La mort de Mohammed annule, efface celle de l’enfant juif, les mains en l’air devant les SS, dans le Ghetto de Varsovie. Catherine Nay (Europe 1)
Où, après la bataille comme d’habitude, le dhimmi qui nous sert de président est reparti jouer les pompiers volants au Proche-orient …
70% des Français ordinairement plus mécréants disent, à la veille de sa canonisation, « croire en Obama » …
Et, dans l’actuel délire de désinformation et en un ultime exemple de captation d’héritage, les terroristes du Hamas et leur chœur de pleureuses et d’idiots utiles présentent leur lutte comme « la révolte du ghetto de Gaza » …
Retour sur un exemplaire morceau de rationalisation juridique d’un certain George Bisharat, célèbre juriste d’origine palestinienne de la prestigieuse Ecole de droit de Hastings de San Francisco.
Où, derrière le titre accrocheur (”Israël commet des crimes de guerre »), on apprend que les combattants du Hamas ont aussi violé les lois de la guerre et commis des crimes de guerre mais qu’à chaque fois c’était Israël qui avait commencé ou fait pire encore.
D’abord en s’attaquant à des Palestiniens qui n’étaient même pas de Gaza et donc pour lesquels la trêve ne s’appliquait pas – mais qui (pourquoi s’embarrasser d’aussi futiles détails) préparaient des attentats contre Israël!
Et en plus, la riposte du Hamas, sous la forme des roquettes des derniers six mois de ladite trêve, n’avait même « pas tué d’Israélien ou peut-être seulement un » contre quelques 2 700 victimes palestiniennes – paralysant très accessoirement l’activité, avec le rayon d’action desdites roquettes passées entre-temps de quelques km à plus de 40, d’une population de près d’un million d’habitants, sans compter les dizaines de victimes israéliennes avant ladite trêve y compris par les attentats-suicides!
Mais, plus grave encore, Israël s’attaque, avec ses chasseurs et hélicoptères américains dernier cri, à des mosquées, des ministères de l’éducation et de la justice, une université, des prisons, des commissariats de police et surtout à des gens dont le seul tort est d’avoir des idées détestables – au détail près que nombre d’entre eux semblent avoir utilisé ces lieux civils pour mettre en pratique certaines de leurs idées sous la forme notamment de roquettes!
Enfin, c’est toujours Israël qui, non content d’avoir occupé leur pays et d’en avoir fait des réfugiés en leur refusant le droit au retour, affame leurs enfants depuis 18 mois et empêche leurs étudiants d’aller poursuivre leurs études à l’étranger – les roquettes quotidiennes n’ayant bien sûr rien à voir avec ledit blocus et c’est vrai que c’est pas avec des tonnes d’explosifs, d’armes ou de munitions qu’on va nourrir les enfants, et il est parfaitement anodin que le droit au retour comme la création d’un seul Etat prétendument binational prônés par notre éminent juriste équivaudraient à la disparition de fait de l’Etat hébreu !
Résultat des courses: les petits accrochages de frontière comme les idées détestables du Hamas ne sont en fait, de la part d’un Etat prétendument civilisé, qu’un prétexte pour mener une guerre d’agression contre une population désarmée. CDFD
Israel Is Committing War Crimes
Hamas’s violations are no justification for Israel’s actions.
George E. Bisharat
January 10, 2009
Israel’s current assault on the Gaza Strip cannot be justified by self-defense. Rather, it involves serious violations of international law, including war crimes. Senior Israeli political and military leaders may bear personal liability for their offenses, and they could be prosecuted by an international tribunal, or by nations practicing universal jurisdiction over grave international crimes. Hamas fighters have also violated the laws of warfare, but their misdeeds do not justify Israel’s acts.
The United Nations charter preserved the customary right of a state to retaliate against an « armed attack » from another state. The right has evolved to cover nonstate actors operating beyond the borders of the state claiming self-defense, and arguably would apply to Hamas. However, an armed attack involves serious violations of the peace. Minor border skirmishes are common, and if all were considered armed attacks, states could easily exploit them — as surrounding facts are often murky and unverifiable — to launch wars of aggression. That is exactly what Israel seems to be currently attempting.
Israel had not suffered an « armed attack » immediately prior to its bombardment of the Gaza Strip. Since firing the first Kassam rocket into Israel in 2002, Hamas and other Palestinian groups have loosed thousands of rockets and mortar shells into Israel, causing about two dozen Israeli deaths and widespread fear. As indiscriminate attacks on civilians, these were war crimes. During roughly the same period, Israeli forces killed about 2,700 Palestinians in Gaza by targeted killings, aerial bombings, in raids, etc., according to the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem.
But on June 19, 2008, Hamas and Israel commenced a six-month truce. Neither side complied perfectly. Israel refused to substantially ease the suffocating siege of Gaza imposed in June 2007. Hamas permitted sporadic rocket fire — typically after Israel killed or seized Hamas members in the West Bank, where the truce did not apply. Either one or no Israelis were killed (reports differ) by rockets in the half year leading up to the current attack.
Israel then broke the truce on Nov. 4, raiding the Gaza Strip and killing a Palestinian. Hamas retaliated with rocket fire; Israel then killed five more Palestinians. In the following days, Hamas continued rocket fire — yet still no Israelis died. Israel cannot claim self-defense against this escalation, because it was provoked by Israel’s own violation.
An armed attack that is not justified by self-defense is a war of aggression. Under the Nuremberg Principles affirmed by U.N. Resolution 95, aggression is a crime against peace.
Israel has also failed to adequately discriminate between military and nonmilitary targets. Israel’s American-made F-16s and Apache helicopters have destroyed mosques, the education and justice ministries, a university, prisons, courts and police stations. These institutions were part of Gaza’s civilian infrastructure. And when nonmilitary institutions are targeted, civilians die. Many killed in the last week were young police recruits with no military roles. Civilian employees in the Hamas-led government deserve the protections of international law like all others. Hamas’s ideology — which employees may or may not share — is abhorrent, but civilized nations do not kill people merely for what they think.
Deliberate attacks on civilians that lack strict military necessity are war crimes. Israel’s current violations of international law extend a long pattern of abuse of the rights of Gaza Palestinians. Eighty percent of Gaza’s 1.5 million residents are Palestinian refugees who were forced from their homes or fled in fear of Jewish terrorist attacks in 1948. For 60 years, Israel has denied the internationally recognized rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes — because they are not Jews.
Although Israel withdrew its settlers and soldiers from Gaza in 2005, it continues to tightly regulate Gaza’s coast, airspace and borders. Thus, Israel remains an occupying power with a legal duty to protect Gaza’s civilian population. But Israel’s 18-month siege of the Gaza Strip preceding the current crisis violated this obligation egregiously. It brought economic activity to a near standstill, left children hungry and malnourished, and denied Palestinian students opportunities to study abroad.
Israel should be held accountable for its crimes, and the U.S. should stop abetting it with unconditional military and diplomatic support.
Mr. Bisharat is a professor at Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco.
Voir aussi les commentaires:
Israel’s Move Into Gaza Provokes Strong Responses
JANUARY 13, 2009
In « Israel Is Committing War Crimes » (op-ed, Jan. 10) George E. Bisharat calls Hamas’s repeated launching of hundreds of rockets into Israeli civilian population centers « misdeeds, » while characterizing Israel’s reaction to these provocations as war crimes. Hamas does not deny that its intent is to kill as many Jews as possible, including women and children. It openly proclaims that its aim is the destruction of Israel.
It is the declared intent of the aggressors, and their actions, that makes for war crimes. Israel does not ever target civilians; as a matter of fact, the Israel Defense Forces constantly risks the lives of its soldiers in order to minimize civilian casualties. It is Hamas’s fighters, who shamefully and cynically shield themselves behind women and children, who are causing and are responsible for the death and suffering of their civilian population.
I am an Israeli who served in the Israeli army. I want to commend the Journal for publishing the piece by George Bisharat. My father was a general in the Israeli army, and a former military governor of Gaza. It is clear that in the recent attacks on Gaza, Israel has completely abandoned its own moral codes and is killing and injuring innocent civilians with a carelessness that is unprecedented, and for which it must be held accountable. There are 800,000 children living in Gaza with no protection. The international community must demand that Israeli commanders, and cabinet ministers if need be, be investigated for their role in the massive civilian casualties caused by Israeli attacks on Gaza.
A. Miko Peled
In response to the welcome George Bisharat piece on the tragedy of Gaza: The standard U.S. heroizing of whatever Israel does, and the demonizing of all resistance, is getting tedious.
Thanks to the Journal for printing Mr. Bisharat’s thoughts. He speaks for so many of us, both here and in Israel, who are without voice or value in the eyes of our leaders.
Dorothea M. Jackson
Six Mile, S.C.
Under any interpretation of the laws of war, the presence of civilians does not render a military target immune, nor does the commandeering of civilian institutions. The documentary and video proof of Hamas’s exploitation of schools, mosques, hospitals and cultural centers to carry out its attacks is overwhelming, and responsibility for any civilian deaths that follow should fall on Hamas’s shoulders.
In light of the thousands of Kassam rockets and Grad missiles that Hamas has been able to launch over the past two weeks, shouldn’t one be asking how these armaments made their way into the hands of the Hamas terrorists? It is almost universally accepted that most of them were smuggled in tunnels from Egypt, with the pace of this effort picking up dramatically over the past six-month « truce » period. Given that the borders were sealed precisely to prevent the smuggling of weapons, one can only ask whether Hamas could have used the same resources to bring food and legitimate goods into the territory. In fact, had Hamas and the Palestinian Authority agreed to do precisely this after Israel left Gaza in 2005, there would be no hostilities to talk about today. The sole reason for today’s hostilities is Hamas’s unrelenting and fanatical desire to annihilate Israel.
West End, N.J.
Prof. Bisharat shows expert knowledge of the American-made fighter jets and helicopters deployed by Israel, but is mute about who supplied Hamas with its deadly rockets. Should the rocket suppliers be held accountable? Following Prof. Bisharat’s logic, these are just « minor » events. He should know that there were no refugees prior to the war declared by Arab nations on the day of the establishment of the State of Israel by the United Nations. Hamas is a terrorist organization that hijacked Gaza and is using it as a staging ground for an armed struggle to remove Israel from the face of this earth. Can Prof. Bisharat point to the international law that will justify the prosecution of the Hamas leaders by an international tribunal?
Woodland Hills, Calif.