Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Sunday, August 03, 2014

UNRWA school déjà vu - again, the media uncritically reports lies

On January 6, 2009, during Operation Cast Lead, the BBC (and every other news outlet) reported:

At least 40 people were killed and 55 injured when Israeli artillery shells landed outside a United Nations-run school in Gaza, UN officials have said.
A number of children were among those who died when the al-Fakhura school in the Jabaliya refugee camp was hit, doctors at nearby hospitals said.

Some media said at the time that as many as 46 were killed. The UN was in the forefront of telling those number to the media.

By the time the Goldstone Report came around to the issue, the claims were downsized a bit, to 24 people killed, and he admitted that the school wasn't hit, but that Israeli fire hit outside the school. And Goldstone even admitted that he didn't verify the figure of 24, but just accepted it from testimonies - testimonies that included known Hamas members.

Of course, at this point, people only remembered the initial lurid headlines.

The Goldstone report wasn't accurate either. From combing through the casualties listed by PCHR, the dates and locations, double checking the names of the victims with known terrorists, and reports from witnesses who Goldstone didn't bother to find, it is certain that there was serious mortar fire originating from the street outside the school and that at least 3 and possibly as many as 10 terrorists were killed in the Israeli retaliation.

That is much different from the initial, lurid, and utterly false headlines. But the truth didn't get reported by any major media outlet.

Now, fast forward to today:

10 Palestinians were killed on Sunday after Israeli shells hit a UN school in Rafah where thousands of people were sheltering from the ongoing Israeli offensive.

At least 30 were injured in the strike, according to Ministry of Health spokesman Ashraf al-Qidra.

The Washington Post agrees:

A United Nations school was attacked in southern Gaza on Sunday, killing at least 10 and injuring more than 30, as Israeli shells continued to bombard southern Gaza, hours after President Benjamin Netanyahu vowed that Hamas would pay “an intolerable price” for its assaults.

Was a school hit?

As Israel Matzav reports, some media are mentioning a slightly different story. From ITV:

A deadly air strike near a United Nations-run school in Gaza was targeting a vehicle outside the front gate of the school, a witness has told ITV News.

Well, that's a little different, isn't it?

Most of the most recent reports are already walking back from the charge that the school was hit, since it wasn't. It remains to be seen if the reporters at the scene will actually try to ferret out the truth. Given the false initial reports, the chances for that are pretty small.

It will take some time to find out the facts, but as usual, reporters are rushing into quote known liars like UNRWA spokespeople and the Gaza Ministry of Health without any mention of their unreliable record - just as they did in 2009.

If the IDF targeted a car, and knowing that the IDF usually uses fairly small missiles to hit cars, it seems quite possible that the car was carrying explosives or rockets that went off and ended up hurting and killing people outside the school.

This doesn't stop UNRWA officials from saying that Israel is targeting UN facilities deliberately.

The media laps it up, knowing that the IDF takes hours to investigate and make a statement because of the complexity of researching real facts rather than the ease of parroting ridiculous charges from known liars.

As we see the face of Hanan Ashrawi all over the news channels defending Hamas terror, it is worth reminding people about what the NGO that she founded, Miftah, has done:

They published an article that says Jews drink Christian blood for Passover, then attacked me for noticing it, before taking it down days later under international donor pressure- but they never apologized in Arabic, the language of the article.
They censored every single post on their Facebook page questioning how they could publish the blood libel
They published another article praising female terrorists (it was silently removed after I exposed it).
They attacked Judaism, claiming that any Jew saying that the Temple Mount was the site of the Temple is only saying that for political reasons.
Their "media monitoring unit" that supposedly looked for bias on both sides deliberately ignored all antisemitic incitement in Arabic media.
It tried to politicize a UN resolution meant to politically empower women into an anti-Israel springboard.
Against the wishes of its funders, Miftah is explicitly against any sort of co-existence and dialogue with Israelis.

Does this sound like a moderate?

Since my exposures of Miftah's excesses last year, it has kept a decidedly lower profile, no longer commenting on the news with vicious anti-Israel screeds. But that doesn't mean that Miftah has changed - just that it is scared of losing its funding.

So why is Ashrawi such a favored guest on major news outlets? Why hasn't anyone investigated her a little more?

The truth is that her views, and the toxic viewpoints of Miftah, are not anomalous in Palestinian Arab society, but mainstream. Since she speaks English well, and the news media doesn't want to point out the huge disconnect between her smooth sounding words and her actual opinions, all of this gets papered over.

Assabeel reports that Jordanians are snapping up Israeli flags - in order to be able to burn them.

Ramiz Ali, who works in a shop in central Jordan, said that with the events in Gaza the number of customers who buy the Zionist flag has increased. They are forking over between 5 and 10 dinars (between $7 and $14,) and possibly more depending on the quality of the cloth.

Not long ago buying the Israeli flag was considered a disgrace, but the demand for it has been booming from activist movements, political parties, and trade unions, to burn in rallies and demonstrations and national festivals or put it in front of homes to walk over.

In the city of Maan the municipal council put the Israeli flag on the floor of the entrance to the building so everyone who enters the building would step on it.

Political activist and union leader Mahmoud Amin Hiari said that that Jordanians are snapping up the Zionist flag in order to burn it, part of a campaign of solidarity with the Gaza Strip.

Hiari explained the significance of the symbols on the Israeli flag. He noted that the Israeli flag bears the Star of David with a hexagon; which is formed from two triangles of equal sides, one representing the tribe of Judah, and the other represents the tribe of Benjamin. Jews this star the shield of King David. But it is not only political, but it has other dimensions; signs of Freemasonry, which attracts negative energy and concentration, and if you look at the back of a dollar bill atop a pyramid, and above an eye that sees everything, and this eye symbolizes the one-eyed Antichrist, who Jews believe is the Savior.

The two blue lines, of course, represent the River Nile and the Euphrates River; referring to the desired boundaries of Israel, from the Euphrates to the Nile.

(If anyone reading this believes any of that nonsense, besides feeling sorry for you, Wikipedia has a more accurate description.)

Of course, I have to repost this classic video:

Malaysian couple decides to burn Israeli flag on their wedding day

From Astro Awani (Malaysia):

A couple decided to create something memorable on their wedding day: stepping on and burning the Israeli flag as a sign of protest against the regime's violence towards the Palestinians in Gaza.

Mohd Hilmi Muslim and his bride Norfadhilah Mohd Badroldin, both 27-year-old architects, did it because they felt very sad in seeing Muslims suffer, especially the women and children who were victims of the Zionist regime.

Mohd Hilmi said as a Muslim, he strongly objects to such inhumane acts carried by the Israelis.

"Alhamdulillah, I am thankful that the wedding ceremony went smoothly and we get to express our disappointment and grief towards the violence at the hands of Israel in Gaza. As Muslims, we strongly object and condemn the act," he said.

The wedding ceremony began around 2pm where both the bride and groom were paraded to their house in Kampung Umbai, Jasin.

The couple then trampled on the Israeli flag and burned it before entering the house.

The flag was placed in front of the entrance so that 3,000 guests who attended the wedding could also take turns stepping on it.

Isn't it great that they decided to begin their marriage with such an act of love?

08/02 Links: Netanyahu to Shapiro: US must ‘never second-guess me again’ on Hamas

From Ian:

Michael Oren: In Defense of Zionism

They come from every corner of the country—investment bankers, farmers, computer geeks, jazz drummers, botany professors, car mechanics—leaving their jobs and their families. They put on uniforms that are invariably too tight or too baggy, sign out their gear and guns. Then, scrambling onto military vehicles, 70,000 reservists—women and men—join the young conscripts of what is proportionally the world's largest citizen army. They all know that some of them will return maimed or not at all. And yet, without hesitation or (for the most part) complaint, proudly responding to the call-up, Israelis stand ready to defend their nation. They risk their lives for an idea.
The idea is Zionism. It is the belief that the Jewish people should have their own sovereign state in the Land of Israel. Though founded less than 150 years ago, the Zionist movement sprung from a 4,000-year-long bond between the Jewish people and its historic homeland, an attachment sustained throughout 20 centuries of exile. This is why Zionism achieved its goals and remains relevant and rigorous today. It is why citizens of Israel—the state that Zionism created—willingly take up arms. They believe their idea is worth fighting for.
Yet Zionism, arguably more than any other contemporary ideology, is demonized. "All Zionists are legitimate targets everywhere in the world!" declared a banner recently paraded by anti-Israel protesters in Denmark. "Dogs are allowed in this establishment but Zionists are not under any circumstances," warned a sign in the window of a Belgian cafe. A Jewish demonstrator in Iceland was accosted and told, "You Zionist pig, I'm going to behead you." (h/t Jewess)

Piers Akerman: All we are saying, is give war a chance

THE real message coming from the Gazan conflict is give war a chance. That’s right. All peace-loving people should be demonstrating in the streets and singing, “All we are saying, is give war a chance”.
If, as the Left says, the Palestinians want peace, then let Israel smash the terrorist group Hamas, which runs Gaza and uses Palestinian children as human shields. Get the terrorists out of the hospitals, get their rockets out of the schools (a third stockpile was found in a UN school earlier this week), get them out of their rat-run tunnels and away from the civilian population.
On the other hand, if the Left wants the terrorists to smash Israel, and that is the clear message from the Greens and Labor MPs who attend rallies where the flags of Hezbollah, Hamas and the jihadists fly, there will be no holding back terrorism around the world.
Strip away the Al Jazeera propaganda that the ABC broadcasts and Fairfax media supports in its commentaries by erratic penny-a-line scribblers like Mike Carlton, and there is no other way to view the conflict. There is no moral equivalency argument to be had. Loss of civilian life is of course abhorrent. But in this conflict there is only one side which is going to great lengths in its attempt to avoid killing civilians. No, not Hamas, which enjoys the support of the anti-Israeli rallies staged by so-called peace groups and some deluded Christian churches here and elsewhere in the West, but Israel.

Jeffrey Goldberg: The Most Dangerous Moment in Gaza

There is near-unanimity in Israel already that Hamas represents an unbearable threat. Add in the perfidy of a raid conducted after a ceasefire went into effect and near-unanimity becomes total unanimity. The most interesting article I've read in the past 24 hours is an interview with the Israeli novelist Amos Oz, the father of his country's peace-and-compromise movement, who opened the interview with Deutsche Welle in this manner:

Amoz Oz: I would like to begin the interview in a very unusual way: by presenting one or two questions to your readers and listeners. May I do that?
Deutsche Welle: Go ahead!
Question 1: What would you do if your neighbor across the street sits down on the balcony, puts his little boy on his lap and starts shooting machine gun fire into your nursery?
Question 2: What would you do if your neighbor across the street digs a tunnel from his nursery to your nursery in order to blow up your home or in order to kidnap your family?
With these two questions I pass the interview to you.
The point is, if Amos Oz, a severe critic of his country's policies toward the Palestinians, sounds no different on the subject of the Hamas threat than the right-most ministers in Benjamin Netanyahu's right-wing cabinet, then there will be a national consensus that it is not enough to manage the Hamas rocket-and-tunnel threat, but that it must be eliminated if at all possible. This doesn't mean that the Israeli government wants to see the Hamas government in Gaza replaced. What it could mean is that the Israeli public demands that its leaders ensure them that the tunnel threat, in particular, is neutralized in a decisive way. (h/t Jewess)

White House ‘Champion of Change’ Goes After Black Pro-Israel Activist

An Obama administration-endorsed “champion of change” has lashed out at an African American pro-Israel activist, accusing her of forgetting “where she came from” and implying that she is being manipulated by the pro-Israel community.
Linda Sarsour, a Palestinian-American Muslim activist who has been honored by the White House as a “champion of change,” upbraided pro-Israel activist Chloe Simone Valdary Thursday on Twitter after she criticized the campus group Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), which has come under fire for engaging in anti-Semitic rhetoric.
The heated exchange between Valdary (@Cvaldary on Twitter) and Sarsour (@lsarsour on Twitter) elicited multiple responses from observers who accused Sarsour of engaging in racist and anti-Semitic stereotypes. (h/t MtTB)

Weekly round-up

July saw the highest readership at EoZ by far - over double my average number of hits. And things keep increasing; these past seven days were also a record with over 125,000 hits to my webpage alone (including RSS feeds, emails and the like, perhaps double that number.)

The most popular posts were the ones that tore off the mask of journalists covering the war: the Spanish journalist who admitted that reporters in Gaza were under threat, the Italian journalist who said that the massacre at the Shati camp was from Hamas, and the videos of reporters being scared by nearby rocket fire.

Here's another one where a reporter admits that rockets are fired from the Shifa hospital parking lot.

The posts I liked most were:

And these are only a selection of the 60 stories I posted this week!

Thank G-d for Shabbat! I would be completely burned out if I didn't take off one day a week.

I need to thank again those who donated to the blog and who paid for the e-book of my major stories from the first three weeks of the war. You guys are the best.

08/01 Links Pt2: Goebbels on the BBC; Beinart's The ‘Myths’ Of Gaza; Obama's Gaza Game

From Ian:

Sarah Honig: Another tack: Goebbels on the BBC

Imagine Josef Goebbels invited to speak his mind on the BBC, smack dab during the Battle of Britain and the blitz. Sound absurd? Sure, but only in the context of normal nations. No sane Briton would have tolerated the notion of the BBC broadcasting German propaganda to Londoners as they ran for shelter from German bombs.
Abetting Nazi belligerence would have been a nonstarter even under the guise of a detached reporter’s interview, part of an evenhanded approach, a sporting consideration for the aggressor’s point of view.
But not so in Israel. Here we operate in an alternative universe. Nothing that would be unthinkable anywhere else is out of bounds for our broadcasters.

The ‘Myths’ Of Gaza

In Haaretz, Peter Beinart imparts readers with some hard truths about the recent history of Gaza. “Much of what we’ve been told about Israel’s ‘withdrawal’ from Gaza,” he contends, is simply not true. The mythology created by Jewish-American leaders, he writes, builds a narrative that does does little more but rationalize Israel’s “wrong” war.
Now, there are a number of problems with Beinart’s predictably distorted version of this conflict’s history—which could use a thorough debunking—but the most obvious glitch is that most of the myths Beinart claims to dispel aren’t ever actually uttered by Jewish leaders, or anyone else, for that matter.
There are three distortions Beinart believes gullible Jewish American use to justify their “skepticism of a Palestinian state in the West Bank.”

Former UN official charged with anti-Semitism, now California academic, takes on Israel in Gaza

Richard Falk, the notorious former United Nations human rights official who was widely castigated for his anti-Semitic statements and aggressively anti-Israeli stance before finally leaving office in May, is at it again.
Falk, formerly the U.N. special rapporteur on the rights of the Palestinian people, is orchestrating a new manifesto accusing Israel of making war against “the people of Gaza as a whole,” calling on the U.N and “in particular the United States of America” to hold Israeli political leaders and military commanders accountable for war crimes, and demanding that the U.N. Security Council refer the entire situation in Palestine to the International Criminal Court.
The manifesto is signed by Falk, who is now at the University of California at Santa Barbara, and 124 other legal academics around the world, including a handful in the U.S. The most prominent signatory aside from Falk is John Dugard, a South African legal scholar who was also widely condemned for anti-Semitic findings as the U.N.’s human rights special rapporteur on Palestine — until Falk took his place.

Where does Hamas get the money for the tunnels and weapons? From you!

Here's a partial answer: from you.

I just updated a chart I did a couple of years ago: (Source of figures)

There are the top recipients of international aid, sorted by aid per capita.

The PA spends over half its budget on Gaza - even when they are not controlling Gaza. Which means that Hamas has money to buy weapons and build tunnels instead of helping Gazans and building infrastructure.

As we've seen, UNRWA projects and other international projects that were allowed to import cement recently are run by corrupt people who will ensure that some of the dual-use material ends up in Hamas' hands. But the tunnels were clearly being built when Israel allowed cement to be imported, as well as when Egypt did.

So, yes, our tax dollars - which pay the Palestinians more per capita than any country every single year - went a long way towards helping build the terror infrastructure Israel faces today.

Where are the experts in ballistics and urban warfare on TV?

One of the most striking omissions in the wall-to-wall coverage of Gaza is the complete absence, as far as I can tell, of any real military experts.

You would think that with all the talking heads on TV they could dig up someone who actually knows what it is like to be in an urban battlefield, or even in a war itself.

To most Westerners, the army is an abstract, monolithic entity and people are clueless about how the chain of command works, about any checks and balances, about realtime battlefield conditions and decisions, about the rules of engagement.

All we are seeing are videos and photos of dead children and wailing mothers.

To put it mildly, this is irresponsible. Especially because news organizations, by their very names, have access to real experts and not just two token loudmouths from either side who yell at each other.

Journalists are making assumptions about the situation, based on very incomplete information. The IDF, in the middle of a war, cannot explain in real time the reasons for its decisions. But it is not a bunch of rogue cells - it has rules, it has a command structure, it plans how to react to scenarios in as effective yet safe a way as possible.

How do I know? Because I'm one of the few people who read the responses the IDF gave to critics after the 2009 Gaza war that I reproduced here.. The same kinds of incidents, with the same kinds of horrific civilian deaths, are investigated and described. Mistakes are frankly admitted. But there is an entirely different dimension to the fighting that reporters who are a few miles away in their hotels, away from the action, cannot see for themselves unless they want to put themselves in extreme personal danger.

If you want to say that all those reports on all those incidents are a whitewash by the IDF, then there should still be no objection to the media including real experts on their panels about a war. Let the viewers see inside the heads of soldiers, not only victims.

That would be journalism.

If anyone knows any real experts in these areas that would be willing to talk to me on the record, I would love to ask them questions. I would love to ask about photos of damage and injuries and what weapons were most likely to cause it. I would love to ask about the fear that soldiers face in a new, unknown situation.

And a lot of people besides me would love to hear the answers.

08/01 Links Pt1: WSJ Ed for '68: Things Permitted to Other Nations Are Forbidden to the Jews

From Ian:

WSJ Republishes Op-Ed From 1968: ‘The Jews Are a Peculiar People: Things Permitted to Other Nations Are Forbidden to the Jews’

The Wall Street Journal on Thursday republished an Op-Ed, originally printed by the LA Times in 1968, by a non-Jewish winner of the U.S. Presidential Medal of Freedom who spoke of the condition and treatment of the Jewish people and their struggle to defend Israel.
Written after Israel’s victory in the 1967 War, what is striking is that the challenges faced by Jews and Israel then are almost the same as today.
"There is a cry of outrage all over the world when people die in Vietnam or when two Negroes are executed in Rhodesia. But when Hitler slaughtered Jews no one remonstrated with him. The Swedes, who are ready to break off diplomatic relations with America because of what we did in Vietnam, did not let out a peep when Hitler was slaughtering Jews. They sent Hitler choice iron ore and ball bearings, and serviced his troop trains to Norway.
The Jews are alone in the world. If Israel survives it will be solely because of Jewish efforts. And Jewish resources. Yet at this moment Israel is our only reliable and unconditional ally. We can rely more on Israel than Israel can rely on us. And one has only to imagine what would have happened last summer had the Arabs and their Russian backers won the war to realize how vital the survival of Israel is to American and the West in general.
I have a premonition that will not leave me; as it goes with Israel so will it go with all of us. Should Israel perish the holocaust will be upon us."

'Hamas wants Israel completely destroyed'

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, one of the world's most prominent fighters against radical Islam, defends Israel's right to fight Hamas, says the West is refusing to recognize the danger of growing Muslim extremism • "Netanyahu should get a Nobel Peace Prize," she says.
Is there any point in negotiating with Hamas? With any Muslim movement?
"You can negotiate with fellow human beings with whom you have some kind of common ground. The assumption as we negotiate is that there is fair play. The problem with negotiating with Hamas is that they have a vision, a certain kind of utopia. And for that utopia to be realized, the State of Israel must be completely destroyed. Shariah law has to be established, ideally, all over the world. You can never trust a Jew, you can never trust a Christian. That is the utopia. Women have to behave a certain way, they have to be locked up, it is very totalitarian. You can negotiate until you are as blue in the face as the American flag, but it will never yield anything on the other side.
"Everyone was upset with [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu when he said that he would not negotiate before the other side said that they recognize the existence of the State of Israel. That is a basic demand. Without that it is pointless to go to the negotiations table. It is Negotiations 101."

JPost Editorial False causes

In Gaza recently, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh said: “We love death like our enemies love life. We love martyrdom, the way in which [Hamas] leaders died.”
This is the sort of rhetoric favored by the likes of Boko Haram in Nigeria, the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria, and Hezbollah in Lebanon. These are not organizations that can be negotiated with – unless of course one is willing to submit to a violently reactionary form of Islam. Perhaps when Hamas is defeated or severely weakened there can be talk of peace. But not before. No change in Israel policy short of the disappearance of the State of Israel will satisfy Hamas. And that is not going to happen.

Times of Israel Live Blog: PM tells Kerry ‘Hamas will pay’ as IDF hunts for soldier seized in Rafah during truce

IDF toll rises to 63, after 2 soldiers killed in same Rafah attack and 5 soldiers killed late Thursday; US-UN plan for 72-hour ceasefire and talks falls apart; Israel cabinet meeting Friday afternoon

IDF Blog: Live Updates: IDF Soldier Suspected Kidnapped by Hamas

Following ten days of Hamas attacks against Israel and after repeated rejections of offers to deescalate the situation, the IDF started a new phase of Operation Protective Edge. A large IDF force entered the Gaza Strip. Their mission is to target Hamas’ tunnels that cross under the Israel-Gaza border and enable terrorists to infiltrate Israel and carry out attacks. The IDF intends to impair Hamas’ capability to attack Israel.
Since the beginning of Operation Protective Edge more than 2,968 rockets have been fired from Gaza at Israel.
1:30 PM: This morning, on 9:30 AM, in violation of the latest ceasefire, Hamas terrorists, including a suicide attacker, fired at our forces in southern Gaza. We suspect that Hamas kidnapped 2nd. Lt. Hadar Goldin, an IDF officer, during the exchange of fire and dragged him into a tunnel. The IDF is currently conducting extensive searches in order to locate the missing soldier. During the event, 2 IDF soldiers were killed by Hamas fire.

The UN blames the US for helping Israelis defend themselves from terror

A few days ago, the humor site PreOccupied Territory (that has a weekly column here at EoZ) wrote this:

UN Slams Israel For Intercepting Rockets During Ceasefire

After Israel announced it will abide by the terms of a US-proposed halt to a three-week-old Israeli offensive against Hamas in the Gaza Strip, the United Nations Security Council denounced the Jewish State for nevertheless continuing to shoot down Hamas rockets aimed at Israeli communities.

The reality has caught up with the satire.

From Al Jazeera:

Navi Pillay, the UN human rights commissioner, on Thursday ...criticised the US, Israel's main ally, for failing to use its influence to halt the violence.

"They have not only provided the heavy weaponry which is now being used by Israel in Gaza, but they've also provided almost $1bn in providing the Iron Domes to protect Israelis from the rockets attacks," she said.

"No such protection has been provided to Gazans against the shelling."

Yes - the UN is blaming the US for providing purely defensive weapons to Israel, apparently because of a brand new international law she made up that all weapons must be provided to all sides of a conflict. No country may give military aid to any country without giving the exact same aid to its enemies. It's proportionality!

This is a new level of stupid even for the UN. And that's saying something.

But because Israel is the country being singled out for this idiocy, Pillay won't be pilloried.

Review of Hamas violations of international law (updated)

1. Hamas‘ rocket attacks directed at Israel‘s civilian population centers deliberately violates the basic principles of distinction. (Additional Protocol I, arts. 48, 51(2), 52(1).) Any doubt about this is resolved by the fact that Hamas itself has boasted of its intention to hit population centres. It is well accepted in customary international law that ―[i]ntentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking part in hostilities constitutes a war crime. (Rome Statute, art. 8(2)(b)(i))

2. Staging of Attacks From Residential Areas and Protected Sites: The Law of Armed Conflict not only prohibits targeting an enemy‘s civilians; it also requires parties to an armed conflict to distinguish their combatant forces from their own civilians, and not to base operations in or near civilian structures, especially protected sites such as schools, medical facilities and places of worship. As the customary law principle is reflected in Article 51(7) of Additional Protocol I: '―The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or shield, favour or impede military operations."

3. Use of Civilian Homes and Public Institutions as Bases of Operation - see (2) for citations.

4. Misuse of Medical Facilities and Ambulances - Any time Hamas uses an ambulance to transport its fighters it is violating the Law of Armed Conflict: Under Article 23(f) of the 1907 Regulations annexed to the Hague Convention IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, which reflects customary international law, it is ―especially forbidden…[t]o make improper use of a flag of truce, … as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention.. Article 44 of the First Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (1949) also provides that: ―… the emblem of the Red Cross on a white ground …may not be employed, either in time of peace or in time of war, except to indicate or to protect the medical units and establishments…‖

5. Booby-trapping of Civilian Areas - see (2) for citations.

6. Blending in with Civilians and Use of Human Shields - As the ICRC rule states, "It can be concluded that the use of human shields requires an intentional co-location of military objectives and civilians or persons hors de combat with the specific intent of trying to prevent the targeting of those military objectives."

7. Exploitation of Children - Hamas has paramilitary summer camps for kids. There are reports, from this war and previous ones, of children fighting and being used for tunnel digging. violates the Law of Armed Conflict, including prohibitions against allowing children to take part in hostilities. As customary international law is reflected in this regard in Additional Protocol I, the parties to a conflict must take "all feasible measures" to ensure that children "do not take a direct part in hostilities and, in particular, they shall refrain from recruiting them into their armed forces." (Additional Protocol I, art. 77(2))

8. Interference with Humanitarian Relief Efforts - While Israel kept its end of humanitarian truces. Hamas used them to shoot rockets into Israel, including the Kerem Shalom crossing where humanitarian goods are brought into Gaza. All of these actions violate the Law of Armed Conflict, which requires parties to allow the entry of humanitarian supplies and to guarantee their safety. Article 59 of the Fourth Geneva Convention requires parties in an armed conflict to "permit the free passage of [humanitarian] consignments and shall guarantee their protection." Article 60 of the same Convention protects the shipments from being diverted from their intended purpose, something Hamas has certainly done in the past and is reported to have done in this conflict as well.

9. Hostage-taking - The Fourth Geneva Conventions, article 34, says flatly "The taking of hostages is prohibited." This is not an "arrest" as Israel-haters claim, and this is not a prisoner of war situation as Hamas has made clear - the purpose of Hamas' hostage-taking falls under the definition on the International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages: "Any person who seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure or to continue to detain another person (hereinafter referred to as the "hostage") in order to compel a third party, namely, a State, an international intergovernmental organization, a natural or juridical person, or a group of persons, to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the hostage commits the offence of taking of hostages ("hostage-taking") within the meaning of this Convention."

10. Using the uniform of the enemy - Additional Protocol I prohibits the use of enemy flags, military emblems, insignia or uniforms “while engaging in attacks or in order to shield, favour, protect or impede military operations”.[3] Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “making improper use … of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts when it results in death or serious personal injury.[4] According to some, this is considered perfidy, a war crime. (h/t Joshua)

11. Violence aimed at spreading terror among the civilian population - Rule 2 of ICRC's Customary IHL is "Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited." It quotes Article 51(2) of Additional Protocol I prohibits “acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population”. Hamas rockets are aimed not only at killing civilians, but at spreading terror among Israelis.

12. Targeting civilian objects, such as airports or nuclear power plants - Rule 7 of the Customary IHL says "Attacks must not be directed against civilian objects," quoting Articles 48 and 52(2) of Additional Protocol I.

13. Indiscriminate attacks - Besides targeting civilians and civilian objects, Rule 11 of the ICRC CIHL states flatly that "Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited." By definition, every Qassam rocket attack and most of the other rocket and mortar attacks are by their very nature indiscriminate.

See also Rule 71, "The use of weapons which are by nature indiscriminate is prohibited."

14. Proportionality in attack - ICRC's Rule 14 states "Launching an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, is prohibited." Rocket attacks against civilians have zero military advantage, so by definition they are disproportionate to their military advantage.

See also Rule 18: "Each party to the conflict must do everything feasible to assess whether the attack may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated."

15. Advance Warning - Rule 20 of the ICRC CIHL states "Each party to the conflict must give effective advance warning of attacks which may affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not permit." Given that Hamas has used the media and SMS calls to threaten Israelis, it is clear that they have the ability to warn before every rocket attack. Their failure to do so is a violation of IHL.

16. Protecting civilians - Rule 22 of the ICRC Customary IHL states "The parties to the conflict must take all feasible precautions to protect the civilian population and civilian objects under their control against the effects of attacks." Hamas not only has failed to protect civilians in Gaza by building bomb shelters, they have deliberately put civilians in harm's way.

17. Attacking medical units - Rule 28 states "Medical units exclusively assigned to medical purposes must be respected and protected in all circumstances." Hamas has shot mortars at the Israeli field hospital, set up for Gazans, near the Erez crossing.

18. Protection of Journalists - Hamas has threatened journalists, implicitly and explicitly, accusing some of being spies and sometimes not allowing them to leave Gaza, making them effectively hostages. Rule 34 states "Civilian journalists engaged in professional missions in areas of armed conflict must be respected and protected as long as they are not taking a direct part in hostilities."

19. Mistreating the dead. Rule 113 says "Each party to the conflict must take all possible measures to prevent the dead from being despoiled. Mutilation of dead bodies is prohibited." Hamas has shown off an alleged chip cut out from the (presumably) dead body of Oron Shaul.

There are also numerous conventions that Hamas violates, but I am not sure if they reach the level of international law since they are not signatories. Customary IHL, however, applies to all. .

There are also at least three violations of international law in the way Gilad Shalit was treated, but I am limiting this only to the current war.

This morning, Israel accepted a US-brokered 72-hour ceasefire starting at 8:00 AM. At 9:30, Hamas started a seemingly pre-planned operation in Rafah, killing 2 Israeli soldiers and kidnapping one during a suicide bombing.

Terrorists emerged from a tunnel shaft, and a suicide bomber detonated himself in the vicinity of soldiers. Heavy exchanges of fire ensued, before one of the IDF soldiers was kidnapped, a senior army source said.

Clearly the ceasefire provided the opportunity Hamas wanted to perform this operation. Their acceptance of the cease-fire - including the terms that IDF soldiers can keep their positions, which Hamas knew were near a hidden tunnel entrance - can only be described as a well-planned ruse for this attack, Hamas' most sought-after prize. These were not conditions that Hamas would normally accept.

Hamas' claim that this occurred before the ceasefire is a lie, as the reports of heavy clashes in Rafah all started at 9:30, not 7:30 as Hamas says.

John Kerry said that the ceasefire was a "moment of opportunity." Hamas obviously agreed.

Here is a chronology of all the previous truces that Hamas violated.

July 15: Israel accepted the ceasefire initiated by Egypt and stopped all fire at 09:00. However, terrorists fired more than 50 rockets at Israeli communities. Only after six hours of continuous rocket attacks did the IDF respond.

July 17: Israel agreed to a five-hour humanitarian ceasefire. The terrorist organizations rejected it and fired rockets, including at the city of Be'er-Sheva.

July 20: Israel approved a two-hour medical/humanitarian window in the area of Shejaiya, following an International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) request. Forty minutes after the ceasefire began, Hamas violated it. Nevertheless, Israel implemented the ceasefire, even extending it for two more hours.

July 26-27: Israel respected an UN-requested humanitarian ceasefire from 08:00-20:00 on Saturday, 26 July. Israel announced its readiness to prolong the ceasefire until midnight, but a few minutes after 20:00, Hamas renewed firing rockets at Israeli civilians.

On the same day (26 July), Hamas announced a 24-hour humanitarian ceasefire, at 14:00. Hamas violated its own ceasefire a short time later.

Despite Hamas’ continuous fire, Israel decided to extend the humanitarian ceasefire a second time, from midnight Saturday to midnight Sunday.

July 28: Israel accepted Hamas' request for a ceasefire in honor of the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Fitr. The IDF was instructed to cease military attacks, but Hamas continued to launch rockets at Israel.

July 30: Israel announced a temporary humanitarian ceasefire between 15:00-19:00. A few minutes after the ceasefire began Hamas fired rockets at the southern cities of Ashdod and Ashkelon, as well as other Israeli communities.

(h/t TIP)

The fact that no one is willing to admit

I just watched Alan Dershowitz and Peter Beinart on CNN. (Beinart has decided to shill for the Muslim Brotherhood. Really.)

Both of them agreed with each other on one topic, though: that bringing in a Fatah-led government in Gaza is the best chance for peace.

It would be enormously better to have the PA controlling Gaza than Hamas, for everyone - for Gazans, for Israel, and for Egypt. But as usual, there is an elephant in the room that no one is willing to admit, including Israel or Dershowitz or Beinart:

Mahmoud Abbas' party has shot hundreds of rockets into Israel during this war, too.

The Abu Nidal Brigades of Fatah's Al Asqa Martyrs Brigades helpfully gives us a tally:

34 N103 missiles .
173 107 missiles .
32 Grad rockets.
53 120 mm mortar rounds
23 80 mm mortar rounds
14 60 mm mortar rounds
One RPG-7 .
Moltka anti-missile shields.

At least three other Fatah terror groups have also fired rockets at Israel.

Israel doesn't want to mention this because they want to maintain security cooperation with the PA security forces, and this would embarrass Abbas.

But the entire point of making peace with Abbas is that he is the best candidate to make peace with. Yet this "man of peace" cannot stop, or control, his own party. Or - he is unwilling to stop them from firing at Israeli civilians.

That is not exactly a man of peace. And it is irresponsible for so many to so willfully give him a pass and bury this basic fact because of their wishful thinking.

Only one reporter I could find mentioned this fact:

A senior Fatah official told me earlier this week in Ramallah that Fatah has felt obliged to fire some rockets against Israel, lest it be seen as collaborating with the Jewish state.

This is Fatah's defense for war crimes - because they don't want to look too peaceful to their own people!

The world deserves to know exactly how "moderate" - or exactly how ineffective - he is over terrorists who report to him, and who brag about their targeting Israeli cities.

PCHR described Amjad Zaher Hamdan as a "civilian."

He was really a member of Islamic Jihad's Al Quds Brigades.

As we've noted, PCHR is one of the NGOs that the UN relies on to give its daily statistics on the percentage of Gaza casualties who are "civilian."

The media and pundits don't think there is anything wrong with trusting numbers given by an organization known to lie.