Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border

[K9Buck]

Israeli's are trying to take all of Palestine.

Which explains why, since 1967, Israel has given up more territory than it currently holds.

Are you counting the Sinai in that equation?

 

[Sixties Fan]

Arab terrorists operating out of the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip infiltrated into Israel early Tuesday morning, apparently as part of a planned attack.

The two terrorists were armed with a knife and grenade, Israeli security officials said, and were apprehended close to Israel’s security fence along the Gaza border shortly after they entered Israeli territory.

(full article online)

Terrorist infiltration on Gaza border, terrorists captured

 

[Sixties Fan]

These photos are from Palestine Today showing a large group of Gazans, including many children, cutting large section of the barbed wire fence in Gaza, which would be the inner fence.

This happened on Monday, according to the photo essay, not during the weekly Friday riots.

Judging from the photos, they dismantled several meters of fence and dragged it back to the tents set up for the staging of the Friday riots.

The photos show no indication of any IDF response.

(vide photos online)

Photos: Gazans, including many children, destroy section of fence to Israel ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

 

[Sixties Fan]

According to the report, as long as the actions of the civilians do not cross the required threshold of harm, the "law enforcement" paradigm applies as opposed to "conduct of hostilities." The vast majorities of experts believed that it was best to combine the two paradigms into a parallel approach: apply law enforcement to the civilians and conduct of hostilities to the fighters.

Sounds so simple - even a journalist could have come up with it.

But keep in mind that according to those ICRC experts, incidental damage among the civilians would not be prohibited -- as long as the force used is not excessive in relation to the direct military advantage that is anticipated. In other words, as long as disproportionate force is not used.

And we already know what a simple issue that is.

Outside of that, rioting civilians, unlike fighters, cannot be considered to be directly participating in hostilities. Therefore the rioting civilians cannot be targeted using the "conduct of hostilities" paradigm and under International Humanitarian Law, the presence of fighters does not change the overall civilian nature of the group. Again, it sounds straightforward.

However, according to footnote 70 of the report:
One expert expressed the view however that, in some wholly exceptional cases, rioting civilians can be considered as directly participating in hostilities if they are performing acts of violence which are specifically designed to harm directly the State having to face the riot in support of its enemy. This would be the case, for example, if a riot is led by the enemy in order to destroy the military equipment of the State’s armed forces or in order to divert attention of the armed forces and conduct a military operation in a nearby village. In this exceptional situation, the rioters are actually civilians directly participating in hostilities and become targetable under a conduct of hostilities paradigm.According to this opinion, the rioting civilians can be considered to be directly participating in hostilities:

• if it is determined that a riot has as its goal to conduct a military operation in a nearby village
• if the violence is designed to harm the State facing the riots.

The first case arguably is the current case of the Gaza riots, where one of the clear goals is to infiltrate the border fence...

(full article online)

What does the ICRC say about civilians rioting in support of a military objective? (Daled Amos) ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

 

[Sixties Fan]

Hamas Leadership Divided Over 'March of Return' | HonestReporting

 

[Billo_Really]

Which explains why, since 1967, Israel has given up territory that is greater than the size of Israel’s current borders.

I'm sorry, this thread is no longer fun any more.

 

[Sixties Fan]

The Shurat Hadin Israel Law Center is seeking International Criminal Court action against Hamas over the terrorist group’s use of children as human shields in the riots that have taken place over the past month on the Israel-Gaza Strip border.

The lawsuit is based on a clause in the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC’s work, which says that recruiting children under the age of 15 to any militant organization is a war crime.

The suit names former Hamas chief Khaled Mashaal, current deputy leader Saleh al-Arouri, and moneyman Zahar Jabarin as guilty of war crimes, saying that as all three are nationals of Jordan, which is a signatory to the Rome Statute, they are subject to the court’s jurisdiction.

(full article online)

Israeli Group Seeks ICC Action Against Hamas for Using Children as Shields

 

[Sixties Fan]

The first type of statement claims that Palestinians are entitled to demonstrate peacefully, suggesting that Israel was trying to stop the Gazans from doing so. Those who made this statement knew the truth: the demonstrations were not peaceful, and included violent attempts to breach the border with Israel. Among those whose statements stressed the Palestinian right to “peaceful demonstrations” were the European Union, France, US senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, and J Street.

The second type consisted of calling for “restraint.” This came in two versions: either calling for Israeli restraint alone, or calling for restraint from both Israel and Hamas — thereby equating the two. Statements about restraint on both sides were made by the EU, the deputy prime minister of Ireland, J Street, and Russia. Other statements that addressed only Israel came from France, Senator Warren, and the head of the Union of Reform Judaism, Rabbi Rick Jacobs.

In reality, the Israel Defense Forces are among the most humane and peaceful armies to have ever existed on the planet. Amos Guiora, a professor at the University of Utah, has described the many codes that the Israeli army follows concerning morality and ethics in combat. It is doubtful whether anything similar exists elsewhere. These codes have been praised by several Western armies.

The third type of statement includes asking for an independent investigation of the events in question. Here we find the EU in the company of the deputy prime minister of Ireland and Kuwait. Those who make this claim know full well that the logical candidates for such pseudo-independent investigations are United Nations associate bodies. The best known such investigation was the report by the Goldstone committee, which was so extremely distorted that in 2011 editors Gerald Steinberg and Anne Herzberg were able to publish an entire book about its massive bias.

The fourth type of statement concerns the proportionality of Israeli actions. This implies that Israel’s actions are not proportionate. Here we find the EU and France, along with Iran, Turkey, and Russia.

(full article online)

Urging ‘Restraint’ and Other Anti-Israel Mischief

 

[Sixties Fan]

[ Satire ]

By Stan Dartkafuhl, legal scholar

The position of the international community on the subject of the 1949 armistice lines between Israel and Jordan, and between Israel and Egypt, has long been clear: Israeli control of any territories beyond those lines constitutes an illegal occupation, and Israel's permanent border must follow the lines on the armistice map that determined boundaries until the Six-Day War of 1967. Any Israeli activity beyond that frontier violates international law. When Palestinians do it in the other direction, however, as with the Great Return March in Gaza, that's fine.

Under normal circumstances international law does not distinguish between an armed invasion or one that features no weapons; an organized crossing of an internationally recognized border without the consent of the government on the other side of that border constitutes a bona fide invasion. That much was established regarding Morocco's annexation of Western Sahara. Masses of unarmed Moroccans simply marched across the border, set up settlements, and there we stand today, with the official position of international legal experts characterizing the influx of Moroccans as an invasion, the repulsion of which justified the use of lethal force. Sovereignty has value in international law.

But not for Israel, which is barred from preventing thousands of Gazans from destroying the border fence and entering pre-1967 Israel. In international law as practiced in modern times, Jewish sovereignty is not like other sovereignty. Other sovereign entities are entitled to protect their sovereignty, by lethal force if necessary, under all circumstances; the Jewish State, on the other hand, must bow to the will of genocidal hordes who have been taught from birth that Jews are inherently evil and must be destroyed. It's the law.

Others may quibble about the current status of those lines given the possibility of a negotiated settlement between Israel and the Palestinians that might involve adjustment of the border, but the principle remains operative regardless of the final boundaries under any agreement. Case in point: the armistice was signed with Jordan, which has since renounced any claims to territory west of the Jordan River - and Israeli agreements with the Palestinians at Oslo only grant Palestinians self-rule in specific population centers of that territory. Nevertheless, the international community automatically sees Israeli control of the balance of the territory as a violation, because Jews. You know how it is.

One day a case might come before the World Court or the International Criminal Court that will formalize this principle and enshrine it in case law, but until then, it will have to be maintained through repetition: only Israeli actions have legal significance.

The 1967 Lines Are Sacrosanct Unless Palestinians Violate Them (PreOccupied Territory) ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

 

[Sixties Fan]

[ Surprise, surprise, surprise.....only for those who are not paying attention ]

A top Hamas official warned on Wednesday that the ongoing Gaza border demonstrations — expected to reach their peak on May 15, known as “Nakba Day” by the Palestinians — would continue afterward, the Hebrew news outlet Maariv reported.

The protests, Ismail Haniyeh asserted in a speech, have drawn global attention back to the Palestinians and revived the issue of the so-called “right of return” of Arab refugees from the 1948 War.

He also predicted that the “Great March of Return” demonstrations would spread to Palestinian Authority-ruled areas of the West Bank.

(full article online)

Top Hamas Official Warns: Gaza Border Protests Will Continue After May 15

 

[Shusha]

[ Satire ]

By Stan Dartkafuhl, legal scholar

The position of the international community on the subject of the 1949 armistice lines between Israel and Jordan, and between Israel and Egypt, has long been clear: Israeli control of any territories beyond those lines constitutes an illegal occupation, and Israel's permanent border must follow the lines on the armistice map that determined boundaries until the Six-Day War of 1967. Any Israeli activity beyond that frontier violates international law. When Palestinians do it in the other direction, however, as with the Great Return March in Gaza, that's fine.

Under normal circumstances international law does not distinguish between an armed invasion or one that features no weapons; an organized crossing of an internationally recognized border without the consent of the government on the other side of that border constitutes a bona fide invasion. That much was established regarding Morocco's annexation of Western Sahara. Masses of unarmed Moroccans simply marched across the border, set up settlements, and there we stand today, with the official position of international legal experts characterizing the influx of Moroccans as an invasion, the repulsion of which justified the use of lethal force. Sovereignty has value in international law.

But not for Israel, which is barred from preventing thousands of Gazans from destroying the border fence and entering pre-1967 Israel. In international law as practiced in modern times, Jewish sovereignty is not like other sovereignty. Other sovereign entities are entitled to protect their sovereignty, by lethal force if necessary, under all circumstances; the Jewish State, on the other hand, must bow to the will of genocidal hordes who have been taught from birth that Jews are inherently evil and must be destroyed. It's the law.

Others may quibble about the current status of those lines given the possibility of a negotiated settlement between Israel and the Palestinians that might involve adjustment of the border, but the principle remains operative regardless of the final boundaries under any agreement. Case in point: the armistice was signed with Jordan, which has since renounced any claims to territory west of the Jordan River - and Israeli agreements with the Palestinians at Oslo only grant Palestinians self-rule in specific population centers of that territory. Nevertheless, the international community automatically sees Israeli control of the balance of the territory as a violation, because Jews. You know how it is.

One day a case might come before the World Court or the International Criminal Court that will formalize this principle and enshrine it in case law, but until then, it will have to be maintained through repetition: only Israeli actions have legal significance.

The 1967 Lines Are Sacrosanct Unless Palestinians Violate Them (PreOccupied Territory) ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Yep. This.

If Jews want to return to their indigenous territory over the Green line they are 'building illegal settlements' and 'blocking the peace process'. But if Arabs want to return over the Green line they are seen as heroes

Hypocrisy anyone? Is the Green line to be upheld or is it not? You can't have it both ways.

 

[Sixties Fan]

While all eyes are set on the weekly demonstrations organized by Hamas and other Palestinian factions along the border between the Gaza Strip and Israel, as part of the so-called March of Return, a Palestinian refugee camp near Damascus is facing a wide-scale military offensive and ethnic cleansing by the Syrian army and its allies.

The war crimes committed against the Palestinians in Yarmouk camp have so far failed to prompt an ounce of outrage, much less the sort of outcry emerging from the international community over the events of the past four weeks along the border between the Gaza Strip and Israel.

The international community seems to differentiate between a Palestinian shot by an Israeli soldier and a Palestinian shot by a Syrian soldier.

(full article online)

220 Airstrikes on Palestinians in Syria; World Yawns

 

[Sixties Fan]

Still 80% of Gazans killed in border riots linked to terror groups ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

 

[Sixties Fan]

The senior Hamas officials said the movement has learned from mistakes, such as confronting Israel’s powerful military with rocket fire. Although Hamas remains avowedly committed to destroying Israel, the unnamed officials said Hamas was offering Israel an open-ended truce in exchange for lifting the blockade.

Hamas says it wants to keep its weapons for defensive purposes — a claim belied by the group’s ongoing tunnel program and rocket use. Hamas has been building tunnels from Gaza into Israel in recent years, for attacks; Israel has been systematically locating and destroying them, most recently earlier this month.

Hamas “is changing its tactics, but it’s not changing its nature and strategies,” said Palestinian analyst Abdel Majed Sweilem.


(full article online)

Hamas claims to be embracing ‘nonviolence’ through deadly border protests

 

[Sixties Fan]

The article begins:

"Forty Palestinians have been killed and 5,511 were wounded in the mass protests along the border fence between the Gaza Strip and Israel since March 30, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reported on Tuesday. The protests have been held every Friday since then."


You’d think, if you were going to have one headline number, it would be the number killed and the text says 40 while the graphic says 39. Which is it? Or is Ha’aretz here just implying that one more or less dead Palestinian isn’t that big of a deal (it certainly wouldn’t be in Syria if it was Assad doing the bombing).

Next we now have 1,499 hit by “Live ammunition”. Amira Haas a day or two ago had 1,700. Where did the other 201 go?

"The information is based on figures from the Palestinian Health Ministry in Gaza and OCHA says the data is a preliminary snapshot only and further information is pending."

So the same Hamas sources as before. Making it even more astonishing that they differ so wildly within a couple of days.

In what I knew to be a fairly fruitless exercise I plugged the specific geographically broken down numbers shown above into a spreadsheet so I could figure out the actual lethality of IDF bullets by region across the Gaza Strip. I used the pie chart to figure out percentages and applied these to get a Live Fire kill rate up and down the strip.

(full article online)

Yet More Blind Dissemination Of Hamas Propaganda By Ha’aretz

 

[Sixties Fan]

While Mandela and his ANC party did employ violence in the struggle against South African apartheid, it is an insult to both Gandhi and Martin Luther King that Hamas can make any comparison between itself and the advocates of real non-violence.

According to the Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute at Stanford University, King’s notion of non-violence had six key principles, including:

• One can resist evil without resorting to violence;
• Non-violence seeks to win the “friendship and understanding” of the opponent, not to humiliate him;
• Those committed to nonviolence must be willing to suffer without retaliation as suffering itself can be redemptive;
• The resister should be motivated by love in the sense of “understanding,” or “redeeming good will for all men.”

Does this really sound like Hamas’s definition of non-violent protest?

This is the reality of the protests at the Gaza border:

Why is it non-violent when Palestinians throw stones and firebombs yet anyone else would be arrested and prosecuted for doing the same thing in another country? Is it the bigotry of low expectations that judges Palestinians by such low standards of what constitutes non-violent activities?

(full article online)

AP Exposes Hamas Definition of 'Non-Violence' | HonestReporting

 

[P F Tinmore]

Still 80% of Gazans killed in border riots linked to terror groups ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Not really. In Palestine they are constitutionally protected political parties.

They are only "terror groups" to the foreign, third grade, name callers.

 

[P F Tinmore]

While Mandela and his ANC party did employ violence in the struggle against South African apartheid, it is an insult to both Gandhi and Martin Luther King that Hamas can make any comparison between itself and the advocates of real non-violence.

According to the Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute at Stanford University, King’s notion of non-violence had six key principles, including:

• One can resist evil without resorting to violence;
• Non-violence seeks to win the “friendship and understanding” of the opponent, not to humiliate him;
• Those committed to nonviolence must be willing to suffer without retaliation as suffering itself can be redemptive;
• The resister should be motivated by love in the sense of “understanding,” or “redeeming good will for all men.”

Does this really sound like Hamas’s definition of non-violent protest?

This is the reality of the protests at the Gaza border:

Why is it non-violent when Palestinians throw stones and firebombs yet anyone else would be arrested and prosecuted for doing the same thing in another country? Is it the bigotry of low expectations that judges Palestinians by such low standards of what constitutes non-violent activities?

(full article online)

AP Exposes Hamas Definition of 'Non-Violence' | HonestReporting

There is no legal requirement for occupied people to be non violent. Violence might not be the best tactic, but no Palestinians are going to The Hague.

 

[Hollie]

While Mandela and his ANC party did employ violence in the struggle against South African apartheid, it is an insult to both Gandhi and Martin Luther King that Hamas can make any comparison between itself and the advocates of real non-violence.

According to the Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute at Stanford University, King’s notion of non-violence had six key principles, including:

• One can resist evil without resorting to violence;
• Non-violence seeks to win the “friendship and understanding” of the opponent, not to humiliate him;
• Those committed to nonviolence must be willing to suffer without retaliation as suffering itself can be redemptive;
• The resister should be motivated by love in the sense of “understanding,” or “redeeming good will for all men.”

Does this really sound like Hamas’s definition of non-violent protest?

This is the reality of the protests at the Gaza border:

Why is it non-violent when Palestinians throw stones and firebombs yet anyone else would be arrested and prosecuted for doing the same thing in another country? Is it the bigotry of low expectations that judges Palestinians by such low standards of what constitutes non-violent activities?

(full article online)

AP Exposes Hamas Definition of 'Non-Violence' | HonestReporting

There is no legal requirement for occupied people to be non violent. Violence might not be the best tactic, but no Palestinians are going to The Hague.

There is no reason to expect Islamic terrorists to be non violent. Islamic terrorists should expect their violence to be met with an appropriate response.

 

[Hollie]

Still 80% of Gazans killed in border riots linked to terror groups ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Not really. In Palestine they are constitutionally protected political parties.

They are only "terror groups" to the foreign, third grade, name callers.

Funny that you Islamics have a vastly different view of a constitution vs. non Islamics.


The Avalon Project : Hamas Covenant 1988

Article Five:
Time extent of the Islamic Resistance Movement: By adopting Islam as its way of life, the Movement goes back to the time of the birth of the Islamic message, of the righteous ancestor, for Allah is its target, the Prophet is its example and the Koran is its constitution.