The Palestine thread

[seafoid]

Please, no more rockets into israel.  Don't give them any excuse.

This Gaza turkey shoot was different



http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/a-special-place-in-hell/the-washington-post-s-israel-problem-and-ours.premium-1.481395

From a distance, you might well think nothing's changed. From a distance of 6,000 miles or so, it might elude notice that every single war destroys Israel. Every one, every time. Each war here is a watershed. It leaves an entirely different Israel and different Israelis in its wake.
You can't see it, but this war changed everyone here. Out of view, deep inside, something shifted. For some, it may have been the horrifying sense that this is what we can expect - from the other side and from ourselves as well - every couple of years. Forever. Like hurricanes in Haiti. Bombs, rockets, a new cohort of children with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. And every single time, it comes closer to your own home. Wherever you are.

Maybe Jewish Israelis will eventually understand what the last 65 years have been like for the Palestinians.

[Itchy]

Please, no more rockets into israel.  Don't give them any excuse.

This Gaza turkey shoot was different



http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/a-special-place-in-hell/the-washington-post-s-israel-problem-and-ours.premium-1.481395

From a distance, you might well think nothing's changed. From a distance of 6,000 miles or so, it might elude notice that every single war destroys Israel. Every one, every time. Each war here is a watershed. It leaves an entirely different Israel and different Israelis in its wake.
You can't see it, but this war changed everyone here. Out of view, deep inside, something shifted. For some, it may have been the horrifying sense that this is what we can expect - from the other side and from ourselves as well - every couple of years. Forever. Like hurricanes in Haiti. Bombs, rockets, a new cohort of children with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. And every single time, it comes closer to your own home. Wherever you are.

Maybe Jewish Israelis will eventually understand what the last 65 years have been like for the Palestinians.

Is the last line in your post your own thoughts or from the article?

[seafoid]

 It has been a bad fortnight for Zionism. Tel Aviv hit by missiles from Gaza. A humiliating ceasefire.
The Likud is taken over by extremists.  And now not one of the 27 countries of the EU votes in support of Israeli colonialism at the UN.

[give her dixie]

And the voting has taken place, with 138 countries voting for, 9 against and 41 abstentions. Well done Palestine, and the people have something to be happy about tonight. Excellent news, and may this be another blow to the Zionist dream......

[seafoid]

Zionism is a nightmare.

And the Yanks are a total joke. Like whoever it was at the BBC who protected Jimmy Savile from exposure as a paedo.

All Israel has behind it is Lobby money. If you asked most US senators they probably only do it for the money.

[Itchy]

Looks like America doesn't like democracy too much anymore.

[Harold Disgracey]

Countries that voted against Palestine's UN bid: Canada, Czech Republic, Palau, Nauru, Micronesia, Marshall island, Panama, US, Israel.

[Puckoon]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20415886

An article based on the legalities of war. It uses examples from the recent violence in Gaza and I found it interesting. Some folks might find it useful also, particularly those who asked questions during the violence as to the rights and wrongs and the whodunnit etc etc...

International law regulates the use of military force by states and the conduct of hostilities.

As in virtually every modern conflict, there is intense debate on the legality of the actions of the two sides involved here - Israel and Hamas.

Israel argues that its Operation Pillar of Defence is justified under the right of self-defence. This position has in principle been supported by various countries, including the US and EU member states.

Enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter, the right of self-defence is accepted as a fundamental principle of international law. While aspects of this principle are disputed, it is universally agreed that a state can defend itself against an armed attack.

There is some debate as to the intensity that an armed attack should reach before a state can lawfully resort to self-defence. Most international lawyers would agree that rockets launched against civilians that disrupt the social life of part of a country constitute an armed attack for the purposes of Article 51.

Self-defence

A case for self-defence is sometimes contested on factual grounds, for example with the argument that it was the other side that attacked first. In this case, critics of the Israeli position also advance two legal arguments.

First, they argue that the right of self-defence should be invoked only against another state, but not against a non-state entity like Gaza. State practice, especially since the attacks of 11 September 2001, militates against this interpretation of self-defence.


Secondly, some commentators maintain that Gaza is still subject to Israeli occupation because of the ongoing blockade, and that Israel cannot rely on self-defence in an occupied territory. Israel argues against this, pointing to its withdrawal from Gaza in 2005.

In a legal sense, "blockade" and "occupation" are concepts that have been understood in international law as distinct for some time. The conflation of the two is novel, and it runs into logical difficulties when its proponents characterise a ground operation as an "invasion".

The right of self-defence is no blank cheque. International law allows states to defend themselves only with force that is necessary and proportionate.

A common misperception is that proportionality in self-defence means an eye for an eye, a rocket for a rocket, or a casualty for a casualty. This is not so: there is no place in international law for using force in revenge.


"The principle of humanity must however be balanced against the principle of military necessity"

In some cases, a necessary and proportionate response will entail the use of greater military force than was involved in the original attack; in other cases, it will be possible for a country to defend itself effectively with less force.

The principle of self-defence belongs to the body of international law that regulates resort to force or "going to war" (often referred to by the Latin term jus ad bellum, that is "law to war").

The other relevant body of international law regulates the conduct of hostilities once the conflict has started. It is known as the law of armed conflict (or the jus in bello that is "law in war").

International law maintains a strict separation between these two bodies of law.

Starting a war off on the right side of the law does not give a state more rights in the conduct of hostilities than its enemies. It is possible for a state that resorted to force lawfully to commit unlawful acts in the course of an armed conflict - and vice versa.

Humanity

The law of armed conflict also limits the amount of force that states can lawfully use.

It is not easy to establish the facts during or after an armed conflict
A key principle is that of humanity: belligerents should always avoid unnecessary suffering.

The principle of humanity must however be balanced against the principle of military necessity.

The legal manual used by the British armed forces says that military necessity allows a state to use force, unless otherwise prohibited, which is "required in order to achieve the legitimate purpose of the conflict, namely the complete or partial submission of the enemy at the earliest possible moment and with the minimum expenditure of life and resources".

The argument that the Israeli bombardments are ineffective because they have so far failed to completely stop rocket attacks can cut both ways.

Strategically, it may identify a fundamental weakness in the Israeli response and suggest the pursuit of non-forcible alternatives. But, from a military necessity angle, it may justify an escalation in the force that Israel uses so as to achieve the objective of averting the attacks.

Of course, the fact that the law authorises a certain action does not make it wise in a political or strategic sense.

"International law defines military objectives as 'objects which... make an effective contribution to military action... and whose total or partial destruction... offers a definite military advantage'"

Distinction

A cornerstone in the law of armed conflict is the principle of distinction: parties to a conflict must distinguish between combatants and civilians at all times.

Various specific rules flesh out the content of this principle. Attacks on civilians and civilian objects are always banned. Attacks may be conducted against combatants or non-combatants who directly participate in hostilities, and against military objectives.

The principle of distinction also prohibits acts or threats of violence aimed at spreading terror among civilians, as well as attacks carried out with means which by their nature cannot target a specific military objective. The launching of missiles against southern Israel is said to breach distinction.

But when does an object become a legitimate military target?

International law defines military objectives as "objects which... make an effective contribution to military action... and whose total or partial destruction... offers a definite military advantage".

Rocket launchers and ammunition depots are in this category. Problems arise with so-called dual-use targets, such as the Serbian TV station bombed by Nato during the 1999 Kosovo War and the media building targeted by Israel in the course of Operation Pillar of Defence.

Proportionality

What about a building which contains a military objective, such as a rocket launcher, but which also houses civilians?

An accusation levelled against Hamas is that it endangers its own civilians
This example illustrates the importance of another pillar of the law of armed conflict: the principle of proportionality. Whenever there is a risk of loss of civilian life or damage to civilian property, belligerents are required to balance the anticipated military advantage with the risks posed to civilians and their property.

In some cases this may mean - as the former president of the International Court of Justice, Judge Rosalyn Higgins, wrote in one of her judgements - that "even a legitimate target may not be attacked if the collateral civilian casualties would be disproportionate to the specific military gain from the attack".

An attacker is also under a duty to call off an attack immediately if, in the course of it, it realizes that civilians would face excessive risk.

An attacker targeting military objectives in a densely populated area like Gaza must do everything feasible to verify the nature of the targets and avoid errors.

The practice of dropping leaflets or calling residents before a bombing is presented by Israel as evidence of its efforts to comply with these rules, although critics reply that these methods are not always effective and do not in any event prevent the destruction of civilian property.

Obligations

A frequent accusation levelled against Hamas is that it deliberately endangers its own civilians by placing military objectives in their midst.


"Ultimately, the legality of a particular targeting decision will often depend on who is right about what happened"

This is certainly a serious breach of the laws of armed conflict, but it does not mitigate Israel's obligation to continue to take all necessary precautions to minimise loss of civilian life.

All modern armed forces, including the Israel Defense Forces, have specialists on the law of armed conflict who are involved in the approval of targets.

Ultimately, the legality of a particular targeting decision will often depend on who is right about what happened. Was there a genuine military objective? Was it possible in the circumstances to hit that target while avoiding any loss of civilian life? What did the attacker know or should have known?

Establishing these facts during an armed conflict, or in its aftermath, is no easy feat.

However, when the attacker deliberately targets civilian objects, there is no version of the facts capable of justifying his actions under the laws of armed conflict.

The legal regulation of war is a sombre affair. This is an area of the law where starry-eyed idealism may be counterproductive.

It is better to remind ourselves that during an armed conflict, the law can at best reduce suffering but never eliminate it; and that wars, even those fought with a scrupulous observance of all the rules in the book, are always a scourge.

Guglielmo Verdirame is professor of International Law at the Department of War Studies and Dickson Poon School of Law, King's College London.

[seafoid]

Israel will build 3000 apartments for Jewish settlers in an area that will cut the West Bank in 2 and deny the possibilty of a Palestinian state


http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/in-response-to-un-vote-israel-to-build-3-000-new-homes-in-settlements.premium-1.481695

In response to UN vote, Israel to build 3,000 new homes in settlements

Netanyahu orders thousands of new housing units in East Jerusalem and the West Bank; controversial plans for new construction in the E1 area near Jerusalem will be advanced, contrary to commitments made to the Obama administration.

By Barak Ravid | Nov.30, 2012 | 5:36 PM



Israel plans to build some 3,000 new housing units in East Jerusalem and West Bank settlements in response to the Palestinians' successful bid for recognition at the UN General Assembly this week, a senior diplomatic source told Haaretz on Friday.

According to the source, Israel also plans to advance long-frozen plans for the E1 area, which covers an area that links the city of Jerusalem with the settlement of Ma'aleh Adumim.

If built, the controversial plan would prevent territorial contiguity between the northern and southern West Bank, making it difficult for a future Palestinian state to function.

[give her dixie]

Ceasefire update : Israel has killed 2 Palestinians , wounded 43 and arrested 19 fishermen since the ceasefire began. Last night, a shell hit a house and 4 people were injured, 2 seriously.

They are trying to get the resistance in Gaza to retaliate, and then they can go back to full scale attack. They are a wounded state at the minute, and they are lashing out.

On top of the announcement of 3,000 new illegal houses, they are now to hold $120 million in taxes due to be paid to the Palestinian Authority. The sooner Palestine take them to the international court the better.

Then, there is this new 'Site 911' that is to be built by the US in Israel.......

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers taking bids to build complex for Israeli Air Force

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is receiving bids to build a five-story complex for the Israeli Air Force, or IAF, near Tel Aviv.

The facility, mysteriously dubbed "site 911," will be built under the auspices of the Foreign Military Sales program and is expected to cost the U.S. between $25 million and $100 million, according to a solicitation for bids posted on a U.S. government website.

Only U.S. construction firms are able to bid on this contract, and the deadline for proposals is December 3, according to the notice. The notice, first reported on by The Washington Post, includes structural plans that show the first three underground floors are roughly 41,000 square feet and will include classrooms on Level 1, an auditorium on Level 3 and shock-resistant doors throughout.

The architectural plans, drawn up by prominent Israeli firm Ada Karmi-Melamede Architects, pays close attention to the aesthetics of the design as well as the functional parameters outlined in the solicitation. For example, three picnic tables are planned for the exterior.

Atypical to most Corps of Engineers contracts, the contractor hired will be required to supply mezuzahs, which it describes as parchment inscribed with Torah verses, "for each door or opening exclusive of toilets or shower rooms." Generally, mezuzahs are placed in a case and attached to a door frame as a sign of the Jewish faith.

The construction site, on an established Israeli Air Force base, will be guarded by "an Israeli citizen who served in the IAF" and will be separated from military installations with a solid 6-foot fence. Despite the precautions taken around the base, construction workers will be subject to stringent security regulations. Non-Israeli employees are required to arrive on and exit from the site "in a group only"; "the fenced area shall have one gate only for both entering and exiting the site"; and during work hours, employees are prohibited from leaving the base.

The notice also states that the employment of non-Israeli citizens is forbidden, except those from "the U.S., Canada, Western Europe countries, Poland, Moldavia, Thailand, Philippines, Venezuela, Romania and China." It specifies that the employment of Palestinians is strictly prohibited. In addition, it says, "the Contracting Officer retains all rights to refuse or inhibit employment of any employee."

Site 911 appears to be one of the largest facilities built by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which maintains three offices in Israel and has been credited with building a variety of facilities for the Israel Defense Forces over the last few years, including underground hangars for Israeli fighter-bombers and command centers. The purpose of Site 911 remains unclear.

The Israeli Embassy in Washington and the Israel Defense Forces did not respond to requests from CNN for comment.

[seafoid]

More news from Israel
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-confiscates-nis-460-million-in-palestinian-authority-tax-funds.premium-1.481888#

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz decided Sunday to confiscate the tax revenues that Israel collected for the Palestinian Authority during the month of November, and use it to offset the PA's debt to Israel's Electric Corporation.

The move comes in response to Thursday's upgrade of Palestine at the United Nations to nonmember observer state, following a vote of 138 to 9. Following the upgrade, Israel announced on Friday that it intends on building 3,000 new homes in settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

The confiscation of funds, which total NIS 460 million and are intended for the salaries of PA officials, comes after Israel warned of the move ahead of the UN vote. On November 11, Steinitz warned: "If the Palestinians continue to advance their unilateral move they should not expect bilateral cooperation. We will not collect their taxes for them and we will not transfer their tax revenues."

However, as the Israeli government weighed the legal implications following last week's UN General Assembly vote, it was not expected to rescind the economic accords that govern relations with the Palestinian Authority or do anything that would bring about its collapse.

In the weekly meeting on Sunday, Israel's cabinet unanimously decided to reject the UN decision to upgrade Palestine's status. In the decision, it was written that the West Bank is a "contested area" over which the "Jewish people have a natural right."

Moreover, the cabinet decision also stated that the UNGA decision "will not serve as the basis to future negotiations with the Palestinian Authority and it cannot advance a peaceful solution."

Netanyahu also compared the recent UN General Assembly decision to recognize Palestine as a nonmember state with observer status to the 1975 UNGA decision that equated Zionism with racism. During the weekly cabinet meeting, Netanyahu read out the cabinet decision from 1975 in which then Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin said that in response to the UN decision, Israel will accelerate plans to settle in various parts of the country, as well as in West Bank settlements. 

Ahead of the PA's expected upgrade at the UN, Israeli officials had weighed a number of retaliatory steps, such as reconsidering the provisions of the Oslo Accords, including the 1994 Paris Protocol.

The protocol regulates economic ties between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, tasking the former with collecting taxes and customs duties on the latter's behalf, amounting to around $100 million a month on goods imported into the Palestinian territories

Israel has previously frozen payments to the Palestinian government during times of heightened security and diplomatic tensions, provoking strong international criticism.

In 2011, Israel froze November's transfer of October's $100 million in tax funds to punish the Palestinians for their efforts to win UN recognition of their independence. The Israeli decision came after the Palestinians were accepted to the UN cultural agency UNESCO as part of a broader effort for admission as a full member state at the United Nations.

On November 30 that year, Israel announced that it would release the funds owed to the Palestinian Authority, ending a standoff that the Palestinians said had caused grave damage to their fragile economy.

The tax funds from customs duties and other fees are needed by the Palestinian government, the largest single employer in the Palestinian territories, to pay tens of thousands of workers, as well as security forces, which have won praise for their cooperation in halting militant attacks on Israelis.

The move followed heavy pressure from the United States, United Nations and Europe on Israel to free the money.

[Rossfan]

138 Countries are out of step with Israel .
The arrogance of the fcukers 

[give her dixie]

UK and France summon Israeli envoys in settlements row

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20579248

Britain and France have both summoned Israeli ambassadors in protest at Israel's decision to approve the construction of 3,000 new homes in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

The UK said the move would cast doubt on Israel's "stated commitment to achieving peace with the Palestinians".

Israel authorised the 3,000 additional housing units a day after the UN voted to upgrade Palestinian status.

An official close to the prime minister said Israel would not change its mind.

"Israel will continue to stand by its vital interests, even in the face of international pressure, and there will be no change in the decision that was made," an official in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office said.

Sweden has also summoned the Israeli ambassador, while Russia and Germany have expressed their opposition to the settlement plans.

The UN has warned the homes would be "an almost fatal blow" to peace hopes.


Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu: "We will continue building in Jerusalem and anywhere on Israel's strategic map"


In a statement, the UK Foreign Office said it was urging Israel to reconsider, and threatened a "strong reaction" if the homes went ahead.

It said: "We deplore the recent Israeli government decision to build 3,000 new housing units and unfreeze development in the E1 block. This threatens the viability of the two state solution."

Plans for construction in the E1 area - between Jerusalem and the West Bank settlement of Maaleh Adumim - are strongly opposed by Palestinians, who say such development will prevent the creation of a contiguous Palestinian state.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon earlier warned that the E1 plans would have to be rescinded.


Analysis


Jonathan Marcus
BBC Diplomatic Correspondent
The British and French governments have made their displeasure at Israel's latest settlement announcement clear, and there are hints that further steps could be taken.

The threat to build in the area designated E1, east of Jerusalem, has especially annoyed Western governments - indeed, successive US administrations have been given assurances by Israel that it would not build there. Construction in E1 would pose a major obstacle to a contiguous Palestinian state on the West Bank and divide such an entity from Jerusalem, which the Palestinians see as their future capital.

Indications from Israel had suggested that its initial response to the UN General Assembly vote granting the Palestinians permanent observer status would be largely rhetorical. There's a sense in the air that the diplomatic climate is changing but no real evidence as yet that Washington - the critical player - is again ready to invest in the elusive quest for peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

Move risks diplomatic fallout
"It would represent an almost fatal blow to remaining chances of securing a two-state solution," Mr Ban said.

An Israeli official has described the proposals in the E1 zone as "preliminary zoning and planning work".

The Israeli envoy to Paris was summoned to a meeting on Monday morning, French foreign ministry spokesman, Philippe Lalliot, said in a statement.

The BBC's Peter Biles says the UK is coordinating closely with France in sending a clear warning signal to Israel, but he says a suggestion in the Israeli press that Britain and France may recall their ambassadors in protest seems unlikely at this stage.

German government spokesman Steffen Seibert said in Berlin: "Israel is undermining faith in its willingness to negotiate and the geographic space for a future Palestinian state, which must be the basis for a two-state solution, is disappearing."

The Russian foreign ministry website said the move would have "a most adverse impact" on peace.

Israel has condemned the Palestinians' diplomatic move at the UN as a "gross violation" of previous agreements with Israel.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also brushed off criticism of the settlement plans.

"We will carry on building in Jerusalem and in all the places that are on the map of Israel's strategic interests," he said.

About 500,000 Jews live in more than 100 settlements built since the occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

The settlements are considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this.

Two decades of on-off negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority have failed to produce a permanent settlement, with the latest round of direct negotiations breaking down in 2010.

[seafoid]

Anyone in any doubt about the real face of Zionism should read this letter today, on budget day in Ireland when another 3.5 bn is taken out of the economy

http://www.irishtimes.com/letters/index.html#1224327508293

Sir, – Supporters of boycotts in countries with struggling economies are best counselled to wield their power judiciously (Home News, December 3rd).

While all too many in Ireland are charged with their ill-advised boycott of Israel and its products, I dare to suggest that the spirit of the boycott equally has the effect of inciting worldwide supporters of Israel to boycott products of Ireland, and Irish travel.

Is it not interesting that the effects of boycotts are reciprocal? – Yours, etc,

ALLEN E NUTIK,

Redfern Avenue,

Montreal, Canada

[glens abu]

SINN FÉIN has called for Ireland's Ambassador to Israel to be recalled in protest against the Israeli Government's decision to build another 3,000 illegal settler homes that would effectively cut the West Bank in two.

The move by Tel Aviv is in retaliation for the United Nations upgrading last week of Palestine's diplomatic status at the UN and giving de facto recognition of Palestine statehood.

UN chief Ban Ki-moon warned the expansionist aggression could wipe out peace hopes.

Germany and Russia have criticised the Israeli plans while France, Britain, and Sweden have already summoned the Israeli ambassadors in their countries as a protest.

Sinn Féin Foreign Affairs spokesperson Seán Crowe TD (right) said that Ireland needs to send out a strong message and exert "maximum pressure".

The new settlement colonies will be built in the highly contentious E1 area of the West Bank, the only geographical connection that remains between Jerusalem and the West Bank.

Settlement building in this area threatens to cut off Palestinian access to East Jerusalem, removing the possibility of East Jerusalem becoming the capital of any future Palestinian state.

"This possibility puts a two-state solution in real jeopardy," Seán Crowe said.

"Israel needs to recognise that the vast majority of the international community support a two-state solution and it needs to begin inclusive and productive negotiations with elected Palestinian representatives immediately."

Meanwhile, Sinn Féin President Gerry Adams TD (right) has described the Israeli Government's decision as "a deliberate snub to the international community and a serious blow to diminishing hopes of a two-state settlement".

The Sinn Féin leader has urged the international community to "take strong and urgent diplomatic action against Israel".

Gerry Adams added:

"This decision must not be allowed to stand and every action possible must be taken by the international community to have these plans scrapped.