese. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Francesca Albanese. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 10, 2024

The UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Michael Fakhri, wrote a thread on X/Twitter that is breathtakingly false - and antisemitic.

How was Isr. able to starve 2.3 million Palestinians in Gaza at unprecedented speed and intensity? 

I answer this question in my new report. I'll be discussing my report with the UN General Assembly on Friday, October 18. 

This didn’t start in October.

Isr. started restricting goods into Gaza in 1991. Imposed  full blockade in 2000. Military siege in 2005. The Isr. Ministry of Health measured incoming calories to ensure that people Gaza stayed hungry enough not to trigger a humanitarian crisis .

The "full blockade" he is referring to was Israel closing off Gaza in response to the wave of suicide bombings at the beginning of the second intifada. The "military siege" was after Israel unilaterally withdrew all its citizens from Gaza in 2005 and as suicide bombings continued. 


It’s not just Gaza. And it’s not just restricting goods + humanitarian aid. 

Isr. has been destroying the Palestinian food system for 70+ years. Destroying orchards & farms. Harassing/ killing peasants, fishers & shepherds. 

Also,  years of working with Palestinian farmers, helping them export through Israeli ports, sometimes even advising Palestinian farmers on the best crops for them to make the most money.  You know who protested this cooperation? Palestinians! Which totally refutes Fakri's theory of Israel deliberately trying to destroy the food system. 

In Gaza, malnutrition, famine, and disease are killing more people than bombs and bullets. This personal and social trauma is going to be carried by Palestinians for several generations in the future.

Really? More Gazans are being killed by famine and disease than war? This is a bigger lie than the Al Ahli Hospital libel. Even Hamas says that only 36 Gazans have starved to death while they claim over 40,000 wartime casualties (of whom, of course, nearly half are Hamas members themselves.)  Nobody has said what Fakhri s claiming - not UNICEF, not UNRWA, not WHO, not OCHA, not even Al Jazeera.

Lying is apparently a qualification for the job of UN Special Rapporteur.

Why is this happening? This about land. 

In 2023, Isr. seized more Palestinian land than in any given year in the past 30 yrs. Isr. wants to erase the Palestinians from their homeland + territory and deny them their right to return to Palestine.

If Israel is only interested in Gaza to take over the land then why, exactly, did Israel withdraw from Gaza in 2005?  Why did it sign the Oslo Accords giving Palestinians the first land they've had in their short history to begin with?

Fakhri's analysis doesn't stand up to two seconds of thought. Maybe it flies at the UN and with his college students at the University of Oregon, but it is not just wrong but maliciously wrong.

His solutions are antisemitic by definition. 

What can be done now? Ceasefire now. All countries have a duty to end the starvation and genocide. Countries and corps. supplying Isr. with money and weapons are complicit. Other countries should impose economic, political and cultural sanctions. Institutions should divest.

And Hamas must survive to plan more October 7ths. 

What can be done for the future of Palestinians? 

Any discussion about 1-state, 2-state or whatever political configuration must prioritize two things: 

-the Palestinian people’s right to return to Palestine; and - the full realization of their human rights and dignity.

But not Israel's security. 

So Fakhri supports BDS and dismantling the Jewish state, both of which are antisemitic

A glance at his timeline shows that he does not even mention Hamas. Not a negative word about Palestinian terrorism. Not a gram of sympathy for the Israelis slaughtered, raped and forced from their homes. 

Of course he makes a perfect UN Rapporteur - just like Francesca Albanese.





Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Friday, June 14, 2024

Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur for the Palestinian territories, famously tweeted - quite falsely - that Israeli commandos had pretended to be humanitarian workers when they rescued four hostages last week.


But the phrase she used, "humanitarian camouflage," is actually from previous accusations she made of Israel.

And they were just as absurd.

In a report she released in March, Albanese wrote:

In its defense, Israel has argued that its conduct complies with international humanitarian law (“IHL”). A key finding of this report is that Israel has strategically invoked the IHL framework as “humanitarian camouflage” to legitimize its genocidal violence in Gaza.
So, is Israel adhering to international law or not? Albanese cannot seem to find any actual violations - so she made up a new category, essentially saying that when Israel adheres to international law, it is really violating it.

The paper has an entire section called "Humanitarian camouflage: distorting the laws of war to
conceal genocidal intent" which says:
After 7 October, this macro-characterization of Gaza’s civilians as a population of human shields has reached unprecedented levels, with Israel’s top-ranking political and military leaders consistently framing civilians as either Hamas operatives, “accomplices”, or human shields among whom Hamas is “embedded”. In November, Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs defined “the residents of the Gaza Strip as human shields” and accused Hamas of using “the civilian population as human shields”. The Ministry defines armed groups fighting from urban areas as deliberately “embedded” in the population to such an extent that it “cannot be concluded from the mere fact that seeming ‘civilians’ or ‘civilian objects’ have been targeted, that an attack was unlawful”.Two rhetorical elements of this key legal policy document indicate the intention to transform the entire Gaza population and its infrastructures of life into a ‘legitimate’ targetable shield: the use of the all-encompassing the combined with the quotation marks to qualify civilians and civilian objects. Israel has thus sought to camouflage genocidal intent with humanitarian law jargon.
This is, simply, slander. The November IDF paper - which is quite worth reading - describes normative humanitarian and international law, and the difficulties of fighting in an area where Hamas is deliberately using the civilians as human shields. It does not say, as Albanese implies, that every Gaza civilian is a legitimate target. It does not justify genocide. It just says that the laws of war do not prohibit attacking seemingly civilian objects which are used for  military purposes - which is 100% true.

The IDF document is a completely accurate description of international law and the legality of the IDF targeting military targets even when civilians are placed in the way, given the international laws of applying the principles of distinction and proportionality. 

Albanese cannot stand that Israel is acting in accordance with international law. So she has to make up a new crime: pretending that Israel is twisting international law into a means to perform genocide in a technically legal way.

The antisemitic rapporteur, in her zeal to try to parse the words of the IDF paper to find genocidal intent, ignores the many statements that explicitly say otherwise. Here are only a few:

"Israel is operating against Hamas and other terrorist groups in Gaza, not against the civilian population. It is directing its attacks only at military objectives..."

"Israel wishes no harm to civilians and is committed to addressing the humanitarian needs of those suffering as a result of Hamas’s brutality and instigation of these hostilities. "

"As repeatedly affirmed by Israel’s senior political and military leadership, the IDF is fighting Hamas and the other terrorist organizations in Gaza, not the civilian population. In accordance with the principle of distinction, the IDF only targets persons who are members of organized armed groups or civilians directly participating in the hostilities, and objects that qualify as military objectives."
Moreover, Albanese cannot deny that Hamas is indeed using all Gaza civilians as human shields - a war crime that she is not concerned with, or even implicitly denies. Hundreds of miles of tunnels underneath a territory that is only 25 miles long and 5 miles wide, most of them under the most densely populated areas in Gaza, is proof if Hamas' intent to use the highest number of Gazans as actual shields for the terrorists underground. 

Ironically, Albanese's inability to actually find Israel violating international law, and her having to make up a new category of crime just for Israel,  proves Israel's case. 

(h/t Irene)



Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Tuesday, June 11, 2024

From Ian:

When Jew Hate Doesn’t Count
Over the weekend, thousands—not hundreds—of protesters encircled the White House waving Palestinian flags and accusing Israel of “genocide” and calling for the death of “Zionists,” which is what Jew-haters have taken to calling Jews to veil their hatred. “Stand with Hamas,” read one poster.

These are the people who dressed up as jihadists and defaced statues and screamed “Piggy! Piggy!” and “Fuck you, fascist” at the park rangers and held up a fake bloodied mask of Genocide Joe Biden. The New York Times, like CNN and The Washington Post and most every major outlet, made a big point of how the demonstrators really, really just want a cease-fire. There was no mention of Jews or antisemitism.

The Biden administration, to its credit, put out a statement saying it was against antisemitism. But that did not stop Biden campaign spokeswoman Adrienne Elrod from saying that Biden “supports the freedom of speech and the freedom of expression” and that the protesters “have a right to speak their mind.” (I could not agree more. Where were these champions of First Amendment rights at Charlottesville?)

Most everyone else stressed that the only people who detected any antisemitism were the Jews, and that that wasn’t the point, and that the anti-Zionists, the people screaming at the park rangers and defacing statues and LARPing around like wannabe terrorists—who specialize in murdering and raping Jews—don’t hate anyone. Except Israelis.

“Many protesters chanted slogans that some Jewish groups have said incite violence against Jews,” the Times explained. “That some Jewish groups have said.”

Because—remember!—it’s never, ever about whoever dies. On the contrary, it is always about who can be blamed for that death. That is how one furthers the agenda.
New Book by Daniel Pipes Challenges Conventional Wisdom about the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict
Renowned historian and Middle East expert Daniel Pipes announces the release of his latest book, Israel Victory: How Zionists Win Acceptance and Palestinians Get Liberated, published by Wicked Son, an imprint of Post Hill Press. Tracing the Palestinian-Israeli conflict to the 1880s, Pipes argues that the prolonged conflict between Palestinians and Israelis stems from two entrenched and opposing mentalities: Palestinian rejectionism and Israeli conciliation.

Palestinian rejectionism is characterized by the negation of Jews, Judaism, Zionism, and Israel. It explains the Palestinians' enduring goal of genocide, their refusal to take yes for an answer, their unwillingness to seek improved living circumstances, and their determination to defame the Jewish state.

Zionist conciliation is characterized by the attempt to win Palestinian acceptance not by defeating Israel's enemy, but by enriching and placating it. Pipes argues against this anomalous Zionist approach, advocating instead the traditional method of ending a war—through victory: Palestinians give up, Israel wins.

In a brilliant essay that brings surprisingly fresh insights and original policy recommendations to a well-worn topic, Pipes draws lessons from past "peace process" failures, delves into the universal nature of defeat and victory, and offers practical advice on how Israel can win through minimal violence and maximal messaging. Both sides need an Israel Victory to break with entrenched, outdated mentalities. For Israel, it means acceptance, especially among Muslims and on the global Left. For the Palestinians, Israel Victory means liberation from a destructive obsession, enabling them finally to build a polity, economy, society, and culture worthy of their skills and ambitions.
Gerald Steinberg: To combat UN hostility to Israel, Israel should bar UN officials from entering
One important policy tool is to immediately prevent the entry of all UN officials into Israel – meaning no new visas – and order the departure of officials already in the country.

This approach has been implemented on a limited scale – the visa of the head of the UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) was not renewed and she left. However, her replacement – a Dutch politician with a history of hostility towards Israel – was admitted.

In addition, officials from the UN Human Rights Council were barred from entering after they led a series of blatantly biased “investigations” for the reports of the special rapporteur for Palestine.

With the hot war that fuels the waves of antisemitic attacks worldwide and the attempts to impose sanctions coming from Secretary General Guterres, the time has come for a total ban on all UN personnel seeking to enter Israel and the areas under Israeli control.

This will not change the UN’s automatic majority led by the 56-nation Islamic voting bloc and their allies, or end their control over appointments, budgets, and committees. It will also not lead to the dismantling of UNRWA, the removal of hate-filled antisemitic special rapporteurs, or the end of bogus “investigations.”

But for UN officials, a blanket prohibition from entering Israel poses a significant cost and creates a dangerous precedent. If for their own reasons, other countries follow by barring officials from specific agencies, the image (or myth) of an authoritative global framework encompassing all countries will be brought into question and begin to disintegrate.

UN agencies that operate from inside Israel (or in Gaza, which is now under IDF control) would be incapacitated and, as a result, could lose their large budgets, resulting in major staff reductions.

A clear Israeli policy move would also gain support from UN-skeptics in the US and some other countries and could lead to budget cuts and other actions to curtail the organization and its influence.

Although prohibiting the entry of all UN personnel until the policy changes fundamentally is a limited action, it sends an important message highlighting the absence of legitimacy. Given the stakes in this hot war being waged by the UN against Israel, the failure to take strong action could be very costly.

Sunday, June 09, 2024


The infographic above shows some of the drivers for people believing misinformation. we see a lot of that in the sheer amount of anti-Israel propaganda and bias in the news media, especially since October 7. 

One topic not often focused on, however, is the tendency of normal people to fill in information gaps with internally developed narratives that fit their biases.

During wartime especially, we only hear maybe 10% of what's really going on. We are all ignorant.  As the dramatic rescue operation on Saturday showed again, there is a lot happening  behind the scenes that we are not aware of. 

When we are given incomplete information, it is natural as humans to fill in the blanks with whatever stories seem to make the most sense to us. We have a hard time accepting that we don't understand something; we look for familiar patterns and attempt to fit the little we do know into a framework where we feel that we are on more solid ground. 

And that's where people reveal their biases, specifically, cognitive biases.

Imagine a video of a heated confrontation between a white person and a person of color in a mostly white neighborhood. Without audio or any other context, some people will assume the person of color was doing something that justifiably  upset the white person, others would assume the white person is a racist who is attacking the person of color for no reason and would not act the same way if the other person was white.  Bias will determine which of those scenarios people favor, and most people will subconsciously fill in the gaps to fit their biases as they watch the video, and cement those beliefs when watching it repeatedly, looking for hints like facial expressions and posture to justify their initial judgements.

During this war, we are seeing this play out every hour of every day. Modern antisemites invariably fill in the knowledge  gaps with lurid narratives of Israeli evil. They project their bias that Jews are bloodthirsty, malicious, liars, and uncaring about anyone but other Jews. Subconsciously or consciously they take fragmentary narratives and turn them into anti-Israel screeds. 

A great example is UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese's tweet yesterday soon after news of the hostage rescue raid in Gaza. 


She doesn't know how many civilians were killed, and how many militants were killed, but she believes the only source available at the time - the Hamas propaganda outlet the Gaza Media Office.

She believes the lie that the IDF soldiers were hiding in an "aid truck" when even the truck identified by Al Jazeera as an "aid trucK' had a logo for a dishwashing soap (and even 24 hours later it is not at all clear that this was the truck that was used, some Gazans claim it was a furniture truck.)

She believes that Israel had a choice of only two positions: give up all terrorists, thus legitimizing Hamas' kidnappings, or use the hostages as an excuse to wantonly attack Gaza civilians in a planned genocide. There is no other option. It is an oversimplification of reality that fits her biases perfectly. 

And she then concludes, based on her obvious ignorance, that the  rescue is a "genocidal action" and not really meant to rescue hostages. Not only that, but her antisemitic interpretation of incorrect, biased and fragmentary data is is "crystal clear."

Albanese is not stupid. But her bias against Jews prompts her to take a very incomplete view of a situation and fill in the gaps to fit her anti-Israel and antisemitic bias, of Jews who suffered genocide now maliciously engaging in genocide themselves. 

This is the pattern that nearly everyone uses: they look for evidence to back up their stories, and ignore anything that contradicts them.  But the important fact is that the stories precede the evidence, and the evidence is cherry-picked to support the story, not the other way around.

Israelis who have been in the IDF know how important it is as a basic  underlying principle to adhere to international law, to avoid harming civilians as much as possible. They are trained in the Laws of Armed Conflict more than 95% of journalists or human rights workers. They also know that LOAC doesn't mean sacrificing yourself or your fellow soldiers or your own civilians to save enemy civilians, that the lives of your own side take precedence when they are in danger. (Don't trust me, read the Geneva Conventions yourself. )

But too many in the media and NGOs and even other governments, who should definitely know better, make assumptions of Israeli malice that have no basis in reality. Whether the gaps in knowledge are a result the IDF not wanting to reveal its intel, or in their believing Hamas lies, or an unwillingness to look at how the IDF actually works (which is documented or those who care to know,) is not a as important as the fact that they choose to fill in the gaps with the worst possible interpretation and stories about Jews. 

Israel is objectively doing more to protect enemy civilians than any army in history ever has. (Feel free to find counterexamples. The US has gotten close in some limited operations.) Hamas has engineered the war to maximize its own side's civilian casualties because its main weapon is world pressure on Israel; dead civilians are the best way to achieve that. Hamas lies from the Al Ahli hospital to today are obvious and proven. 

Given all that, any assumption of Israeli malice or indifference towards Gaza civilians - and any assumption that Hamas cares one whit about Gaza lives or tells the truth in its accusations against Israel  - is not a reflection of reality but a projection of antisemitic attitudes onto the IDF and Israel as a whole. 

Of course, I have biases too. I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to Israel, with my own research into how the IDF works, my own knowledge of how Israelis really think from actually speaking to them and interviewing them, my knowledge about how large organizations like the IDF work and how difficult it is for emotions like "revenge" to be part of multi-layer decision-making with layers of legal oversight, and a history of hindsight that almost always shows that the Israelis did everything that could be expected of any moral army - and when they fell short, they worked hard to fix the mistakes. 

Sometimes I am wrong in my assumptions of giving the IDF the benefit of the doubt, but not very often.  

Anyone who looks at the Gaza rescue operation and sees only an anti-Israel narrative is not objective. But beyond that, none of us outside a few decision-makers know the extent of Israeli preparation, the amount of intelligence it had, the alternatives considered and debated, the amount of time available and other limitations, the chances that the hostages would be moved elsewhere during the preparations, the controls put into place to minimize civilian casualties, how many were actually killed and how many of them were legal combatants. These are all pieces of information that are necessary to evaluate the morality of the operation, and almost no one knows it all.  Creating an anti-Israel story based on a tiny percentage of facts available is not analysis - it is propaganda.




Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Monday, April 08, 2024

From Ian:

In Six Months, Everything Has Changed for Israel
On Oct. 6, Israel appeared on the cusp of a new era of recognition from the Muslim world, close to a peace deal with Saudi Arabia that would move it to the center of a realigned Middle East after years on its fringes. The historic conflict with the Palestinians that had defined its existence for most of its 75-year history appeared to have finally receded into the background.

It all changed on Oct. 7.

Today, after a bloody attack that might have brought it the world’s sympathy, Israel is closer to being a global pariah than ever before. Its Saudi peace deal is on hold. The Palestinian question is again roiling its Arab neighbors. It is in open argument with its main ally, the U.S. And its physical living space has been shrunk by dangers on its northern and southern borders.

In six months, the world has turned upside down for this small nation. On Oct. 7—or Black Sabbath, as Israelis now call it—the Jewish state experienced a fundamental shock that upended its sense of security and belief in the strength of its military. It responded with a heavy-handed invasion of Gaza that in much of the world’s eyes left it the aggressor and its attackers the victims. The resulting isolation could be more of a threat to its future than the attack by Hamas that killed 1,200 people on Oct. 7. “Israel’s longevity is in question for the first time since its birth,” said Benny Morris, an Israeli historian. The only time Israel faced a similar existential threat, he said, was in its war for independence in 1948, when it battled five Arab countries and local Palestinian militias.

The outpouring of global sympathy on display after the worst attack on Jews since the Holocaust has dwindled, having been replaced by images of starving and dead Palestinians in Gaza. Images projected across the world show swaths of the Gaza Strip turned into rubble. More than 33,000 Palestinians have been killed, according to Palestinian health authorities, whose numbers don’t distinguish between combatants and civilians.

This week, the killing of seven aid workers trying to feed desperate Gazans appears to have punctured the notion for much of the world that the Israeli military isn’t running amok in Gaza and has caused a rethink by the U.S. about its support for Israel.

Normalization with Saudi Arabia is on hold, while ties with Arab allies such as Egypt and Jordan have frayed. Pro-Palestinian protesters have thronged the streets of Western capitals, at times calling for Israel’s demise. A surge in antisemitism has shocked and alarmed not only Israelis but Jews across the globe. It is all strengthening a feeling inside Israel that the country can only rely on itself.

Israel faces a dilemma where it wants to be loved by the West, but needs to be feared by its enemies in the Middle East to ensure its long-term existence, said Micah Goodman, an Israeli author and philosopher.

“That’s the catch-22 we’re in,” he said.
Melanie Phillips: The Right Dishonourable Foreign Secretary
Is Britain’s Foreign Secretary unaware that Israel has again agreed terms for a ceasefire that Hamas has again rejected? Can he really not understand that the only conditions under which Hamas would release the hostages would be Israel’s total surrender and the release of all its Hamas prisoners?

Does he really fail to grasp that the hostages with whom Yahya Sinwar has reportedly surrounded himself are the Hamas leader’s ultimate bargaining counter to protect his life, and so he will never voluntarily give them up? Is Cameron really so badly informed that he thinks a man like Sinwar would choose to go into exile rather than die the “martyr’s” death he craves if he is defeated, taking the hostages with him? Does he really imagine that the unconscionable threat posed by the psychopathic, religious fanatics of Hamas and its equally fanatical patron, Iran, can be solved by political means?

Surely Cameron, with his first-class degree from Oxford and reputedly stellar intellect, cannot possibly be so stupid and ignorant as to think like this? But the only alternative to that is that he is driven by profound malice towards Israel. And Cameron is an honourable man.

Then comes the article’s zinger. For it turns out that Cameron is indeed well aware that Hamas has refused a deal that releases the remaining hostages. So he says:
We all want to see an end to the fighting, but we must face up to the difficult question: what should we do if Hamas refuses a deal and if the conflict continues?

What indeed. And then he comes up with this astonishing answer:
We cannot stand by with our head in our hands, wishing for an end to the fighting that may well not come — and that means ensuring the protection of people in all of Gaza including Rafah.

As an occupying power, Israel has a responsibility to the people of Gaza. But it also means that the international community must work with Israel on humanitarian efforts to keep people safe and provide them with what they need.

Ordinary civilians must be safe and able to access food, water and medical care. We need the UN, with the support of the international community, to work with Israel to make practical, deliverable plans to achieve this in Rafah and across Gaza.


He doesn’t want a solution that ensures the protection of all the people of Israel. He want instead a solution to protect all the people of Gaza — while Israel, the victim of the monster born from the people of Gaza, has to produce it. The absolute and overriding requirement to protect Israel against further genocidal attack from Gaza is nowhere in Cameron's vision. His only gesture is a meaningless bromide about wanting
the people of Israel and the people of Gaza to be able to live their lives in peace and security.

Yes, Gaza’s civilians should be protected as far as possible from the war — but this cannot take precedence over the requirement to stop Hamas once and for all. It is Israel that is threatened with being wiped out, not the people of Gaza. They are the unfortunate casualties of the Hamas strategy to maximise the numbers who die in order to turn the west against Israel — an infernal manipulation of gullible westerners that has worked to the letter — plus the refusal by Egypt to open its border to the Gazan refugees, and indeed the refusal by every other Muslim state to allow any of them in.

Moreover, the majority of Gazans voted for Hamas, still support Hamas, and exulted over the October 7 pogrom. Untold numbers of “ordinary” Gazans took part in that pogrom, murdered Israelis, took them hostage and are currently keeping some of them locked up in their homes where they are reportedly using them as slaves. And the vast majority of Gazans, when asked, say they support the further killing of Jews and the destruction of Israel.

These are the people whose welfare Cameron is more concerned to protect than the lives of the Israelis who would continue to be subjected to genocidal attack if he had his way.

This is presumably what he means by Britain aiming to “exercise leadership in the region and at the United Nations”.

For Cameron is an honourable man.
Kurt Schlichter: Israel Is Risking Losing This War by Caring What People Who Hate It Think
Israel is risking losing this war because it is focusing more on avoiding criticism from its enemies than winning. I blame Benjamin Netanyahu in large part, but also our incompetent and loathsome alleged president. Now, I’m not one of those reflexive Bibi haters, and while I certainly don’t think the United States should have a say in who Israel chooses to lead it, I do believe in accountability. The disaster of October 7 happened on his watch, and he should’ve resigned the day after, but that’s not up to me or up to any American. What is up to me as an American is who our president will be next year, and it can’t be Biden again. But the desiccated old zombie aside, Bibi needs to go. He screwed up on October 7, and now he appears to be screwing up this war.

The problem is not that Netanyahu has been too harsh, as our idiot president claims. It’s that Netanyahu has been too gentle (Yes, I understand a war cabinet is leading Israel, but he is still the face of it.). And too slow. Joe Biden has betrayed every ally America has had, from South Vietnam to Afghanistan and Bibi somehow imagined that creep would not sell-out Israel? Speed was of the essence. Why was Rafah not glass months ago? Netanyahu waited, and that gave Biden the time to sell out Israel.

Restraining was a mistake. The fact is that Israel has, to a far too great extent, tried to fight this war on terms that would satisfy its leftist enemies in the United States and other anti-Semites around the world. That was an error from the beginning. Israel’s strategy should have focused on victory, not on trying to mollify its critics. They will cry no matter what. Let them cry over defeated terrorists. Do you know what mollifies critics most effectively? Winning. Israel should’ve done that, and fast. But it didn’t. Despite the courage and skill of the IDF, who are a credit to their great nation, Israel’s leadership chose to fight this war and is still fighting this war in a manner that allows others who do not have Israel’s best interest at heart to dictate its strategic and tactical prerogatives. That is a grave error. That is putting Israel in danger.

Israel has three main related strategic military objectives at the moment. First, Israel needs to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Second, Israel must eliminate Hezbollah on its northern border. This Jihadi militia is dug in inside Lebanon with enough Iranian-supplied rockets to devastate Israel’s infrastructure, as well as having the ability to launch October 7-style attacks. And third, Israel must destroy Hamas in Gaza. A surviving Hamas can launch more October 7-style attacks and has promised to do so if able.

Wednesday, April 03, 2024



UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese tweeted:
Knowing how Israel operates, my assessment is that Israeli forces intentionally killed #WCK workers so that donors would pull out & civilians in Gaza could continue to be starved quietly.Israel knows Western countries & most Arab countries won't move a finger for the Palestinians.  
Who needs an investigation? we have an expert who knows what happened without any pesky things like proof!

This is a blood libel being proudly published by a supposed defender of human rights.

Albanese, with her amazing mind-reading abilities, "knows how Israel operates." It murders aid workers in order to be able to indirectly murder two million Palestinians. 

For reasons known only to her and other antisemitic conspiracy theorists, Israel spends a lot of time and money  pretending to only target Hamas when it really wants to kill every Gazan and probably every Palestinian. It has struck more targets in Gaza than the number of people killed but that must be just to make Jews look less bloodthirsty they really are. 

And the conspiracy to hide Israeli atrocities runs very deep. Look how hard they try to hide their determination to stop all humanitarian aid:
243 humanitarian aid trucks were inspected and transferred to the Gaza Strip yesterday (Apr. 1). 162 trucks were distributed within the Gaza Strip by UN aid agencies. 
216 packages with hundreds and thousands of meals were airdropped over northern Gaza yesterday (Apr. 1).
13 trucks carrying food aid were transferred directly to northern Gaza. So far, 60 food trucks were transferred directly to northern Gaza via a designated delivery route. 
Yesterday, (Apr. 1) 4 tankers of cooking gas and 3 tankers of fuel designated for the operation of essential infrastructure in Gaza, have entered the Gaza Strip.
A delegation of 22 doctors by the Rahma organization entered the Gaza Strip yesterday (Apr. 1). 
All of this humanitarianism is meant to hide Israel's efforts to perform genocide against Palestinians! 

People like Albanese know the truth: when Israel kills civilians, it is deliberate murder. When Israel helps civilians, it is to hide their intent to murder civilians. When Israel goes to great lengths to target militants, it is to hide the fact that they really want to kill civilians. 

Everything Israel does is evil and Francesca Albanese has the brilliant mind that can figure out how. 

There is absolutely no difference between how Albanese judges Israel and how neo-Nazis look at Jews. Everything they do is immoral and with the intention to subjugate the goyim. All evidence to the contrary is either twisted to be evidence supporting the conspiracy theories, or quietly ignored. 

When will the world wake up to the fact that antisemites from the Left are just as reprehensible and bigoted as those from the Right? 



Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Monday, March 25, 2024

From Ian:

David Brooks: What Would You Have Israel Do to Defend Itself?
If the current Israeli military approach is inhumane, what's the alternative? Is there a better military strategy Israel can use to defeat Hamas without a civilian blood bath? In recent weeks, I've been talking with security and urban warfare experts in search of such ideas.

This war is like few others because the crucial theater is underground. The tunnel network is where Hamas lives, holds hostages, stores weapons, builds missiles and moves from place to place. Building these tunnels cost the Gazan people about a billion dollars. Hamas built many of its most important military and strategic facilities under hospitals and schools. Its server farm was built under the offices of the UN relief agency in Gaza City.

As Barry Posen, professor at the security studies program at MIT, has written, Hamas' strategy is to maximize the number of Palestinians who die and in that way build international pressure until Israel is forced to end the war before Hamas is wiped out. Hamas' survival depends on support in the court of international opinion and on making this war as bloody as possible for civilians, until Israel relents.

John Spencer, the chair of urban warfare studies at the Modern War Institute at West Point, told me that Israel has done far more to protect civilians than the U.S. did in Afghanistan and Iraq. Israel's measures to warn civilians when and where it is about to begin operations "have prolonged the war, to be honest."

As the leaders of Hamas watch Washington grow more critical of Jerusalem, they must know their strategy is working. Yet if this war ends with a large chunk of Hamas in place, it would be a long-term disaster for the region. Victorious, Hamas would dominate whatever government was formed to govern Gaza. Hamas would rebuild its military to continue its efforts to exterminate the Jewish state, delivering on its promise to launch more and more attacks like that of Oct. 7.

Moreover, if Hamas survives this war intact, it would be harder for the global community to invest in rebuilding Gaza. It would be impossible to begin a peace process. So I'm left with the tragic conclusion that there is no magical alternative military strategy.

The lack of viable alternatives leaves me to conclude that Israel must ultimately confront Hamas leaders and forces in Rafah rather than leave it as a Hamas beachhead. Absent some new alternative strategy, Biden is wrong to stop Israel from confronting the Hamas threat in southern Gaza.
Biden and Harris throw Israel under the Gaza bus
President Joe Biden has prioritised a ceasefire over and above the safe return of the 134 hostages — including five Americans — held by Hamas.

The implication of this is that the Israeli military should lay down their guns and let Hamas continue torturing and raping the hostages who will be left with no hope of rescue.

Of course, he didn’t announce this shift in policy from the Oval Office. It was slipped out in the text of last week’s US resolution at the UN that was designed to fail, but also to telegraph his callous change in position.

A month ago the US floated a draft resolution that gave equal importance to a ceasefire and release of hostages, tying the two together tightly.

Biden dropped that direct link in the final resolution last week. It stated that a ceasefire is imperative for the protection of civilians. But merely expressed support for diplomacy “to secure such a ceasefire in connection with the release of all remaining hostages.”

There we have it. Biden has again, as in Afghanistan, given up on Americans and America’s allies.

The resolution was vetoed by Russia and China, as the US knew it would be, but its insidious message was received loud and clear.

By forcing a ceasefire, Biden will allow Hamas to claim victory and force Israel to remove its boot from the neck of the terror group, the only thing pressuring them to release the hostages. Without it, all hope for their safe return is surely lost.

Even talk of a ceasefire may embolden Hamas to hang on and reject a hostage deal, anticipating that the US will eventually force Israel to stop its military campaign.
Jake Wallis Simons: Feeble Britain is now letting Hamas win the propaganda war
We have entered a topsy-turvy universe. International institutions are used as weapons of Hamas, while those fighting for freedom and democracy are smeared as the agents of genocide.

British Foreign Secretary David Cameron has vowed to halt arms sales if Israel attacked Rafah. Given their small amount, it is hard to see what this is supposed to achieve.

But showing that you care about the Palestinians is apparently more important than destroying jihadism.

While Israel has achieved a civilian-to-combatant casualty ratio that is likely lower than in any comparable theater of war, Hamas has convinced the world that it is acting out of wanton bloodlust.

In the broadcast media, footage of suffering civilians is ubiquitous, but have you ever seen a picture of the thousands of dead or wounded terrorists?

Hamas censors this material. No Western media outlet makes this clear to its viewers.

This is a deceit that turns public opinion against Israel, furthering the aims of Hamas.

In a sane universe, the democratic world would pull behind Israel until the war is won. It would express its differences behind closed doors, working together to limit civilian casualties while freeing the hostages and beating the jihadis.

This would reassure Saudi Arabia that the West stands by its friends, encouraging it to normalize relations with Israel.

Instead, the international community is mobilizing to block an Israeli victory, and at the same time it is blocking peace.

Deep underground, the leaders of Hamas must be licking their lips.

Wednesday, February 21, 2024

From Ian:

Hamas’s ‘sadistic sex crimes’ on October 7 revealed in new report
The systematic nature of the “sadistic sex crimes” committed during the Hamas-led invasion of Israel on Oct. 7 has been revealed for the first time, in a report published by the Association of Rape Crisis Centers in Israel.

Furthermore, the document has been translated into English and sent to decision-makers in the United Nations to leave “no room for denial or disregard.”

The report, authored by Dr. Carmit Keller-Halamish and Nega Berger, analyses public and confidential testimonies about the sexual violence, eyewitness accounts and interviews with victims and first responders.

“The terrorist organization Hamas has chosen to injure the State of Israel with two clear strategies—taking civilians captive, and sadistic sex crimes,” said Orit Soliciano, CEO of the Association of Rape Crisis Centers.

“It is no longer possible to remain silent—we expect the international organizations to take a clear position, it is impossible to stand on the sidelines. Standing on the other side will be remembered as a historic stain on all those who chose to remain silent and deny the sexual crimes committed by Hamas,” Soliciano added.

The first official report on the sexual element of the atrocities highlights the systematic and deliberate manner in which the sexual violence took place. Over a thousand people were murdered, thousands more wounded and 253 kidnapped during the Hamas-led attack.

According to the report, sexual violence took place everywhere the terrorists invaded, including at the Supernova music festival, kibbutzim, cities, towns and IDF bases. The hostages in Gaza continue to be victimised.

Examples of the sexual crimes committed include violent acts of rape, with weapons pointed at the victims, in some cases aimed at wounded women. Many mass rapes occurred. Often, the rapes were intentionally committed in front of husbands, partners and family members to maximize the pain and helplessness felt and increase the terror.

Hamas terrorists carried out a hunting expedition to catch young men and women who attempted to escape the carnage at the music festival, dragging them by the hair screaming. The sexual violence targeted men, women and girls and included binding their bodies, mutilating genitals and the bodies of both males and females with knives and in some cases inserting weapons inside the genitals.

In most cases, the victims were executed either during the rape or after.
'Many victims' bodies found mutilated and bound, some discovered deliberately booby-trapped'
The report presents several testimonies from massacre survivors who witnessed incidents of gang rape, where women were passed between terrorists who beat, injured, and ultimately murdered them.

Testimonies from first responders and corpse-handling personnel in southern kibbutzim and communities indicate that many homes showed signs of rapes committed close to the time of murder, with a significant number of these incidents occurring in the presence or vicinity of family members.

“Many cases involve heinous attacks on women and girls, including a case of hiding a knife in a genital organ,” the report reads. “Additional information was received by the ARCCI but cannot be disclosed due to privacy concerns.”

The report includes several testimonies, among them that of Noam Mark, a member of the alert squad at Kibbutz Re'im, who found the bodies of three young women from the nova rave in one of the kibbutz homes. The bodies were found naked, with clear signs of severe sexual violence.

According to the report, these violations also occurred at IDF bases. Bodies of female soldiers that arrived at Camp Shura for forensic identification bore unmistakable signs of sexual violence.

“Information regarding sexual assaults in captivity has been published following the testimonies of those who returned from captivity. These testimonies include various cases, including those of captives who are still alive.”

The report indicates that sexual crimes were systematically and deliberately committed during and after the October 7 terror attack, characterized by multiple assailants, assaults in front of family members, executions and accompanied by unique sadistic practices.

"The brutal practices used on October 7, such as genital mutilation of girls, women, and men, shooting, and weapon insertion, were designed to destroy and inflict sadistic terror,” the report authors stated.

According to the authors, the manner in which the assaults were carried out and the actions that accompanied them were intended to maximize the impact on the victims and their communities, which were unable to prevent the attacks.

“As the scars in our hearts refuse to heal, and the souls of our sisters and brothers cry out to us from the depths of the earth, a significant portion of those we considered partners responded in silence and denial of these horrors. We call on you to raise your voices and not allow the cries of these victims to fade away,” they say.

This report, the first official study since October 7, aggregates testimonies and provides conclusions, demonstrating that the incidents were not anomalies or isolated occurrences but rather part of a deliberate and systematic strategy of extremely cruel sexual abuse, establishing an initial evidentiary basis for the widespread perpetration of sexual crimes. "The report, submitted to decision-makers at the UN, leaves no room for denial or disregard,” said Orit Sulitzeanu, CEO of the Association of Rape Crisis Centers in Israel.

“The terrorist organization Hamas chose to harm Israel strategically in two clear ways – kidnapping citizens and committing sadistic sexual crimes. Silence is no longer an option. We expect international organizations to take a clear stance; we cannot stand on the sidelines. Silence will be remembered as a historical stain on those who chose to remain silent and deny the sexual crimes committed by Hamas.”


Families were reportedly coerced by Hamas to witness the rapes of victims on October 7th
Orit Sulitzeanu, Executive Director, The Association of Rape Crisis Centers in Israel, and Miriam Schler, Executive Director, The Tel Aviv Crisis Center for Sexual Assault discuss


Hamas reportedly forced families to witness rapes of October 7 victims
Miriam Schler, executive director of the Tel Aviv Crisis Center for Sexual Assault, breaks down the harrowing report that describes terrorists forcing Israelis to watch as they raped and killed their family members and neighbors.

Monday, February 12, 2024



Last week, France's president Emmanuel Macron stated that the October 7 massacre was “the largest anti-Semitic massacre of our century.” 

Who could possibly argue with that? Hamas is unapologetically antisemitic. Its (still current)  founding charter includes phrases like 
"Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious"  
and
"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslim fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him"   
and
"We should not forget to remind every Muslim that when the Jews conquered the Holy City in 1967, they stood on the threshold of the Aqsa Mosque and proclaimed that 'Mohammed is dead, and his descendants are all women.'"
Hamas officials, in Arabic, are not shy about their antisemitism

But UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese knows more about Hamas than Hamas does. She responded to Macron's statements with not only a denial that the October 7 pogrom murdering men, women and children was targeting Jews, but she even justified it as an attack against Israeli "oppression."
The 'greatest anti-Semitic massacre of our century'? No, Mr. @EmmanuelMacron . The victims of 7/10 were not killed because of their Judaism, but in response to Israel's oppression. France & the international community did nothing to prevent it. My respects to the victims.
With every other form of bigotry, the global Left does everything they can to maximize the definition of the terms to assume that every action is motivated by the hate by the "oppressor." The entire "genocide" accusation of Israel  - which Albanese asserts is "likely"- is meant to paint all Israeli Jews as bigots against the Palestinian people as a whole, without even considering any other interpretation of events that contradict the thesis of innate hate. 

But when a terrorist group attacks thousands of Jews, suddenly the definition of bigotry shrinks down to nothing. We cannot possibly read their minds, even though their own words explicitly prove their hate of Jews. And even if some of them are antisemitic, that has nothing to do with them attacking Jewish communities and Jewish people. 

The President of the State of Israel is accused of hating all Palestinians, but bloodthirsty terrorists who brag about murdering Jews are given the benefit of the (nonexistent) doubt that their motives were pure.

When Jews are defending themselves, they are really trying to wipe out a people. When Jews are the victims, the attacks are justified and noble.

No fair minded person can interpret this hypocrisy as anything but pure antisemitism. 








Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 


Friday, January 26, 2024

In the New York Times, an associate professor from The New School named Sean Jacobs gushes over the morality of his native South Africa charging Israel with "genocide" at the ICJ:

On the eve of the hearing, a friend messaged me from Cape Town: “It feels a little bit like Christmas Eve or something here. Or the night before a big final.” Because of the time difference, I watched a recorded version once I got to my office on Jan. 11, the first of two days of hearings. By then, Francesca Albanese, the U.N. special rapporteur on Palestine, had already sent a message on X that “watching African women & men fighting to save humanity” from the “ruthless attacks supported/enabled by most of the West will remain one of the defining images of our time. This will make history whatever happens.”

As a Black South African who grew up during the nation’s liberation struggle and came of age watching the birth of South African democracy, for me, Albanese’s words resonated.

[By] forcing the International Court of Justice to act, South Africa is putting down a marker for global civil society. South Africa stepped up. It showed what we could be and how groups that have faced oppression and violence can stand up confidently for one another on the world stage. 
So moral! So righteous!

And so silent on Arabs deliberately murdering many black Africans on the same continent, in the same place that there has been a real genocide two decades ago!

As summarized in Just Security last month:
Less than 20 years after the Darfur genocide unfolded, history is repeating itself. The current conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a paramilitary group established by Sudan’s deposed president Omar al-Bashir, has already claimed the lives of more than 12,000 and displaced more than six million people since it broke out in April.

This is all happening against the backdrop of one of the world’s largest, most pressing humanitarian disasters. According to the U.N. Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), approximately 25 million Sudanese people, or half the country, are in dire need of humanitarian assistance. In Darfur, hundreds of miles away from Khartoum, the indigenous non-Arab ethnic groups are even more vulnerable, living under the reign of RSF terror and genocidal violence. The RSF has left a trail of mass atrocities in its wake with near impunity, reminiscent of the same brutal tactics used by the Janjaweed in the 2000s. Today, the RSF, as the Janjaweed’s successor entity, is committing the same atrocities and targeting the same indigenous groups on the international community’s watch. During the Janjaweed atrocities of the 2000s, policymakers not only failed to act in time to prevent genocide but even downplayed the nature of the violence to preserve other political interests. This time, there can be no debate over the magnitude of the horrors facing non-Arab ethnic groups at the hands of the RSF, or excuse for the repetition of our collective failure to uphold the promise of never again.
The Economist describes how the Arab RSF is murdering all the men they can find, shooting babies and raping women:
Hanan Khamis just wanted to get to safety. In mid-June, after surviving weeks of gunfire and rockets directed at the Masalit, a black African ethnic group, she fled el-Geneina, the capital of the state of West Darfur in Sudan. Hoisting her 23-month-old baby boy, Sabir, onto her back she started walking towards Chad. Yet fighters wearing the uniforms of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) soon surrounded them. They dragged men to the side of the road and told the women to run. Before she could do so, a gunman wrenched open the shawl on her back that covered Sabir. “No men can escape to Chad,” he shouted. Then he shot her baby in the head.

In Chad a humanitarian worker identifies four other mothers who tell of similar horrors. One says she was stopped at a roadblock where Arab militiamen murdered the men in her group. When they saw her 15-month-old son strapped to her, they shot him dead as he clung to her. The bullet burst through his tiny body and into hers, where it remains lodged. “If that isn’t a genocidal act, I don’t know what is,” says Mukesh Kapila, a former un chief in Sudan who blew the whistle on massacres in Darfur 20 years ago.

Zahara Adam Khamis, a women’s rights activist, weeps as she recounts how a 27-year-old university student she knows was gang-raped by five militiamen in front of her mother. ”The baby will be Arab,” they said as they finished.

In November, CNN aired this searing report showing videos of atrocities by the Arab gangs against Black African tribes:


Sean Jacobs founded a website called Africa Is A Country. But he hasn't written or tweeted a word about Darfur or Sudan over the past year. And he has tweeted obsessively about Israel, dozens of times, i the same timeframe.

And the government of South Africa has been curiously silent about the targeting and murder of Black Africans much closer than Gaza. The only statement they made was out the outset of the war, expressing concern - but the words "Masalit" and "RSF" or "Darfur" are not to be found in any of their official statements. 

Using the ICJ case as proof of South Africa's concern over human rights is absurd, when that country doesn't defend Black Africans being systematically murdered on its own continent. The South African case against Israel while ignoring actual attacks against its fellow Africans in truth indicates antisemitism, not human rights. 

Not surprisingly, in its bio of Jacobs, the New York Times edited a book titled "Apartheid Israel." The New York Times didn't mention that he has a vested interest in this topic.

And if you want one more example of the world's hypocrisy, in 2009, the UN said that what happened in Darfur was not genocide, saying, "the crucial element of genocidal intent appears to be missing, at least as far as the central government authorities are concerned."




Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Friday, December 08, 2023

By Daled Amos


A new book, A Brief and Visual History of Antisemitism, was published last year. The over 500 pages of text are thorough and filled with photos, illustrations, cartoons, and maps. It is designed in a way that makes it easy to find information.

Like debunking antisemitic and anti-Israel myths.


Chapter Eight deals with The Current Landscape, and includes a section on Debunking the Myths. One of those myths is very prevalent now and is being used as an excuse by the terrorist apologists who defend the Hamas massacre --

Claim: "Terrorism (an indiscriminate attack on innocent civilians) is a legitimate response to Israel's [insert excuse here]"



Israel Bitton, the author of A Brief and Visual History of Antisemitism and executive director of Americans Against Antisemitism, points out:

Intifada, jihad, "resistance" Khaybar, "from the river to the sea," and "free Palestine," are all euphemisms for the erasure of Israel and the annihilation of the Jewish state, including the Jews within. [p. 516]

He exposes the excuses.

The following is based on what he writes.

Unlike the apologists, Hamas leaders emerge from behind the euphemisms when making their case. In 2006, Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal candidly said, "Our enemies don't understand that a suicide operation is a natural right." On October 7, we saw just how far Hamas goes in its pursuit of these "natural rights" -- and how far their allies are willing to go to defend and excuse those attacks.

But back in 2003, Olara A. Otunnu, undersecretary-general and UN Special Representative for Children in Armed Conflict said in a statement before the Security Council: "The use of suicide bombing is entirely unacceptable. Nothing can justify this."

And to prove the point, all you have to do is look at international law -- not read the self-serving statements by Francesca Albanese, but read the actual documents. Bitton points out:

Revenge isn't a right granted per international law, nor is it tolerated and justified in any human society, so murdering innocent people can never be equated with legitimately "resisting" oppression. [p. 517]

He supports that by quoting what international humanitarian law actually says as explained by the International Red Cross:

There is no "right of resistance."

Contrary to what we are seeing presented as international humanitarian law, "by all means necessary" is an anti-Israel agenda dressed up as international law.

Protocol I, Article 51 clearly states, "Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited."

The first two examples are:

(a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective;
(b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective;

The Geneva Convention recognizes the difference between deliberately targeting civilians and targeting terrorists who exploit civilians as human shields.

This touches on another point that is particularly relevant in light of the intimidation, vandalism, and attacks on Jews and Jewish establishments by Hamas apologists and supporters. According to Article 33 of the Geneva Convention:

No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed.
Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.

Pillage is prohibited.

Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.

Bitton suggests a novel angle:

That means that Palestinian calls to violence, such as "globalize the intifada," which render all Jews around the world legitimate targets of reprisal are an incitement to war crimes and ought to be treated as such. [p. 518; emphasis added]

Today, these public calls for the collective punishment of Jews around the world are not only being made by Palestinian terrorists -- their apologists make these calls during their "protests" -- protests that often deteriorate into riots and attacks on both Jews and their property.

A Brief History, published a year ago, describes examples of war crimes we actually witnessed on October 7:

Taking Israelis (and Jews) hostage is a war crime and one with which Israel is, sadly, too experienced. Mutilating corpses is a war crime, but it's also the height of depravity and the essence of a crime against one's humanity to which Israelis have been repeated subjected. Finally, Hamas, for the most part, doesn't use willing human shields for protection but has been shown to force residents of Gaza to remain in their places even after Israel calls in advance for civilians to evacuate--to those who dare flee, Hamas eventually catches up. [p. 519]

The book explains further on the context of the Geneva Conventions and international law:

o International law is not written with the intent that it can be suspended when committing war crimes is the only option for reaching a political end

o The fact that Hamas is limited to rockets that can only be fired in the direction of population centers in Israel and that Israel has the Iron Dome does not justify Palestinian terrorism

o The fact that more Palestinian Arabs are killed in response to its terrorist attacks reveals nothing about the circumstances under which those deaths occurred. [p. 521]
The "experts" on international law, both individuals and organizations, seem to either be ignorant of the facts or use their positions to pursue their agenda instead of pursuing the facts.

Yet, sometimes the truth manages to stick its head out, even if only temporarily. In 2002, Amnesty International published its report: Without Distinction – Attacks on Civilians by Palestinian Armed Groups. While the report, true to form, accuses Israel of various violations, it also condemned Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians and made clear those attacks had no basis under international law:

o "The attacks against civilians by Palestinian armed groups are widespread, systematic and in pursuit of an explicit policy to attack civilians. They therefore constitute crimes against humanity under international law."

o "Amnesty International condemns unreservedly direct attacks on civilians as well as indiscriminate attacks, whatever the cause for which the perpetrators are fighting, whatever justification they give for their actions."

o "Targeting civilians and being reckless as to their fate are contrary to fundamental principles of humanity which should apply in all circumstances at all times."

This was during the Second Intifada.

But these days, twenty years later, there is an attempt to legitimize October's Hamas massacre, whitewash the rapes and kidnappings, and push for a ceasefire that will enable Hamas to survive and terrorize another day -- which is exactly what they have sworn to do.

International humanitarian law is easily misunderstood and distorted by the mobs blindly chanting slogans that hide their ignorance of the Middle East. The reality is very different.

Terrorism is not resistance





Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Tuesday, November 21, 2023

By Daled Amos

Last year, I wrote about Francesca Albanese, who bears the weighty title "UN Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Palestinian Territory Occupied Since 1967." In that article, I focused on her declaration of objectivity and impartiality. I contrasted that with her accusations about the influence of the "Jewish Lobby," in addition to other issues that called her moral authority and credibility into question. 

Those questions are still pertinent today, following the Hamas Massacre and Israel's retaliation. Back in 2014, Albanese made her feelings about Hamas clear:


Last year, she made clear that applying the "resistance" label sanitized whatever Palestinian terrorists did:
As Hillel Neuer pointed out at the time, since the Palestinian call for "resistance" is a call for violence, this UN human rights expert was deliberately inciting violence.

Let's take a look at this human rights and international law expert in action.

On November 15, The Project interviewed Francesca Albanese and asked her what would have been the right and legal way for Israel to have responded to the Hamas massacre of 1,400 men, women, and children and the kidnapping of 240 others.


Here is the transcript:
Interviewer: So, Israel was always going to respond to the attacks of October 7. In your view, what would the correct response have looked like?

Albanese: The response was to be given in terms of law enforcement because Gaza is occupied, and it's under belligerent occupation. So Israel has powers to enforce the law and to pursue all security measures that are deemed necessary, considering that this is occupied territory. It could have relied on the United Nations to demilitarize Hamas, if this was the target. Instead, he does wage the war claiming the right of self-defense under Article 51, which is the right to wage a war, the right to use military force against another state. But again, we are talking of the people that Israel occupies and it has occupied for 56 years now.
Albanese is making 3 basic claims:
Israel should have responded to the Hamas terrorist attack by sending in the police
o  Gaza is under belligerent occupation by Israel and is not allowed to reply militarily
o  Israel could have relied on the UN to demilitarize Hamas
Let's take the second claim first.

Is Gaza Really Occupied?

There are certainly people who believe that. There are experts in international law who claim it too. But that is not a unanimous opinion. Take for example the European Court of Human Rights.

The European Court of Human Rights is an international court established by the European Convention on Human Rights, an international treaty that defends human rights. In 2015, the court made a decision relating to the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan and it touched on the issue of what constitutes "occupation."
94. Article 42 of the Regulations annexed to Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907 (“the 1907 Hague Regulations”) defines belligerent occupation as follows.
Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.

The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.”
Accordingly, occupation within the meaning of the 1907 Hague Regulations exists when a State exercises actual authority over the territory, or part of the territory, of an enemy State. The requirement of actual authority is widely considered to be synonymous to that of effective control.

Military occupation is considered to exist in a territory, or part of a territory, if the following elements can be demonstrated: the presence of foreign troops, which are in a position to exercise effective control without the consent of the sovereign. According to widespread expert opinion physical presence of foreign troops is a sine qua non requirement of occupation, that is, occupation is not conceivable without “boots on the ground”, therefore forces exercising naval or air control through a naval or air blockade do not suffice. [emphasis added]

According to the European Court of Human Rights, occupation requires the actual, physical presence of foreign troops, i.e. boots on the ground. A blockade does not qualify as the kind of control required to constitute occupation.

Once Israel withdrew from Gaza, there was no occupation.

Of course, there are still those who insist that Gaza is occupied, and the decision by the European Court has obviously not settled the issue. However, international law is determined in part by treaties and by precedence, and this decision is a strong a valid basis for saying that Gaza is not occupied. 

Albanese is of course free to stand before the media and declare her opinion that Gaza is occupied, but to claim her opinion as if the issue is one-sided and to ignore the validity of the other side, is less than honest.

She does in fact take to Twitter to support her view, quoting a decision by the International Court of Justice:


Some problems with the ICJ decision:
This opinion of the ICJ was an advisory opinion. While it may carry some legal weight, the opinion is not binding
o  The court was not asked for an opinion on occupation. Instead, the issue was the security barrier.
o  Not only was the court not asked to offer an opinion on occupation, the question itself to the court presupposed the existence of occupation:
“What are the legal consequences arising from the construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, as described in the report of the Secretary-General, considering the rules and principles of international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions?”
The court did not make a legal decision about occupation, it merely parroted back the language of the question it was asked.
Also, note that parts of the ICJ's conclusion are disputed by one of the judges, Judge Buergenthal. While he was in the minority, Buergenthal's critique of the ICJ's decision is instructive:
5. Whether Israel’s right of self‑defence is in play in the instant case depends, in my opinion, on an examination of the nature and scope of the deadly terrorist attacks to which Israel proper is being subjected from across the Green Line and the extent to which the construction of the wall, in whole or in part, is a necessary and proportionate response to these attacks. As a matter of law, it is not inconceivable to me that some segments of the wall being constructed on Palestinian territory meet that test and that others do not. But to reach a conclusion either way, one has to examine the facts bearing on that issue with regard to the specific segments of the wall, their defensive needs and related topographical considerations.
Since these facts are not before the Court, it is compelled to adopt the to me legally dubious conclusion that the right of legitimate or inherent self‑defence is not applicable in the present case. The Court puts the matter as follows:
“Article 51 of the Charter . . . recognizes the existence of an inherent right of self‑defence in the case of armed attack by one State against another State. However, Israel does not claim that the attacks against it are imputable to a foreign State."
The Court also notes that Israel exercises control in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and that, as Israel itself states, the threat which it regards as justifying the construction of the wall originates within, and not outside, that territory. The situation is thus different from that contemplated by Security Council resolutions 1368 (2001) and 1373 (2001), and therefore Israel could not in any event invoke those resolutions in support of its claim to be exercising a right of self‑defence.

Consequently, the Court concludes that Article 51 of the Charter has no relevance in this case.” (Para. 139.)
6. There are two principal problems with this conclusion. The first is that the United Nations Charter, in affirming the inherent right of self‑defence, does not make its exercise dependent upon an armed attack by another State, leaving aside for the moment the question whether Palestine, for purposes of this case, should not be and is not in fact being assimilated by the Court to a State. Article 51 of the Charter provides that “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self‑defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations . . .” Moreover, in the resolutions cited by the Court, the Security Council has made clear that “international terrorism constitutes a threat to international peace and security” while “reaffirming the inherent right of individual or collective self‑defence as recognized by the Charter of the United Nations as reiterated in resolution 1368 (2001)” (Security Council resolution 1373 (2001)). In its resolution 1368 (2001), adopted only one day after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, the Security Council invokes the right of self‑defence in calling on the international community to combat terrorism. In neither of these resolutions did the Security Council limit their application to terrorist attacks by State actors only, nor was an assumption to that effect implicit in these resolutions. In fact, the contrary appears to have been the case. (See Thomas Franck, “Terrorism and the Right of Self‑Defense”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 95, 2001, pp. 839-840.)

The ICJ belittles the terrorist threat Israel faces and its legal right and obligation to fight it. Apparently, Albanese takes her cue from their non-binding, advisory opinion.

Call The Cops on Hamas?

“Israel cannot claim self-defense while illegally occupying and while directing an act of aggression against another country,” she said. “Those who have the right to self-defense are the Palestinians.”

Last week at the National Press Club in Australia, she doubled down:

"What Israel was allowed to do was to act to establish law and order, to repel the attack, neutralize whomever was carrying out the attacks and then proceed with law and order measures ... not waging a war," she added.

So what can Israel do in the face of terrorism? Call the cops! And if that sounds absurd, Albanese goes one better.

The UN To The Rescue!

If it is difficult to imagine policemen going into Gaza to arrest Yahya Sinwar, try to imagine the UN demilitarizing Hamas. But in order to pull that off, you have to forget about the historical failures of the UN to keep the peace.

But Eugene Kontorovich has a reminder of the UN's disastrous failings:
The idea of international forces in Gaza repeats decades of mistakes.

In every single case, UN forces and agencies failed to provide Israel any security and were coopted and used by its enemies.
For example:
The UN Security Council created the United Nations Emergency Force after the 1956 Suez War to keep the peace on the border between Israel and Egypt. But when Nasser demanded they leave in 1967, the UN just left.

o  Similarly, the UN Truce Supervision Organization in Jerusalem fled when Jordan attacked Israel during the war in 1967.

o  After the Yom Kippur War in 1973, the UN Disengagement Observer Force was created on the border between Israel and Syria. But during the Syrian Civil War, they pulled out when Islamist militias moved in.

o  The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon did nothing to prevent the PLO from attacking Israel.

o  After the Second Lebanon War in 2006, the Security Council required UNIFIL to disarm Hezbollah in south Lebanon. But Hezbollah has on grown stronger in that area since and act with impunity, firing rockets on Israeli homes despite the "presence" on the largest peacekeeping force outside of Africa.
Yet in the face of the obvious failures of the UN as a peacekeeping force, Albanese absurdly insists that Israel "could have relied on the United Nations to demilitarize Hamas."

Her farcical claim that Israel has no right to defend itself after the Hamas Massacre only leads her to the foolish, and deadly, claims that Israel should send the police into Gaza or have the UN stroll into Gaza to disarm Hamas.

This is what happens when a law degree is used as a tool to pursue a personal, biased agenda. But this is what we have come to expect from the UN.




Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

AddToAny

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For 20 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive