Doc's Talk: FAQ - Answers to questions on the operation against Hamas

Friday, January 30, 2009

FAQ - Answers to questions on the operation against Hamas

MFA

1. Q: Will Israel cooperate with investigations of war crimes?

A: Israel takes every report of war crimes seriously, provided it comes from a credible source. However, no official body or organization has presented any evidence of war crimes allegedly committed by Israel. All accusations have been based on rumor, half-truths, anonymous reports from unconfirmed sources, and manipulations of the truth.

The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) routinely and thoroughly scrutinizes its operational activities and when necessary, is subject to oversight by judicial and governmental authorities. Therefore, there is no need of outside intervention. It is important to emphasize that no credible evidence or proof of war crimes allegedly committed by Israel has been presented.
On the other hand, proven war crimes have been committed by Hamas. Over many years, Hamas has targeted civilians with rockets and mortars, as well as committing suicide attacks, which are deemed "crimes against humanity" by both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. In addition, the tactic of using Palestinian civilians as human shields, which Hamas is openly proud of, also falls in the realm of war crimes. 2. Q: Will Israel investigate the illegal use of phosphorus?

A: During the operation in Gaza, there was no illegal use of phosphorus or any other material. The President of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Jacob Kellenberger, told the New York Times on 14 January that no evidence was found of illegal use of phosphorus by Israel. The investigation of this matter, which was reported by the Israeli media, were routine IDF checks of its internal operating procedures and in no way indicated any illegal use.

3. Q: Does Israel permit humanitarian aid to enter the Gaza Strip?

A: Even during the military operation, massive amounts of humanitarian aid entered Gaza. Already before the end of the fighting, 40,000 tons of humanitarian aid had entered the Gaza Strip via Israel. The ICRC sent Israel a letter of thanks for its assistance. Now, with the end of the fighting, Israel is interested not only in continuing to facilitate the entry of aid, but also in helping with Gaza's reconstruction, in full coordination with the international bodies involved.

One of the reasons that the aid did not always reach the civilian population in need despite Israel's best efforts was because Hamas confiscated it. This has happened regularly over the past year (in February 2008, the Jordanian Red Crescent condemned Hamas for confiscating an entire aid shipment from Jordan), and it continues to occur. Since the operation, there have been a growing number of media reports (most recently, from Jordan again) concerning the confiscation of aid as well as about violent attacks, including shootings and executions, by Hamas against its opponents.

The international community should take careful measures to ensure that the aid they send to Gaza reaches the right hands and is not confiscated by Hamas, which is manipulating the civilian population's distress to its own advantage.

4. Q: The UN accused Israel of shooting at schools; it also claimed that Israel changed its story afterwards.

A: When IDF forces were shot at, they returned fire towards the source of the shooting. Defensive actions of this type are explicitly allowed under the Geneva Convention.

The IDF did not fire directly at UNRWA schools; clearly had a school been targeted directly, it would have been completely destroyed, and there would have been countless casualties among those civilians sheltering there. Rather, in the tragic incident which caused civilians casualties, the IDF justifiably returned fire at the Hamas cell that had launched mortar shells at Israeli forces from a position adjacent to the building. Unfortunately, the return fire hit the building and caused casualties. Israel mourns the loss of innocent life, however responsibility for all injuries and damage lies fully with Hamas, which deliberately drew the fighting into a civilian facility.

In the case of the school in Jabalya, two independent media reports (AP and New York Times) confirm Israel's version that mortar fire came from a position located very close to the building. The reports by these respected media outlets contradict the claim made by a UNRWA spokesperson that there is no evidence to support Israel's investigation. Rather, Hamas was launching mortars from a distance of mere meters from the walls of the school, which explains how the return fire hit the building.

Contrary to claims, Israel did not "change its story" regarding this incident. More accurately, it gave out details as they became available during the fighting, and corrected minor discrepancies which were revealed with further investigation. These incongruities were indeed insignificant, and concerned whether the launches came from the school compound versus from its immediate vicinity. Despite Israel's best efforts, it is not reasonable to expect a conclusive and definitive investigation during the heat of battle.

5. Q: Why were women and children killed?

A: Israelis were profoundly pained by the sight of dead children and the Prime Minister officially expressed his deep sorrow over the civilian casualties. However, it should be asked who is responsible for their deaths and whether the causes have been thoroughly examined.

It is no secret that Hamas used human shields as one of its primary tactics - many reports have described how Hamas recruited civilians, indoctrinated them, and publicly bragged about it. Civilians who tried to flee the fighting were threatened by Hamas gunmen, while many were killed in crossfire initiated by Hamas. It is obvious that some civilians were hurt in booby-trapped houses and by bombs placed by Hamas throughout the Gaza Strip. These are the real reasons why many civilians were killed.

As for the numbers of civilian casualties, extreme caution should be exercised concerning statistics emanating from Gaza. Throughout the past year, Hamas has dismissed doctors, nurses and teachers identified with Fatah and replaced them with its own supporters. This political cleansing process was reported in the media and criticized harshly by the Palestinian Authority. Gaza's hospitals are now staffed only with Hamas supporters and Hamas officials are the primary sources of information. Clearly Hamas representatives have a vested interest in propagating the illusion that a majority of the injured were civilians rather than terrorists.

6. Q: Will Israel place limitations on the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip?

A: Israel has a strong interest in the rehabilitation of the Gaza Strip. Israel will work together with the donor states and the moderate Arab regimes to bring a better life to the Palestinian residents.

At the same time, it is important to ensure that the aid reaches the people who need it and does not fall into Hamas' hands. Hamas could confiscate part of the aid and exploit it for its own needs, as it has done in the past (for which it was condemned by the Jordanian Red Crescent, for example). Now, however, the situation is more sensitive than ever. The international community must be extremely vigilant to ensure that the aid it donates will be used only for the benefit of the civilians and not for the material, political or military rehabilitation of Hamas.

7. Q: Why does Israel relate to Hamas as a terrorist organization?

A: In addition to its long history of horrific suicide attacks, shootings and rocket fire aimed at civilian targets, Hamas' charter calls for the violent extermination of the State of Israel and the murder of Jews - simply for being Jews. Article 7 of its charter states: " The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say 'O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him'." It is not possible to negotiate with those who call - based on extremist religious justifications - for your destruction.

Indeed, Israel is not the only country which defines Hamas as a terrorist group. The European Union, US, Canada, Australia and other states have all officially classified Hamas as a terrorist organization. On 12 September 2003 - after a series of Hamas terrorist attacks that violated the 2003 hudna (cease-fire) - the European Union added Hamas' "political wing" to its terrorist list, having already included the military wing years before.

The international community has given Hamas the opportunity to become a legitimate partner for negotiations, by setting out three simple conditions: recognizing Israel, accepting previous agreements between Israel and the Palestinian Authority and the cessation of terrorist activity. These conditions were formulated by the International Quartet (the US, EU, UN and Russia), and while acceptable to Israel, have been repeatedly rejected by Hamas.
For these reasons, negotiating with Hamas is not only rejected by Israel but by the international community.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk