De demonstratie voor Palestina in Amsterdam was netjes verlopen, las ik in NRC en in diverse andere media. Drie arrestaties, één vanwege een Hamas-vlag en twee vanwege gezichtsbedekkende kleding en het bedreigen van een agent.
Maar op Facebook beweerden Vrienden van Israël dat er “kankerjoden” was geroepen en “Hamas, alle Joden aan het gas”. Op de website Jonet.nlschrijft Max Moszkowicz zelfs dat het een pro-progromdemonstratie was, dat er “Dood aan de Joden” was gescandeerd en dat op de demonstratie voor Israël huilende mensen met foto’s van vermoorde en ontvoerde familieleden werden uitgelachen en toegesist.
Blinde moslimhaat
Ik heb zo mijn twijfels over de beweringen van Moszkowicz en mijn Facebook-vrienden, aangezien zelfs de hysterische Ronny Naftaniel niks ergers te melden had dan dat er “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” werd geroepen, een leus die zou betekenen dat de Palestijnen alle Joden in zee willen drijven. In het licht van de uitspraken van Israëlische politici, legerleiders en Vrienden van Israël, die Palestijnen ontmenselijken tot beesten en ongedierte en van Gaza een parkeerplaats willen maken, vind ik het gejank erover nogal hypocriet.
Meteen na de massamoorden en ontvoeringen van Hamas begon de haatpropagandamachine tegen Palestijnen, Arabieren en moslims hier in Nederland op volle kracht, met stukken over Jodenhaat die er nou eenmaal bij moslims zou zijn ingebakken volgens Fidan Ekiz, Aylin Bilic en natuurlijk Wierd Duk, die laat nooit eens verstek gaan, echt helemaal nooit, en vanuit Berlijn haathandelaar Ruud Koopmans, versterkt door het immense leger van monsterlijke trollen op de sociale media. Een tapijtbombardement van blinde moslimhaat hebben we nu alweer een week te verduren. Opdat we niet vergeten tot welke verschrikkingen het antisemitisme leidt, richten we onze haat nu tot Der Ewige Moslem.
En verder krijgt iedereen het voor zijn kiezen die zijn vraagtekens zet bij de manier waarop Israël de terreur van Hamas meent te moeten vergelden, namelijk met nog veel meer terreur tegen de bevolking van Gaza, waar de lijken zich opstapelen en het volk geen kant op kan. Waar Israël de bevolking van het noorden naar het zuiden stuurt om die doodleuk dáár uit te roeien.
Rechtsstaat afbreken
Maar dat moeten we aanmoedigen, anders steunen we Hamas en willen we de Holocaust nog een keertje overdoen. En niet alleen het CIDI vindt het schandalig dat er in Amsterdam mocht worden gedemonstreerd voor de Palestijnen, ook het CDA vindt kennelijk dat het verboden zou moeten worden, net als in Duitsland en Frankrijk, omdat demonstreren voor Palestina gelijk staat aan “terreur verheerlijken”. Zo word je, wanneer je geeft om mensenrechten, gecriminaliseerd door christenpapa’s als CDA-Kamerlid Derk Boswijk. Zo wordt de ontmanteling van de rechtsstaat gelegitimeerd, want je was “terreur aan het verheerlijken.”
Hugo de Jonge zou tegen een Kamerlid, dat bezwaar maakte tegen de uitbreiding van de sleepwet, hebben gezegd dat “we zijn niet geïnteresseerd in wat uw buurman op Netflix kijkt, maar in de Russen.” Tuurlijk, en in iedereen die niet pal achter Israël staat, want “terreur verheerlijken”.
Israëlische terreur is goede terreur
Israël steunen is natuurlijk geen terreur verheerlijken, want zoals Fréderike Geerdink uitlegde, is terrorisme alleen voorbehouden aan “niet-statelijke gewapende groepen of volkeren zonder land, zoals de PKK, de Koerden, de Palestijnen, de PLO, Hamas, of ooit het ANC.” Als Israël kinderen vermoordt, ziekenhuizen bombardeert en mensen ontvoert is het geen terreur, maar zelfverdediging en daar moeten we het verplicht mee eens zijn.
En daarom moeten we 24/7 geïndoctrineerd worden met Israëlische oorlogspropaganda, in ons eigen land!, waar overal in de openbare ruimte posters met portretten van ontvoerde Israëliërs hangen, u aangeboden door CIDI, en ben je een vieze vuile antisemiet als je een filmpje toont van twee doodsbange Palestijnse kinderen.
Hamas veroordelen
Zo kotsmisselijk ben ik inmiddels van de Israëllobby, die agressief alles aanvalt wat ons land nog enigszins beschaafd houdt, zoals het demonstratierecht, de vrije pers, mensenrechten en vrije meningsuiting. Onvermoeibaar wordt erop gebeukt,. en dan moeten we nog blij zijn dat we in Nederland wonen, want in Frankrijk worden mensen opgepakt die “salam aleikum” zeggen, en werd de voorzitter van de Joodse Unie voor de Vrede afgevoerd wegens pro-Palestijnse sympathieën.
Het Vrije Westen, mensuh! Hele dag drammen tegen mensen die om hun familie in Gaza treuren: “Maar veroordeel je Hamas wel?!” Wie de fuck zou jij veroordelen als je familie aan gort werd geschoten door de Israëliërs? Zou je dan ook “Hup Bibi!” roepen en met je Israëlische vlaggetje zwaaien?
Kuthaartje
Twee weken geleden schreef ik dat we een kuthaartje van het fascisme verwijderd zijn, maak daar maar het achtergebleven donshaartje op een geëpileerde kut van. Verplicht juichen voor Israël, je koran achter een paneel in je kledingkast verstoppen en de Palestijnen bestaan toch niet meer. Uitgeroeid door Hamas, want Israëliërs doen zoiets niet.
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor [Artikel Frontaal Naakt]/Overstuur vanwege die dode Palestijnse kinderen? Vuile antisemiet!
Contary to the leading opinions of the American-European politicians and media, the main aim of Hamas in calling for the “destruction” of the State of Israel, is not to kill or expel the Israeli-Jewish population, but to dismantle the zionistic State Model and to make an end to the 39-year Israeli occupation and settlement policy.
In the Palestinian elections January 25, 2006, Hamas obtained a startling victory. Of the 132 seats of parliament, the Hamas party, which for the first time was participating in the parliamentary elections, obtained 74 seats, in contrast with the then-reigning Fatah Party, which obtained a mere 43 seats. The remaining 13 seats were obtained by different smaller political parties, as well as independent candidates.
This great victory for Hamas was no surprise, considering the ongoing corruption of the Fatah-government versus the fundamental political and military resistance by Hamas against the Israeli occupation, as well as the Hamas social activities on behalf of the impoverished population of Palestine, especially Gaza.
In spite of this, leading American-European politicians, as well as the newsmedia, not only showed great astonishment at Hamas’ victory, they also demanded that Hamas renounce the violence against Israel and also acknowledge the State of Israel – and made this demand the condition of continued financial support to the Palestinian Authority.
When the newly-formed Hamas government refused to agree with those American-European demands, the American and Canadian governments, as well the European Union, decided to freeze the financial support to the Palestinian Authority, a measure which mainly affected the already seriously impoverished Palestinian civilian population, since at least 45% of the population [some reports put the number as high as 70 %] are living below the poverty-rate and 15% are living in extreme poverty.
Nutrition, education and medicine have been the areas most affected by the financial and economic boycott of Palestine. Moreover, 250,000 Palestinians depend on Palestinian Authority salaries, and these government employees support nearly one million people, or 20% of the total Palestinian population. However, due to the American-European boycott, salaries haven’t been paid since January, and the families of the government employees have had to bear the consequences.
Not only are the boycott measures morally reprehensible in regard with the humanitarian consequences for the Palestinian civilian-population, they have also led to mounting tensions within the Palestinian society.
Many international non-governmental organizations, as well as a number of United Nations agencies, have harshly criticized the economic boycott and blockade of Palestine.
Another consequence of the boycott is that, as a result of the freezing of European Union (EU) financial support, Hamas shall receive increased financial aid from the governments of the Arab and other Islamic countries. This will lead to the lessening of EU political influence regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the strengthening of the influence of regimes adhering to more radical political Islamic ideologies, such as Iran. Recently a number of Arab governments, and Iran, have either given or promised financial aid to the Hamas government.
No doubt aware of the above-mentioned political consequences of the diminishing EU influence regarding the Middle-East, the EU, represented by EU Commissioner Louis Michel (former Belgian minister of foreign affairs), has set aside a sum of 34 million euros for emergency aid to the Palestinian territories. This aid is to be delivered outside of the Palestinian government, mainly through non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
Also the World Bank, which has predicted an increasing humanitarian crisis in the Palestinian territories, is exploring, in direct cooperation with the ‘Quartet for Mideast Peace made up of the EU, USA, the Russian Federation and the UN, to resume financial aid to the Palestinian population, by going outside of Hamas channels, bypassing the Hamas-led Palestinian government by providing the aid by way of NGOs which are active in the area.
Double standards:
The basis of the American-European boycott of the financial aid to the Palestinian Authority lies in the refusal of Hamas to renounce violence against Israel and to acknowlegde the State of Israel. A further argument given in support of the boycott is the fact, that Hamas has played a major role in the incitement to suicide attacks against Israeli civilians and is still continuing this strategy.
It is self-evident that suicide-attacks as military attacks on civilians are not only inhuman, but also illegal according to International Law. But what is seldom mentioned by the EU and the American-European governments are that these attacks are a matter of cause and effects, since they have been the result of the now 39 years of Israeli occupation of Palestinian land — an occupation which is in violation of the unanimously-accepted UN-Security Resolution 242 of 1967, in which Israel was required to withdraw its troops from the territories conquered during the June 1967 war, including the Palestinian territories.
Also, the boycotting countries are ignoring the fact that the attacks by Hamas do not consist solely of suicide-attacks, but also of the internationally-recognized legitimate acts of defense by an occupied population against the occupying military force — in this case, the Israeli army.
Repeatedly, the Hamas leadership has declared, both pre- and post- the January elections, the group’s willingness to renounce violence against Israel, as soon as Israel is prepared to end its occupation of the Palestinian territories [ie. its international obligation under UN Security Council Resolution 242], to dismantle its settlements in the Palestinian territories, which are illegal according International Law [see also UN-Security Council Resolution 1979], to dismantle the Wall, which is being built across occupied Palestinian territories [see verdict of the International Court of Justice dated 9-7-2004], and its acknowledgement of the internationally-recognized right of return for Palestinian refugees, a right which is confirmed by General Assembly Resolution 194.
All of the Hamas movement’s demands are based on International Law, confirmed by the above-named United Nations resolutions, and are therefore absolutely legitimate demands that should be recognized as such by the international community.
What is striking in this particular case, however, is that the American-European boycotting goverments are demanding that Hamas completely disarm on the one hand, while on the other hand, making no clear demands on Israel regarding the implementation of the above mentioned UN resolutions, which were voted for by many of these same American-European States.
Also this double standard is being applied in regard to Israeli and Palestinian violence.
Although the condemnation of suicide-attacks against Israeli civilians is correct and justified, there is however a strong undervaluation of the serious character of the Israeli human rights violatons and war-crimes which have been committed by the Israeli army since the beginning of the occupation in 1967 (and before).
It is also significant to mention that from EU-side there is no real political pressure on Israel to end the occupation and withdraw from the Palestinian territories. Seen from that perspective, the American-European criticism against Hamas lacks moral credibility, as the boycotting nations are choosing to call for the enforcement of international law on a very selective basis. Why should international human rights standards only apply to Hamas? Why should they not apply to Israel as well?
The false international perception of Hamas ideology
It is a common standard in nearly all American-European newsmedia, as well in statements of politicians, to mention repeatedly that the Hamas ideology is associated with the “destruction” of the State of Israel.
In the context in which this statement is made, it is almost always implied that by calling for Israel’s “destruction”, Hamas intends to expel the Jewish-Israeli inhabitants out of the present Israel or even to kill them.
Before trying to unmask this stubborn American-European assumption I want to throw some light on the political history of the Hamas
Hamas [abbreviation of Harakat al-muqâwama al-islâmiyya, which means islamic resistanc emovement] was founded in 1987 as a religious-nationalistic resistance-organisation with Sheikh Ahmed Yassin as the spiritual leader. He was killed in an Israeli airstrike in March 2004, which, being an extra-judicial execution, not only killed him but also killed 7 other innocent bystanders.
However, since the beginning of the eighties, there was a predecessor of Hamas, also under the leadership of Sheikh Yassin, which was mainly an islamic revival movement, mostly directed toward social and charitable goals.
Although that movement of course opposed the Israeli occupation, it did not promote violent resistance, since the group considered the Israeli occupation as a punishment of God because of the lack of religious devotion in Palestine.
In other words, this revival-movement was meant to make the Palestinian population return to the basics of Islam, as explained by the movement, in their daily life.
This revivalist-ideological movement was supported financially by Israel, supposedly as a ‘counterbalance’ to the Palestine Liberation Organization, led by Yasser Arafat, which was, in combination with the al-Fatah organization, the most powerful resistance movement against the Israeli occupation at that time.
Even when the official Hamas organization was founded in 1987, initially there was no real resistance against the occupation, despite the anti-zionistic Charterof the group, written in 1988.
Only in the post-Oslo era (1993 on) did the Hamas organization became part of the resistance, resulting in military attacks against the Israeli occupation army, and, beginning in 1994, in suicide-attacks against Israeli civilians. The immediate cause of the first suicide-attack was the 1994 massacre by the Jewish-Israeli extreme-rightwing terrorist, Dr. Baruch Goldstein, on 29 Palestinians who were praying Palestinians in the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron.
The Hamas Charter
An analysis of the Hamas Charter, that consists of 36 articles, reveals that the purpose of the group is to form a religious resistance against the Israeli occupation, as well as advocating for the dismantlement of the zionistic State of Israel, to be replaced by an Islamic Palestinian State with equal rights for all the inhabitants and religious freedom regarding Jews and Christians.
Seen from this perspective, the Charter has an anti-colonialistic character, because of its fundamental criticism of the colonial character of the foundation of the State of Israel in historical Palestine, first as a colony of the Turkish-Ottoman Empire, and after World War I, a British Mandate-area.
Following the plans of the European zionist movement, the foundation of a “Jewish” State in historical Palestine took place in 1948, based on UN General Assembly Resolution 181, passed in 1947, which supported the division of Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab part. The Resolution was made without any consultation of the indigenous Palestinian population, despite the fact that the Palestinians, along with the surrounding Arab states, had proposed at that time an alternative plan that would allow for Jewish immigration into Palestine without the separation of the state into “Jewish” and “Arab” areas, but that alternative was rejected by the United Nations, under pressure from the European Zionist movement.
It is of importance to mention here, that the objections of the Palestinians to Resolution 181 were not against the settlement of Jewish people in Palestine, but against the division of their country in two different States.
Apart from that, the Hamas movement is within its rights under international law to challenge the existence of the Zionist State of Israel in its current form, as the State of Israel in its current form is, at its basis, discriminatory against non-Jews.
One of the most striking examples of the discriminatory basis of the State of Israel is the fact that any Jewish man, woman or child in the world has the right to settle in Israel, while the internationally-recognized right of return of the Palestinian descendants of the 750,000 Palestinians expelled by Zionist militias in 1948, a right confirmed in General Assembly Resolution 194, passed in 1948, is not acknowledged by Israel.
The statements often made by the American-European politicians and newsmedia that Hamas wants to expel or even kill the Israeli-Jewish inhabitants of Israel is made based on a false reading of the Hamas Charter.
Although in the Charter, reference is made to “the Jews”, a thorough reading makes clear that this is a reference to the Israeli zionist system and the Israeli occupation, and not to the Jews as an ethnic-religious group. In Hamas bulletins, the group never refers to “the Jews” as such, but rather to the “zionist enemy” or the “zionist entity” – a reference to the political basis of the state of Israel, _not_ to Jewish people as an ethnic or religious group.
Suicide-attacks
In any mention of Hamas in the American-European press, emphasis is always made on the suicide-attacks against Israeli civilians for which Hamas bears responsibility. It is evident that suicide-attacks are not only inhuman, they are also serious violations of International Humanitarian Law, which states that in any military conflict a clear distinction must be made between combatants [soldiers or fighters] and non-combatants [civilians].
From that point of view it is completely right that those attacks are being severely condemned by the International Community.
But it is important to realize that the cause of those suicide-attacks are rooted in the Israeli occupation of all Palestinian land since 1967. The attacks began in 1994 after nearly thirty years of continuous oppression, humiliation and unpunished war crimes by Israeli forces in Palestine with no international enforcement of United Nations Resolutions that both recognized and condemned the Israeli actions and war crimes.
Still, this is no justification whatsoever for any resistance group to also commit war crimes. According to International Law it is illegal to respond to a violation of one’s human rights by committing a reciprocal violation, even in regard to an occupation.
On the other hand, any military action against an occupation army is considered legitimate resistance by an occupied population against the occupying power. However, there is little international attention to the fact that an important part of Hamas’ strategy is also the use of this legitimate resistance method.
It is worth noting that Israel, as well as the USA, qualify those military attacks against the occupation army as ‘terrorist acts’, ignoring the internationally-recognized legitimacy of such acts.
Recently, Mr. Solana, Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union, has confirmed the right of resistance against a foreign occupation.
The Israeli extrajudicial assassination policy
One policy of Israel that is both morally reprehensible and a violation of international law is the policy of extrajudicial assassinations of the leaders and activists of the Palestinian resistance movements like Hamas.
These assassinations began in the beginning of the 1970s and have continued until the present day. Each successive Israeli government that has been elected has continued the policy unquestioningly.
Israeli assassinations of suspected Palestinian resistance fighters and leaders have taken a number of forms: the frontal shootings of cars, the exploding of mobile telephones and the current method: ‘assassination-by-missile’ – airstrikes by Israeli warplanes onto suspected cars or homes, regardless of whether the target is in a crowded refugee-camp, in a flat full of civilian apartments, or in a marketplace. All of these have been the sites of missile strikes by Israeli forces in attempted extrajudicial assassinations.
These attacks are severe violations of International Law, which states that every human being has a right on a fair and independent trial.
In the extrajudicial assassinations, which are still being carried out by Israeli forces on a nearly-daily basis, in many cases civilian bystanders are also killed.
In those cases, the extrajudicial assassinations become not just violations of international law, but war crimes. The fact that civilians are nearly always present at the assassination sites [streets, market-places, cars, apartments and refugee-camps] leads to a high probability of civilians being killed – this is a direct violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention’s Principle of Proportionality, and thus is considered internationally to be a war crime.
However, despite the high humanitarian risk for the civilian population, the current Israeli Prime Minister Olmert has made clear that those airstrikes are to be continued, despite the continuous loss of Palestinian civilian lives.
It is a striking example of Western ‘selective indignation’ that this Israeli policy of extrajudicial assassinations, which nearly always leads to civilian casualties, is not criticized as harshly as Hamas’ incitement toward suicide-attacks.
No sanctions have been taken against Israel in regard with thosde extrajudicial executions, as well the indiscriminate military attacks on Gaza. But all financial assistance has been cut to the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority.
Regarding this issue, Israel, being the occupying country, bears the lion’s share in the escalation of the present conflict. The EU, which claims to consider Palestinian humanitarian concerns in its policies, must be held accountable for its hypocritical double standard in the enforcement of international law in this conflict.
Social-charitable Hamas-activities
One aspect of Hamas’ activities that has long been undervalued internationally is the fact that Hamas has been engaging in social and charitable activities on behalf of the most impoverished in the two Palestinian territories, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Ironically, by doing this, Hamas is fulfilling the international-judicial obligation of the Israeli occupying power to take care of the humanitarian needs of the occupied Palestinian population – an obligation that Israel has failed to fulfill.
According one of the most important articles of the 4th Geneva Convention, an occupying power is responsible for the safety, well-being and the welfare of the occupied population, a population which, while under occupation, become “protected persons” – a class of people that have special rights under international law.
The impoverished situation of the Palestinian population is being intensified each day by the Israeli military attacks in Gaza and the West-Bank, which have also resulted in serious human rights violations and war crimes.
When such Israeli measures were taken in the past, Hamas has increased its efforts to support the most impoverished part of the population. Donors for the projects, which include schools, hospitals and daycare centers, have come from all over the world, but mainly from the Arab world. Hamas gained a reputation as a focused and devoted group that did not steal money for themselves and their own enrichment (as was the reputation of the ruling Fateh party), but dedicated funding to numerous projects that benefited the least-well-off of the Palestinian society.
Of course, this led to a great popularity of Hamas and the striking outcome of the elections.
Ongoing Israeli violations
In both Gaza and the West Bank, massive home demolitions of Palestinian homes have been carried out by Israeli forces, which is forbidden according to article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Also, in Gaza especially, the border with Israel is often completely closed, causing tens of thousands of Palestinians who work in Israel to lose their jobs — their only means of livelihood.
In July and August 2006, Israeli forces have not only closed the border with Gaza, but also bombed parts of the infrastructure [bridges and main roads], which caused considerable damage and has cut off the water and electricity supply for the entire population. This was done, according to Israel, as a retaliatory measure for the abduction and imprisonment of an Israeli soldier by Palestinian resistance fighters on June 25th.
Retaliatory measures such as these, as collective punishment of an entire population, are serious breaches of International Law. In particular, article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention forbids any collective punishment.
Epilogue:
In this article I’ve tried to make clear, that not only is the American-European freezing of the financial help to the Palestinian Authority is immoral, because it is at the cost of the impoverished Palestinian population, it is also a double standard to condemn the violence of Hamas, while not condemning the ongoing violence of the Israeli occupation of Palestine.
No resistance organisation in the world can be expected to lay down their arms while the occupation and oppression they are resisting is allowed to continue in the most extreme way.
However, it must also be noted that a resistance movement must also adhere to its obligations according to International Law.
The international community, particularly the European-American nations that have chosen to boycott the Hamas-led Palestinian government, must respect the stand taken by Hamas against the Israeli occupation and settlement expansion policy, as well as Hamas’ fundamental resistance against the zionistic State-model of Israel. This must not be done by closing our eyes to the serious human rights violations of the group by the part it has played in suicide-attacks against Israeli civilians, but neither can we close our eyes to the ongoing human rights violations by Israel.
I sincerely hope that Hamas will not yield to the growing American-European political pressure to make the Israeli occupation and settlements policy points of negotiation.
But if Hamas really wants to be respected internationally, the group must refrain from attacks on Israeli civilians.
Every human being, whether Palestinian or Israeli, has the right on the same humane treatment and in my opinion, even living under an occupation as severe as the Israeli occupation of Palestine does not give a person or group the right to violate the rights of their occupiers.
Astrid Essed Amsterdam The Netherlands
“Power in defense of freedom is greater than power on behalf of tyranny and oppression.” -Malcolm X
Sterke 9/11-vibes na de aanval van Hamas op Israël. In navolging van EU-voorzitter Ursula von der Leyen verklaarden zowel Mark Rutte als Jesse Klaver dat Israël het recht heeft zich tegen deze terreur te verdedigen. We weten inmiddels hoe Israël zich verdedigt: door zoveel mogelijk Palestijnen aan gort te bombarderen.
Daar moeten wij het verplicht mee eens zijn in dit vrije deel van de wereld. Wierd Duk laat weten dat Afshin Ellian en VVD-Kamerlid Ruben Brekelmans op de staatstelevisie hebben verklaard dat je nú laat zien dat je solidair bent. Wie daar bezwaren tegen heeft, wordt door De Telegraaf als een misdadiger geschandpaald, te boek gesteld als antisemiet en als staatsgevaar. Duk hangt al drie dagen de Opiniepolizei uit, en hij niet alleen. Iedereen die erop wijst dat de Palestijnen de afgelopen decennia ook wat voor hun kiezen hebben gehad, wordt verrot gescholden, voor antisemiet uitgemaakt en bedreigd. Fanatiek sturen de Vrienden van Israël gruwelfilmpjes rond van verminkte lijken, de slachtoffers van Hamas.
Gruweldaden
En het zijn gruweldaden, die Hamas pleegt. De website Electronic Intifada spreekt van een “rechtvaardige bevrijdingsoorlog”, maar in een rechtvaardige bevrijdingsoorlog sleep je niet de naakte lijken van je slachtoffers door de straat, schiet je niet honderden jonge bezoekers van een muziekfestival dood en trek je niet moordend door woonwijken.
Extreemlinkse toetsenbordridders, geretweet door BIJ1-aanhangers, oordelen als kille schrijftafelmoordenaars dat er “geen onschuldige zionisten zijn” en dat “zionisten die blijven als ze de keuze hebben te vertrekken, ophouden burgers te zijn.”
“You don’t get freedom peacefully”, citeert iemand Malcolm X, maar er is verschil tussen “not peacefully” en de barbarij die Hamas tentoonspreidt. Ik ben geen Sun Tzu maar ik zou, als ik Hamas was, uiterst gedisciplineerd zijn geweest, alleen krijgsgevangenen hebben genomen en alle burgers met het uiterste respect hebben behandeld.
Maar het gaat er natuurlijk om Israël zo razend mogelijk te maken zodat het terugslaat met een wrede genadeloosheid die mensen kotsend het theater zal doen verlaten. Dat begrijp ik heus wel.
Israëlische doden
Dit afschuwelijke geweld komt niet uit het niets, al willen de Vrienden van Israël dit ons graag doen geloven. Ruben Brekelmans, bijvoorbeeld, deelt op Twitter een staafdiagram met alleen het aantal Israëlische doden van de afgelopen 15 jaar als gevolg van het “conflict met de Palestijnen.” Fact-checker Marieke Kuypers laat in zo’n zelfde diagram zien dat het aantal Israëlische doden in het niet valt bij het aantal Palestijnse doden.
En hoe Israël het voor elkaar krijgt zo onnoemelijk veel Palestijnse slachtoffers te maken, krijgen we bijna dagelijks in filmpjes te zien waarin we soldaten kinderen zien doodschieten alsof het kalkoenen zijn, Gaza bombarderen waar de bewoners niet uit wegkunnen en waarin kolonisten Palestijnen vernederen die ze net uit hun huis hebben weggejaagd, als ze ze niet gewoon doodschieten.
“Collateral damage” zei een Vriend van Israël tegen mij. Dode Israëlische burgers zijn slachtoffers van terreur, dode Palestijnen zijn “collateral damage”.
Palestijnen zijn ongedierte
Esther Voet zei, toen op het strand van Gaza een groepje voetballende Palestijnse kinderen vanuit een gevechtsvliegtuig aan stukken werd gereten: “Het is wel oorlog, hè!”
Palestijnse levens betekenen hier in Nederland gewoon niks. Palestijnen zijn vuil, uitschot, het is ongedierte, anders praat je niet zo makkelijk over dode kinderen. Zo achteloos, zo zonder enig gevoel.
En dan ben je geschokt dat Hamas net zo achteloos met Israëlische burgers omspringt, en dan ben je kwaad dat Nederlanders hier wijzen op de context van dat geweld.
Feestvieren om slachtparijen
Ik zag filmpjes van mensen die feestvierden vanwege de aanval van Hamas. Ik vind mensen, die juichen om dodelijke slachtoffers, nare mensen. Maar de Vrienden van Israël zijn nogal hypocriet als ze beweren dat zij nooit juichen als er Palestijnen worden gedood. Ze staan op film, de Israëlische jongeren die een soort feestje maakten van het kijken naar de Israëlische beschietingen van Gaza, applaudisserend bij elke inslag. In straatinterviews zeggen Israëliërs dat alle Arabieren moeten worden uitgegroeid, dat hun land en hun huizen eerlijk zijn veroverd in oorlogen.
En hier in Nederland viert GeenStijl feest bij dode Palestijnen, en Laurence Blik en haar vrienden, onder wie zich heel wat prominente Vrienden van Israël bevinden.
Doe niet net of je beter bent dan Hamas. Je bent net zo bloeddorstig, net zo barbaars, net zo wreed en genadeloos.
Gekoloniseerde volken
Waar Nederland nog aan moet wennen, merk ik, is dat de tijd voorbij is dat iedereen braaf ja knikte als er werd gepreekt dat lam Israël was omsingeld door bloeddorstige Arabische leeuwen die het land wilden vernietigen alléén omdat er Joden woonden. Meer pluriformiteit in het medialandschap, want Al Jazeera en sociale media, en een andere samenstelling van de bevolking dan in 1973, maken dat het “conflict” vanuit meerdere perspectieven bekeken wordt. Nazaten van gekoloniseerde volkeren en telgen van nog steeds gekoloniseerde volken zien alles in een andere context.
En je kunt boos worden en schelden en dreigen wat je wilt, met je “Hamas-vriendje” en je “antisemiet” en wat dan ook, die context hoort erbij. Je bent niet meer gezaghebbend, je bepaalt niet meer wat andere mensen denken. Je bent niet meer de baas.
EINDE
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor [Artikel Frontaal Naakt]/Hamas-vriendje
The following questions and answers (Q&A) address issues relating to international humanitarian law (the laws of war) governing current hostilities between Israel and Hamas, and other Palestinian armed groups in Gaza. The purpose is to facilitate analysis of the conduct of all parties involved in the conflict with the aim of deterring violations of the laws of war and encouraging accountability for abuses.
This Q&A focuses on international humanitarian law governing the conduct of hostilities. It does not address whether Palestinian armed groups or Israel were or are justified in their attacks or other matters concerning the legitimacy of resorting to armed force, such as under the United Nations Charter. In accordance with our institutional mandate, Human Rights Watch does not take positions on issues of jus ad bellum (law concerning acceptable justifications to use armed force); our primary goal is documenting violations of the laws of war, and encouraging all parties in armed conflict to respect the laws of war, or jus in bello.
International humanitarian law recognizes the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza as an ongoing armed conflict. Current hostilities and military attacks between Israel and Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups are governed by the conduct of hostilities standards rooted in international humanitarian law, consisting of international treaty law, most notably Common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and customary international humanitarian law applicable in so-called non-international armed conflicts, which are reflected in the Additional Protocols of 1977 to the Geneva Conventions. These rules concern the methods and means of combat and fundamental protections for civilians and combatants no longer participating in hostilities for both states and non-state armed groups.
Foremost among the rules of international humanitarian law is the rule that parties to a conflict must distinguish at all times between combatants and civilians. Civilians may never be the target of attack. Warring parties are required to take all feasible precautions to minimize harm to civilians and civilian objects, such as homes, shops, schools, and medical facilities. Attacks may target only combatants and military objectives. Attacks that target civilians or fail to discriminate between combatants and civilians, or that would cause disproportionate harm to the civilian population compared to the anticipated military gain, are prohibited.
Additionally, Common Article 3 provides a number of fundamental protections for civilians and persons who are no longer taking part in hostilities, such as captured combatants, and those who have surrendered or become incapacitated. It prohibits violence against such persons – particularly murder, cruel treatment, and torture – as well as outrages against their personal dignity and degrading or humiliating treatment, and the taking of hostages.
The laws of war make no formal distinction between parties to a conflict on the basis of power imbalances or other criteria. The fundamental principles of international humanitarian law still apply. Violating them by deliberately targeting civilians or carrying out indiscriminate attacks can never be justified by pointing to the injustice of the political situation or other political or moral arguments. To permit the targeting of civilians in circumstances in which there is a disparity of power between opposing forces, as is the case in many conflicts, would create an exception that would virtually negate the rules of war.
The laws of war recognize that some civilian casualties may be inevitable during armed conflict, but impose a duty on warring parties at all times to distinguish between combatants and civilians, and to target only combatants and other military objectives. The fundamental tenets of international humanitarian law are “civilian immunity” and the principle of “distinction.”
Combatants include members of a country’s armed forces and commanders and full-time fighters in non-state armed groups. They are subject to attack at all times during hostilities unless they are captured or incapacitated.
Civilians lose their immunity from attack when and only for such time as they are directly participating in hostilities. According to guidance by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the laws of war distinguish between members of the organized fighting forces of a non-state party, who may be targeted during an armed conflict, and part-time fighters, who are civilians who may only be targeted when and only for such time as they are directly participating in hostilities. Similarly, reservists of national armed forces are considered civilians except when they go on duty, in which case they are combatants subject to attack. Fighters who leave the armed group, as well as regular army reservists who reintegrate into civilian life, are civilians until they are called back to active duty.
For an individual’s act to constitute direct participation in hostilities, it must imminently be capable of causing harm to opposing forces and must be deliberately carried out to support a party to the armed conflict. Direct participation in hostilities includes measures taken in preparation for executing the act, as well as deployment to and return from the location where the act is carried out.
ICRC guidance also sets out that people who have exclusively non-combat functions in armed groups, including political or administrative roles, or are merely members of or affiliated with political entities that have an armed component, such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, or the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, may not be targeted at any time unless and only for such time as they, like any other civilian, directly participate in the hostilities. That is, membership or affiliation with a Palestinian movement with an armed wing is not a sufficient basis for determining an individual to be a lawful military target.
The laws of war also protect civilian objects, which are defined as anything not considered a legitimate military objective. Prohibited are direct attacks against civilian objects, such as homes and apartments, places of worship, hospitals and other medical facilities, schools, and cultural monuments. Civilian objects become subject to legitimate attack when they become military objectives; that is, when they are making an effective contribution to military action and their destruction, capture, or neutralization offers a definite military advantage, subject to the rules of proportionality. This would include the presence of members of armed groups or military forces in what are normally civilian objects. Where there is doubt about the nature of an object, it must be presumed to be civilian.
The laws of war prohibit indiscriminate attacks. Indiscriminate attacks strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction. Examples of indiscriminate attacks are those that are not directed at a specific military objective or that use weapons that cannot be directed at a specific military objective. Prohibited indiscriminate attacks include area bombardment, which are attacks by artillery or other means that treat as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in an area containing a concentration of civilians and civilian objects.
An attack on an otherwise legitimate military target is prohibited if it would violate the principle of proportionality. Disproportionate attacks are those that may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life or damage to civilian objects that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the attack.
Hostage-taking is prohibited in non-international armed conflicts under Article 1(b) of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and customary international humanitarian law. The ICRC Commentary on Common Article 3 defines hostage-taking as “the seizure, detention or otherwise holding of a person (the hostage) accompanied by the threat to kill, injure or continue to detain that person in order to compel a third party to do or to abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release, safety or well-being of the hostage.” Hostages can include civilians and people taking no active part in hostilities, such as members of armed forces who have surrendered or who have been detained. Hostage-taking is a war crime, including under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. People taken as hostages, like all held in custody, must be treated humanely, and cannot be used as human shields.
The ICRC Commentary also notes that hostages are often people, such as civilians posing no security threat, who are taken into custody and detained unlawfully. However, unlawful detention is not necessary for there to be a hostage-taking. An individual whose detention may be lawful, such as a captured soldier, could still be used as a hostage.
A threat to continue detaining someone legally held would not amount to a hostage-taking. For instance, it is not unlawful as part of a negotiation over a prisoner exchange to continue to detain someone, such as a captured combatant, whose release is not legally required. It would, however, be unlawful to make such a threat against a detained civilian unlawfully held.
Hostage-taking is prohibited regardless of the conduct that the hostage-taker aims to impose. So it is still unlawful even when seeking to compel the opposing force to cease an unlawful conduct.
International humanitarian law does not prohibit fighting in urban areas, although the presence of many civilians places greater obligations on warring parties to take steps to minimize harm to civilians. Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas in the world.
The laws of war require that the parties to a conflict take constant care during military operations to spare the civilian population, and to “take all feasible precautions” to avoid or minimize the incidental loss of civilian life and damage to civilian objects. These precautions include doing everything feasible to verify that the objects of attack are military objectives and not civilians or civilian objects, giving “effective advance warning” of attacks when circumstances permit, and refraining from an attack if the rule of proportionality will be violated. In populated areas with buildings or other structures, both above and underground, parties should take into account the difficulty of identifying civilians who may be obscured from view even from advanced surveillance technology.
Forces deployed in populated areas must, to the extent feasible, avoid locating military objectives – including fighters, ammunition, weapons, equipment, and military infrastructure – in or near densely populated areas, and endeavor to remove civilians from the vicinity of military objectives. Belligerents are prohibited from using civilians to shield military objectives or operations from attack. “Shielding” refers to purposefully using the presence of civilians to render military forces or areas immune from attack.
At the same time, the attacking party is not relieved from its obligation to take into account the risk to civilians, including the duty to avoid causing disproportionate harm to civilians, simply because it considers the defending party responsible for having located legitimate military targets within or near populated areas. That is, the presence of a Hamas commander or rocket launcher, or other military facility in a populated area would not justify attacking the area without regard to the threatened civilian population, including the duty to distinguish combatants from civilians and the rule of proportionality.
The use of explosive weapons with wide-area effects in populated areas is one of the gravest threats to civilians in contemporary armed conflict. In addition to causing civilian casualties directly, explosive weapons with wide-area effects have frequently damaged or destroyed civilian infrastructure, such as bridges, water pipes, power stations, hospitals, and schools, causing long-term harm to civilians, including the disruption of basic services. These weapons have a wide-area effect if they have a large destructive radius, are inherently inaccurate, or deliver multiple munitions at the same time. Their use in populated areas forces people to flee their homes, exacerbating humanitarian needs.
Weapons that have a large destructive radius include those that detonate a large amount of explosive material and those that propel fragments over a large area, or both. Munitions with large amounts of explosive material can produce fragmentation that spreads unpredictably over a wide area, and a powerful blast wave that can cause severe physical injuries to the human body and physical structures, cause blunt force trauma and physical damage from flying debris, and cause or exacerbate other injuries or existing illnesses. Munitions that have preformed fragmentation warheads are designed to spread scores of fragments over an area, making it difficult or impossible to limit the effects of the weapon.
The use of explosive weapons with wide-area effects in the densely populated Gaza Strip, where 2.2 million Palestinians live in a strip of territory that is 41 kilometers (25 miles) long and between 6 and 12 kilometers (3.7 and 7.5 miles) wide, and the targeting at times of critical infrastructure, could be expected to cause serious harm to civilians and civilian objects. In addition, rockets launched from Gaza that are fundamentally inaccurate or designed to saturate a large area and are likely to strike civilians and civilian objects inside Israel, also cause foreseeable harm to civilians and civilian objects.
The laws of war require, unless circumstances do not permit, that warring parties give “effective advance warning” of attacks that may affect the civilian population. What constitutes an “effective” warning will depend on the circumstances. Such an assessment would take into account the timing of the warning and the ability of civilians to leave the area. A warning that does not give civilians adequate time to leave for a safer area would not be considered “effective.”
Civilians who do not evacuate following warnings are still fully protected by international humanitarian law. Otherwise, warring parties could use warnings to cause forced displacement, threatening civilians with deliberate harm if they did not heed them. Moreover, some civilians are unable to heed a warning to evacuate, for reasons of health, disability, fear, or lack of anyplace else to go. So, even after warnings have been given, attacking forces must still take all feasible precautions to avoid loss of civilian life and property. This includes canceling an attack when it becomes apparent that the target is civilian, or that the civilian loss would be disproportionate to the expected military gain.
The laws of war also prohibit “acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population.” Statements that called for the evacuation of areas that are not genuine warnings, but are primarily intended to cause panic among residents or compel them to leave their homes for reasons other than their safety, would fall under this prohibition. This prohibition does not attempt to address the effects of lawful attacks, which ordinarily cause fear, but rather those threats or attacks on civilians that have this specific purpose.
Healthcare facilities are civilian objects that have special protections under the laws of war against attacks and other acts of violence including bombing, shelling, looting, forced entry, shooting into, encircling, or other forceful interference such as intentionally depriving facilities of electricity and water.
Healthcare facilities include hospitals, laboratories, clinics, first aid posts, blood transfusion centers, and the medical and pharmaceutical stores of these facilities, whether military or civilian. While other presumptively civilian structures become military objectives if they are being used for a military purpose, hospitals lose their protection from attack only if they are being used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit “acts harmful to the enemy.” Several types of acts do not constitute “acts harmful to the enemy,” such as the presence of armed guards, or when small arms from the wounded are found in the hospital. Even if military forces misuse a hospital to store weapons or shelter able-bodied combatants, the attacking force must issue a warning to cease this misuse, setting a reasonable time limit for it to end, and attacking only after such a warning has gone unheeded.
Under the laws of war, doctors, nurses, and other medical personnel must be permitted to do their work and be protected in all circumstances. They lose their protection only if they commit, outside their humanitarian function, “acts harmful to the enemy.”
Likewise, ambulances and other medical transportation must be allowed to function and be protected in all circumstances. They could lose their protection only if they are being used to commit “acts harmful to the enemy,” such as transporting ammunition or healthy fighters in service. As stated above, the attacking force must issue a warning to cease this misuse, and can only attack after such a warning goes unheeded.
Mosques and churches – like all houses of worship – and schools are presumptively civilian objects that may not be attacked unless they are being used for military purposes, such as a military headquarters or a location for storing weapons and ammunition.
The principle of proportionality also applies to these objects.
All sides were obligated to take special care in military operations to avoid damage to schools, houses of worship, and other cultural property.
As parties to the armed conflict, the armed wings of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other Palestinian armed groups are obligated to abide by international humanitarian law. The targeting of military installations and other military objectives is permitted under the laws of war, but only if all feasible precautions to avoid civilian harm are taken. The laws prohibit Palestinian armed groups from targeting civilians or launching indiscriminate attacks or attacks that would cause disproportionate harm to civilians compared to the expected military advantage. Commanders of Palestinian armed groups are also obligated to choose such means of attack that they could direct at military targets and minimize incidental harm to civilians. If the weapons used were so inaccurate that they could not be directed at military targets without imposing a substantial risk of civilian harm, then the group should not have deployed them.
Human Rights Watch has found in prior hostilities that rockets launched by Palestinian armed groups – including locally made short and upgraded long-range rockets, “Grad” rockets, and rockets imported from other sources – are so inaccurate as to be incapable of being aimed in a manner to discriminate between military targets and civilian objects when they were launched toward populated areas. This inaccuracy and inability to target military objectives are exacerbated at the longer ranges that some rockets were fired into Israel.
The use of such rockets against civilian areas violates the prohibition on deliberate and indiscriminate attacks. Likewise, a party that launches rockets from densely populated areas, or co-locates military objectives in or near civilian areas – thus making civilians vulnerable to counterattacks – may be failing to take all feasible precautions to protect civilians under its control against the effects of attacks.
International humanitarian law allows the targeting of military commanders in the course of armed conflict, provided that such attacks otherwise comply with the laws that protect civilians, including being proportionate. Political leaders not taking part in military operations, as civilians, would not be legitimate targets of attack.
Palestinian armed groups’ leaders who are commanding belligerent forces are legitimate targets. However, because Hamas engages in civil governance beyond its military component, merely being a Hamas leader in and of itself does not make an individual lawfully subject to military attack.
Combatants do not have immunity from attacks in their homes and workplaces. However, as with any attack on an otherwise legitimate military target, the attacking force must refrain from attack if it would disproportionately harm the civilian population – including civilian family members of combatants – or be launched in a way that fails to discriminate between combatants and civilians. Under this duty to take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian harm, the attacking force should also consider whether there may be alternative sites where the combatant can be targeted without endangering civilians.
Attacking the home of a combatant who was not physically present at the time of the attack would be an unlawful attack on a civilian object. If such an unlawful attack were carried out intentionally, then it would constitute a war crime. A civilian home does not lose its protected status as a civilian object merely because it is the home of a militant who is not present there. Insofar as the attack is designed to harm the combatants’ families, it would also be a prohibited form of collective punishment.
Personnel or equipment being used in military operations are subject to attack, but whether that justifies destroying an entire large building where they might be present depends on the attack not inflicting disproportionate harm on civilians or civilian property.
The laws of war prohibit the punishment of any person for an offense other than one that they have personally committed. Collective punishment is a term used in international law to describe any form of punitive sanctions and harassment, not limited to judicial penalties, but including sanctions of “any sort, administrative, by police action or otherwise,” that are imposed on targeted groups of persons for actions that they themselves did not personally commit. The imposition of collective punishment – such as, in violation of the laws of war, the demolition of homes of families of fighters, or other civilian objects such as multi-story buildings as a form of punishment – is a war crime. Whether an attack or measure could amount to collective punishment depends on several factors, including the target of the measure and its punitive impact, but of particular relevance is the intent behind a particular measure. If the intention was to punish, purely or primarily as a result of an act committed by third parties, then the attack is likely to have been collective punishment.
Journalists and their equipment benefit from the general protection enjoyed by civilians and civilian objects and may not be targets of an attack unless they are taking direct part in hostilities. Journalists may be subject to legitimate limitations on rights, such as freedom of expression or freedom of movement, imposed in accordance with the law and only to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation. But they may not be arrested, detained, or subjected to other forms of punishment or retaliation simply for doing their work as journalists.
Radio and television facilities are civilian objects and as such enjoy general protection. Military attacks on broadcast facilities used for military communications are legitimate under the laws of war, but such attacks on civilian television or radio stations are otherwise prohibited because they are protected civilian structures and not legitimate military targets. Moreover, if the attack is designed primarily to undermine civilian morale or to psychologically harass the civilian population, that is also a prohibited war purpose. Civilian television and radio stations are legitimate targets only if they meet the criteria for a legitimate military objective; that is, if they are used in a way that makes an “effective contribution to military action,” and their destruction in the circumstances ruling at the time offers “a definite military advantage.” Specifically, Hamas-operated civilian broadcast facilities could become military targets if, for example, they were used to send military orders or otherwise concretely to advance Hamas’s armed campaign against Israel. However, civilian broadcasting facilities are not rendered legitimate military targets simply because they are pro-Hamas or anti-Israel, or report on the laws of war violations by one side or the other. Just as it is unlawful to attack the civilian population to lower its morale, it is unlawful to attack news outfits that merely shape civilian opinion by their reporting or create diplomatic pressure; neither directly contributes to military operations.
Should stations become legitimate military objectives because of their use to transmit military communications, the principle of proportionality in attack must still be respected. This means that Israeli forces should verify at all times that the risks to the civilian population in undertaking any such attack do not outweigh the anticipated definite military advantage. They should take special precautions in relation to buildings located in urban areas, including giving advance warning of an attack whenever possible.
Under international humanitarian law, parties to a conflict must allow and facilitate the rapid and unimpeded passage of impartially distributed humanitarian aid to the population in need. The belligerent parties must consent to allow relief operations to take place and may not refuse such consent on arbitrary grounds. They can take steps to ensure that consignments do not include weapons or other military materiel. However, deliberately impeding relief supplies is prohibited.
In addition, international humanitarian law requires that belligerent parties ensure the freedom of movement of humanitarian relief personnel essential to the exercise of their functions. This movement can be restricted only temporarily for reasons of imperative military necessity.
International human rights law is applicable at all times, including during armed conflict situations in which the laws of war apply, as well as during times of peace. Israel and Palestine are party to core international human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. These treaties outline guarantees for fundamental rights, many of which correspond to the protections to which civilians are entitled under international humanitarian law (such as the prohibition of torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, nondiscrimination, right to a fair trial).
While the ICCPR permits some restrictions on certain rights during an officially proclaimed public emergency that “threatens the life of the nation,” any derogation of rights during a public emergency must be of an exceptional and temporary nature, and must be “limited to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation,” and should not involve discrimination on grounds of race, religion, and other grounds. Certain fundamental rights – such as the right to life and the right to be secure from torture and other ill-treatment, the prohibition on unacknowledged detention, the duty to ensure judicial review of the lawfulness of detention, and the right to a fair trial – must always be respected, even during a public emergency.
Serious violations of the laws of war that are committed with criminal intent are war crimes. War crimes, listed in the “grave breaches” provisions of the Geneva Conventions and as customary law in the International Criminal Court statute and other sources, include a wide array of offenses, including deliberate, indiscriminate, and disproportionate attacks harming civilians, hostage-taking, using human shields, and imposing collective punishments, among others. Individuals also may be held criminally liable for attempting to commit a war crime, as well as assisting in, facilitating, aiding, or abetting a war crime.
Responsibility also may fall on persons planning or instigating the commission of a war crime. In addition, commanders and civilian leaders may be prosecuted for war crimes as a matter of command responsibility when they knew or should have known about the commission of war crimes and took insufficient measures to prevent them or punish those responsible.
States have an obligation to investigate and fairly prosecute individuals within their territory implicated in war crimes.
Alleged war crimes committed during the fighting between Israel and Palestinian armed groups could be investigated by the International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor. On March 3, 2021, the ICC prosecutor opened an investigation into alleged serious crimes committed in Palestine since June 13, 2014. The ICC treaty officially went into effect for Palestine on April 1, 2015. The court’s judges have said this gives it jurisdiction over the territory occupied by Israel since 1967, namely Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. The ICC has jurisdiction over war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, committed in this territory, regardless of the nationality of the alleged perpetrators.
Israel signed but has not ratified the ICC treaty, and in 2002 announced that it did not intend to become a member of the court.
Since 2016, Human Rights Watch has called on the ICC prosecutor to pursue a formal Palestine investigation given strong evidence that serious crimes have been committed there and the pervasive climate of impunity for those crimes. The recent hostilities between Hamas and Israel highlight the importance of the court’s investigation and the urgent need for justice to address serious crimes committed in Palestine. Human Rights Watch has also called on the ICC prosecutor to investigate Israeli authorities implicated in the crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution against Palestinians.
Certain categories of grave crimes in violation of international law, such as war crimes and torture, are subject to “universal jurisdiction,” which refers to the ability of a country’s domestic judicial system to investigate and prosecute certain crimes, even if they were not committed on its territory, by one of its nationals, or against one of its nationals. Certain treaties, such as the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the Convention against Torture, obligate states to extradite or prosecute suspected offenders who are within that country’s territory or otherwise under its jurisdiction. Under customary international law, it is also generally agreed that countries are allowed to try those responsible for other crimes, such as genocide or crimes against humanity, wherever these crimes took place.
National judicial officials should investigate and prosecute those credibly implicated in serious crimes, under the principle of universal jurisdiction and in accordance with national laws.
In May 2021, the United Nations Human Rights Council established an ongoing Commission of Inquiry to address violations and abuses in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and in Israel, to monitor, document, and report on violations and abuses of international law, advance accountability for perpetrators and justice for victims, and address the root causes and systematic oppression that help fuel continued violence.
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Human Rights Watch: Questions and answers: October 2023 hostilities between Israel and Armed Palestinian Groups
When a territory is placed under the authority of a hostile army, the rules of international humanitarian law dealing with occupation apply. Occupation confers certain rights and obligations on the occupying power.
Prohibited actions include forcibly transferring protected persons from the occupied territories to the territory of the occupying power. It is unlawful under the Fourth Geneva Convention for an occupying power to transfer parts of its own population into the territory it occupies. This means that international humanitarian law prohibits the establishment of settlements, as these are a form of population transfer into occupied territory. Any measure designed to expand or consolidate settlements is also illegal. Confiscation of land to build or expand settlements is similarly prohibited.
”The establishment of the settlements contravenes international humanitarian law (IHL), which states that an occupying power may not relocate its own citizens to the occupied territory or make permanent changes to that territory, unless these are needed for imperative military needs, in the narrow sense of the term, or undertaken for the benefit of the local population.”
The illegality of the Israeli settlements is based on article 49, Fourth Geneva Convention and on the Hague Convention of 1907
THE FOURTH GENEVA CONVENTION, ARTICLE 49
”Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.”
Art. 55. The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct.
CONVENTION RESPECTING THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WARON LAND AND ITS ANNEX: REGULATIONS CONCERNINGTHE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR ON LAND
Israel’s policy of settling its civilians in occupied Palestinian territory and displacing the local population contravenes fundamental rules of international humanitarian law.
Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” It also prohibits the “individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory”.
The situation in the OPT is primarily governed by two international legal regimes: international humanitarian law (including the rules of the law of occupation) and international human rights law. International criminal law is also relevant as some serious violations may constitute war crimes.
STATUS OF SETTLEMENTS UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW
Israel’s policy of settling its civilians in occupied Palestinian territory and displacing the local population contravenes fundamental rules of international humanitarian law.
Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” It also prohibits the “individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory”.
The extensive appropriation of land and the appropriation and destruction of property required to build and expand settlements also breach other rules of international humanitarian law. Under the Hague Regulations of 1907, the public property of the occupied population (such as lands, forests and agricultural estates) is subject to the laws of usufruct. This means that an occupying state is only allowed a very limited use of this property. This limitation is derived from the notion that occupation is temporary, the core idea of the law of occupation. In the words of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the occupying power “has a duty to ensure the protection, security, and welfare of the people living under occupation and to guarantee that they can live as normal a life as possible, in accordance with their own laws, culture, and traditions.”
The Hague Regulations prohibit the confiscation of private property. The Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits the destruction of private or state property, “except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations”.
As the occupier, Israel is therefore forbidden from using state land and natural resources for purposes other than military or security needs or for the benefit of the local population. The unlawful appropriation of property by an occupying power amounts to “pillage”, which is prohibited by both the Hague Regulations and Fourth Geneva Convention and is a war crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and many national laws.
Israel’s building of settlements in the West Bank, including in East Jerusalem, does not respect any of these rules and exceptions. Transferring the occupying power’s civilians into the occupied territory is prohibited without exception. Furthermore, as explained earlier, the settlements and associated infrastructure are not temporary, do not benefit Palestinians and do not serve the legitimate security needs of the occupying power. Settlements entirely depend on the large-scale appropriation and/or destruction of Palestinian private and state property which are not militarily necessary. They are created with the sole purpose of permanently establishing Jewish Israelis on occupied land.
In addition to being violations of international humanitarian law, key acts required for the establishment of settlements amount to war crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Under this body of law, the “extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly” and the “transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory” constitute war crimes. As stated above, “pillage” is also a war crime under the Rome Statute.
Israel’s settlement policy also violates a special category of obligations entitled peremptory norms of international law (jus cogens) from which no derogation is permitted. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) affirmed that the rules of the Geneva Conventions constitute “intransgressible principles of international customary law”. Only a limited number of international norms acquire this status, which is a reflection of the seriousness and importance with which the international community views them. Breaches of these norms give rise to certain obligations on all other states, or “third states”, which are explained below.
SETTLEMENTS, DISCRIMINATION AND HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
States have a duty to respect, protect and fulfil the human rights of people under their jurisdiction, including people living in territory that is outside national borders but under the effective control of the state. The ICJ confirmed that Israel is obliged to extend the application of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and other treaties to which it is a state party to people in the OPT. Israel is a state party to numerous international human rights treaties and, as the occupying power, it has well defined obligations to respect, protect and fulfil the human rights of Palestinians.
However, as has been well documented for many years by the UN, Amnesty International and other NGOs, Israel’s settlement policy is one of the main driving forces behind the mass human rights violations resulting from the occupation. These include:
Violations of the right to life: Israeli soldiers, police and security guards have unlawfully killed and injured many Palestinian civilians in the OPT, including during protests against the confiscation of land and the construction of settlements. UN agencies and fact-finding missions have also expressed concern about violence perpetrated by a minority of Israeli settlers aimed at intimidating Palestinian populations.
Violations of the rights to liberty, security of the person and equal treatment before the law: Amnesty International has documented how Palestinians in the OPT are routinely subjected to arbitrary detention, including through administrative detention. Whereas settlers are subject to Israeli civil and criminal law, Palestinians are subject to a military court system which falls short of international standards for the fair conduct of trials and administration of justice.
Violations of the right to access an effective remedy for acts violating fundamental rights: Israel’s failure to adequately investigate and enforce the law for acts of violence against Palestinians, together with the multiple legal, financial and procedural barriers faced by Palestinians in accessing the court system, severely limit Palestinians’ ability to seek legal redress. The Israeli High Court of Justice has failed to rule on the legality of settlements, as it considered the settlements to be a political issue that that it is not competent to hear.
Violations of the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly: Amnesty International has documented Israel’s use of military orders to prohibit peaceful protest and criminalize freedom of expression in the West Bank. Israeli forces have used tear gas, rubber bullets and occasionally live rounds to suppress peaceful protests.
Violations of the rights to equality and non-discrimination: Systematic discrimination against Palestinians is inherent in virtually all aspects of Israel’s administration of the OPT. Palestinians are also specifically targeted for a range of actions that constitute human rights violations. The Israeli government allows settlers to exploit land and natural resources that belong to Palestinians. Israel provides preferential treatment to Israeli businesses operating in the OPT while putting up barriers to, or simply blocking, Palestinian ones. Israeli citizens receive entitlements and Palestinians face restrictions on the grounds of nationality, ethnicity and religion, in contravention of international standards.
The Israeli authorities have created a discriminatory urban planning and zoning system. Within Area C, where most settlement construction is based, Israel has allocated 70% of the land to settlements and only 1% to Palestinians. In East Jerusalem, Israel has expropriated 35% of the city for the construction of settlements, while restricting Palestinians to construct on only 13% of the land. These figures clearly illustrate Israel’s use of regulatory measures to discriminate against Palestinian residents in Area C.
The UN has also pointed to discrimination against Palestinians in the way in which the criminal law is enforced. While prosecution rates for settler attacks against Palestinians are low, suggesting a lack of enforcement, most cases of violence against Israeli settlers are investigated and proceed to court.
Violations of the right to adequate housing: Since 1967, Israel has constructed tens of thousands of homes on Palestinian land to accommodate settlers while, at the same time, demolishing an estimated 50,000 Palestinian homes and other structures, such as farm buildings and water tanks. Israel also carries out demolitions as a form of collective punishment against the families of individuals accused of attacks on Israelis. In East Jerusalem, about 800 houses have been demolished since 2004 for lack of permits. Israel also confiscates houses inhabited by Palestinians in the city to allocate them to settlers. By forcibly evicting and/or demolishing their homes without providing adequate alternative accommodation, Israel has failed in its duty to respect the right to adequate housing of thousands of Palestinians.
Violations of the right to freedom of movement: Many restrictions on freedom of movement for Palestinian residents are directly linked to the settlements, including restrictions aimed at protecting the settlements and maintaining “buffer zones”. Restrictions include checkpoints, settler-only roads and physical impediments created by walls and gates.
Violations of the rights of the child: Every year, 500-700 Palestinian children from the occupied West Bank are prosecuted in Israeli juvenile military courts under Israeli military orders. They are often arrested in night raids and systematically ill-treated. Some of these children serve their sentences within Israel, in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The UN has also documented that many children have been killed or injured in settler attacks.
Violations of the right to enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health: Restrictions on movement limit Palestinians’ access to health care. Specialists working with Palestinian populations have also documented a range of serious mental health conditions that stem from exposure to violence and abuse in the OPT.
Violations of the right to water: Most Palestinian communities in Area C are not connected to the water network and are prevented from repairing or constructing wells or water cisterns that hold rainwater. Water consumption in some Area C communities is reported by the UN to be 20% of the minimum recommended standard. Israel’s failure to ensure Palestinian residents have a sufficient supply of clean, safe water for drinking and other domestic uses constitutes a violation of its obligations to respect and fulfil the right to water.
Violations of the right to education: Palestinian students face numerous obstacles in accessing education, including forced displacement, demolitions, restrictions on movement and a shortage of school places. An independent fact-finding mission in 2012 noted an “upward trend” of cases of settler attacks on Palestinian schools and harassment of Palestinian children on their way to and from school. Such problems can result in children not attending school and in a deterioration in the quality of learning.
Violations of the right to earn a decent living through work: The expansion of settlements has reduced the amount of land available to Palestinians for herding and agriculture, increasing the dependency of rural communities on humanitarian assistance. Settler violence and the destruction of Palestinian-owned crops and olive trees have damaged the livelihoods of farmers. The UN has reported that in Hebron city centre, the Israeli military has forced 512 Palestinian businesses to close, while more than 1,000 others have shut down due to restricted access for customers and suppliers.
SUSTAINED INTERNATIONAL CONDEMNATION
Most states and international bodies have long recognized that Israeli settlements are illegal under international law. The European Union (EU) has clearly stated that: “settlement building anywhere in the occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, is illegal under international law, constitutes an obstacle to peace and threatens to make a two-state solution impossible.”
The settlements have been condemned as illegal in many UN Security Council and other UN resolutions. As early as 1980, UN Security Council Resolution 465 called on Israel “to dismantle the existing settlements and, in particular, to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem.” The International Committee of the Red Cross and the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention have reaffirmed that settlements violate international humanitarian law. The illegality of the settlements was recently reaffirmed by UN Security Council Resolution 2334, passed inDecember 2016, which reiterates the Security Council’s call on Israel to cease all settlement activities in the OPT. The serious human rights violations that stem from Israeli settlements have also been repeatedly raised and condemned by international bodies and experts.
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor The Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories are illegal under International Law/Why?
The recent verdict of the Israeli High Court, which states that the building of the Israeli Wall at the West Bank must be adjusted with 30 kilometers because of the violations of human rights is not only a partial fullfilling of the humanitarian needs of the Palestinian population, but is also in contarily with International Law.
In the first place the motivation for the verdict is being based on the fact that because of the building of the Wall the inhabitants of the Beit Surik community had no entrance to their agricultural grounds and schools, but in the named verdict the Court doesn’t refer to the other Palestinian inhabitants of the West Bank [85.000 people], who are likewise excluded from their agricultural grounds.
In the second place the Israeli building of the Wall is as such a violation of International Law, because it cuts deeply in the occupied Palestinian areas which is a violation of UN Security Council Resolution 242 dd 1967 by which Israel was summoned to withdraw from the in the june-war occupied Palestinian areas.
Further the building of the Wall is being made possible by hugh Palestinian landownings which is yet apart from the flagrant injustice a violation of International Law [the 4th Geneva Convention] which forbids land and house-ownings of ”protected people” [people who are living under an occupation] It is therefore highly recommendable, that the Israeli High Court adjusts its vedict according to the principles of International Law.
Like most people who respect international law, I condemn Russia’s attack on Ukraine. The UN General Assembly, the US and European Union are also right to condemn the invasion. However, the EU’s hypocrisy over the tragedy also stands out.
First, its sanctions against Russia go too far. They are causing ordinary people in Russia, who have nothing to do with Vladimir Putin’s war policies, to suffer. Such collective punishment is not fair.
Even more dangerous is the fact that the EU and individual European countries are sending all sorts of military weaponry to Ukraine. This is provoking Russia and risks setting off a bigger war.
Putin’s reaction to EU sanctions has been to put his nuclear forces on high alert. This is no joke. He may also decide to turn off the gas tap to Europe, with disastrous consequences. The EU should stop putting peace at risk with such cowboy-like behaviour.
European countries have expressed their solidarity with the Ukrainian people. But while they are rightly doing everything they can to help Ukrainian refugees, what about the Afghan, Iraqi and Syrian refugees who were trapped last year between the borders of Belarus and Poland, brutally pushed back by Polish border guards and abandoned to die in the winter cold?
The EU supported Poland in “defending” its borders. The same Poland that welcomes Ukrainian refugees is at this very moment building a wall to prevent refugees from the Middle East from entering. This is inhumane and also contrary to international law.
It’s very good that the EU is condemning the Russian invasion in Ukraine, but European countries must also stop provoking Russia by sending weaponry to Ukraine and start treating refugees from the Middle East as humanely as they do the Ukrainian refugees.
Astrid Essed, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Published in the South China Morning Post!/EU welcoming of Ukrainian refugees in stark contrast with those from Middle East
THE RUSSIAN INVASION IN UKRAINE/PUTIN, WARCRIMES AND
THE EU HYPOCRISYLETTER TO THE EDITOR
Dear Editor,
As most people, who have a fundamental respect for International Law,I condemn the Russian attack on the Ukraine as a violationof the sovereignty.Therefore international condemnations, like those of the United NationsGeneral Assembly, the USA and the European Union, are the right thing to do.The Russian army also bombed with internationally forbidden clustermunitions,which by the way the US and Great Britian also did in Iraq and Afghanistan.In both cases-The Russian and the USA-it costed civilian deaths, which makes it a warcrime. However there are more sides on this case, among else the EU hypocrisy regarding the Ukrainian tragedy.But firstly the EU economic sanctions against Russia::They go too far, sincethe common Russian man and woman, who have nothing to do withPutin’s war policies, are suffering from them.That’s close to a collective punishment and not fair at all!Even more dangerous is the fact, that different EU countries are sendingall sort of military weaponry to the Ukraine, since it is provoking Russia and brings a major war closer and closer.Very irresponsible, because Putin’s first reaction on those EU sanctions-to order his nuclear forces on high alert-is no joke.
He also can decide to turn off the gas tap to Europe, with desastrousconsequences.
Therefore EU should stop putting peace at risk by such cowboylike behaviour. But there is more:Because with all those seemingly sympathetic EU actions, aiming toexpress ”solidarity” with the Ukrainian people, the EU is full of hypocrisy: Because, when the USA and the EU really respected International Law,as they claim to do in the Ukraine case, why they never sanctioned Israel,that is a champion in violating International Law with its illegaloccupation of the Palestinian territories and their illegal settlement policy? And to stay closer at the USA and EU: What about their own violations of International Law, like the thenBritish-American invasion of Iraq, which was contrary with International Law?And perhaps the most bitter part of all:
The refugee issue:
While EU countries are doing everything they can to help Ukrainianrefugees-which is the right thing to do-last year, Afghan, Iraqi and Syrian refugees, who were trapped between the border of Belarus and Poland,were brutally attacked and pushbacked by Polish military guards, sometimes shooted at and abandoned in the wintercold to die there. With the blessing of the EU, that supported Poland in ”defending it’s borders”The same Poland, that welcomes Ukrainian refugees, is on this very momentbuilding a Wall to prevent refugees from the Middle East to enter it’s border.Inhumane and also contrary with International Law!
So very good, that the EU/USA combination [united in the NATO] is condemning the Russian invasion in Ukraine, but EU, stop provoking Russia by sending weaponry to the Ukraine and treat the remaining or future refugees fromthe Middle East as humane as now the Urkrainian refugees.
Otherwise the EU is sinning against their own EU Treaties!’ Astrid Essed
Amsterdam
The Netherlands
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor [Adapted to new developments]/The Russian invasion in Ukraine/Putin, warcrimes and the EU hypocrisy
.jpg)
