Israel's War Against Hamas - Updates

[rylah]

If anything I've both written and supported is "absurd bs", you would have been able to refute it.

First of all, al Jazeera is so heavily repressed by America's pro Israel MSM, Israeli lobbies and Zionist media moguls that most Americans never see or hear anything from al Jazeera.

I've already answered your question:


By deliberately murdering al Jazeera's journalists, (1), censoring them, harassing them and taking them hostage. (i.e. arresting them) .

Jewish writer and musician is not afraid to admit that Western MSM has an egregious MSM bias:

"Jews DO control the media,"

Jews DO control the media, — Gilad Atzmon thoughts and music

Introduction by Gilad Atzmon : The following article was published on the popular Zionist site Times Of Israel . It actually confirms everything we say and write about Jewish power, Jewish identity, Jewish left and Jewish AZZ (anti Zionist Zionists) . It is also consi

www.gilad.co.uk

EXCERPT "Let’s be honest with ourselves, here, fellow Jews. We do control the media. We’ve got so many dudes up in the executive offices in all the big movie production companies it’s almost obscene. Just about every movie or TV show, whether it be “Tropic Thunder” or “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” is rife with actors, directors, and writers who are Jewish. Did you know that all eight major film studios are run by Jews?"
CONTINUED

(1). "An Al Jazeera journalist is the fifth member of his family killed by Israeli strikes on Gaza"​

An Al Jazeera journalist is the fifth member of his family killed by Israeli strikes on Gaza

An apparent Israeli airstrike has killed two Palestinian journalists in southern Gaza. One was the son of Wael Dahdouh, who lost his wife, two other children and a grandson — and was nearly killed himself — earlier in the war.

apnews.com

EXCERPT "An apparent Israeli airstrike killed two Palestinian journalists in southern Gaza on Sunday, including an Al Jazeera journalist who lost four close relatives earlier in the war.

Hamza Dahdouh is the son of veteran Al Jazeera correspondent Wael Dahdouh, whose wife, two other children and a grandson were killed by a previous Israeli strike.

Dahdouh has continued to report on the fighting between Israel and Hamas even as it has taken a devastating toll on his own family, becoming a symbol for many of the perils faced by Palestinian journalists, dozens of whom have been killed while covering the conflict." CONTINUED

(2). "ISRAELI FORCES DELIBERATELY KILLED PALESTINIAN AMERICAN JOURNALIST, REPORT SHOWS"​

Israeli Forces Deliberately Killed Palestinian American Journalist, Report Shows

A new forensic analysis proves that an Israeli sniper could see that Shireen Abu Akleh was a journalist before shooting the bullet that killed her.

theintercept.com

EXCERPT "A new forensic analysis proves that an Israeli sniper could see that Shireen Abu Akleh was a journalist before firing the bullet that killed her." CONTINUED

The refutation is in your refusal to directly address the question,
by dumping more general tropes about "Jewish power".

The main cause of the degradation of the Arab civilization,
is the lack of requirement of men to honor their word,
prostituting their mouths because you cannot admit
a mistake, or being wrong about something.

Was this guy "censored" for "journalising"
on behalf of the Qatari state channel?

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

There is an ongoing claim justifying the murder of unarmed Israeli civilians.

This claim has gained even more support following the Hamas massacre on October 7th, when Palestinian terrorists murdered 1,200 Israelis and took hundreds hostage.

Just one day after the attack, pro-Palestinian protesters came out to defend the atrocities:

The protesters carried signs that called for an end to U.S. aid to Israel and argued that "Resistance is justified when people are occupied."

Arab countries, like Iraq, also supported the massacre:

[T]he operations carried out by the Palestinian people today are a natural result of the systematic oppression they have been subjected to for many years at the hands of the Zionist occupation authority, which has never adhered to international and UN resolutions.

First of all, the claim that Gaza is occupied is debatable at best. The legal precedent in international law is that occupation requires boots on the ground -- an actual, physical presence in the territory that allows the "occupying" force to exercise control and authority to the exclusion of local government authority. That is clearly not the case in Gaza, where Hamas is in control.
According to the European Court of Human Rights, this is the definition of occupation.

It is also how the Nuremberg trials defined occupation, after World War II in the Hostage Case, addressing the issues involving the Nazi invasions of Greece, Yugoslavia, and Norway:

Whether an invasion has developed into an occupation is a question of fact. The term invasion implies a military operation while an occupation indicates the exercise of governmental authority to the exclusion of the established government. This presupposes the destruction of organized resistance and the establishment of an administration to preserve law and order. To the extent that the occupant's control is maintained and that of the civil government eliminated, the area will be said to be occupied. [p. 1243]

Defendants during the Hostages Trial in Nuremberg

Because the issue is one of actual authority and control, the European Court of Human Rights makes a point that applies particularly to Gaza:

According to widespread expert opinion physical presence of foreign troops is a sine qua non requirement of occupation, that is, occupation is not conceivable without “boots on the ground”, therefore forces exercising naval or air control through a naval or air blockade do not suffice.

But the Hostage case is especially instructive because it does more than define occupation per se. It also addresses the responsibilities of those who are occupied.

One would expect that the application of international humanitarian law to the occupied population should be straightforward and the distinction between them and the occupying force should be black and white.

But that is not the way the court saw it:

But it does not follow that every act by the German occupation forces against person or property is a crime or that any and every act undertaken by the population of the occupied country against the German occupation forces thereby became legitimate defense. [p. 1247]

In other words, the actions of the occupying force -- even of the Nazis in WWII -- are not automatically illegal just because they are done during an occupation. Similarly, not everything that the occupied citizens do in response to the occupation is legal under international law. And it makes no difference whether the occupation is legal or not:

At the outset, we desire to point out that international law makes no distinction between a lawful and an unlawful occupant in dealing with the respective duties of occupant and population in occupied territory. There is no reciprocal connection between the manner of the military occupation of territory and the rights and duties of the occupant and population to each other after the relationship has in fact been established. Whether the invasion was lawful or criminal is not an important factor in the consideration of this subject. [p. 1247]

What are the obligations of the occupied population?

In his book, The International Law of Belligerent Occupation, Yoram Dinstein writes:

There is a widespread conviction that the civilian population in an occupied territory has a right to forcibly resist the Occupying Power. This is a misconception that must be dispelled. In reality, LOIAC [Law of International Armed Conflict] allows civilians 'neither to violently resist occupation of their territory by the enemy, nor to try to liberate that territory by violent means'. As a Netherlands Special Court pronounced in the 1948 Christiansen trial:

the civilian population, if it considers itself justified in committing acts of resistance, must know that, in general, counter-measures within the limits set by international law may be taken against them with impunity. [emphasis added; p. 94]

The bolded text that Dinstein quotes comes from "How Does Law Protect in War?", Volume 1: Outline of International Humanitarian Law, published by the International Red Cross:

From the point of view of IHL [International Humanitarian Law], civilians in occupied territories deserve and need particularly detailed protecting rules. Living on their own territory, they come into contact with the enemy independently of their will, merely because of the armed conflict in which the enemy obtains territorial control over the place where they live. The civilians have no obligation towards the occupying power other than the obligation inherent in their civilian status, i.e., not to participate in hostilities. Because of that obligation, IHL allows them neither to violently resist occupation of their territory by the enemy nor to try to liberate that territory by violent means. (Part 1, Chapter 8:IV)

On the question of resistance, the court addressed whether the partisans who took up arms against the Nazis qualified as lawful belligerents -- and found that in many cases they did not:

The evidence shows that the bands were sometimes designated as units common to military organization. They, however, had no common uniform, They generally wore civilian clothes although parts of German, Italian, and Serbian uniforms were used to the extent they could be obtained. The Soviet star was generally worn as insignia. The evidence will not sustain a finding that it was such that it could be seen at a distance. Neither did they carry their arms openly except when it was to their advantage to do so...It is evident also that a few partisan bands met the requirements of lawful belligerency. The bands, however, with which we are dealing in this case were not shown by satisfactory evidence to have met the requirements. This means, of course, that captured members of these unlawful groups were not entitled to be treated [by the occupation] as prisoners of war. No crime can be properly charged against the defendants [Nazi generals] for the killing of such captured members of the resistance forces, they being francs-tireurs [a guerrilla fighter or sniper]. [p. 1244]

The court here is dealing with cases of armed groups that fought against the occupation army -- and still found these groups who failed to identify themselves properly to have acted contrary to international humanitarian law.

The Geneva Convention was modified to reflect the findings of the Hostage Case:

Following the Hostages Trial the Geneva Convention was amended to extend protections to captured partisan fighters as legitimate prisoners of war. The convention required of such partisans that they have an established chain of command, carry their weapons openly, and have a distinctive and readily visible symbol of their unit. They also must carry out military activities in accordance with the conventions of warfare, rather than covert assassinations, bombings, and other criminal acts.

It is not hard to imagine what the judges would have said about partisans who attacked unarmed civilians.

Nor should it be hard to see the Hamas massacre for what it is -- and what it is not. Yet around the world, the streets are overflowing with people drawn to emotionally charged chants and self-serving fabrications of international law.

Even in the current war in Gaza, in Hamas' own videos of fighting, they are not wearing uniforms and are violating the Geneva Conventions.

Contrary to what these "protestors" would have you believe, they have no interest in the law.

The Nuremberg Trials Didn't Justify All Resistance: Lessons For Pro-Hamas Protesters (Daled Amos)

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.

elderofziyon.blogspot.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Grau]

The refutation is in your refusal to directly address the question,
by dumping more general tropes about "Jewish power".

The main cause of the degradation of the Arab civilization,
is the lack of requirement of men to honor their word,
prostituting their mouths because you cannot admit
a mistake, or being wrong about something.

Was this guy "censored" for "journalising"
on behalf of the Qatari state channel?

Oh, I answered your question by showing that IDF represses al Jazeera's reporting by targeting its journalists. (1)

No other military has been so desperate to hide its atrocities than IDF which has murdered 68 journalists in just 10 weeks.

So, I've answered your question, you just didn't like the answer which I've supported with several sources.

Since you have no idea what passes for Middle Eastern "News" in pro Israel
American news, you cannot know the degree to which al Jazeera is censored from the average American.

For example, even though I don't watch much TV, I don't ever remember seeing anything from al Jazeera on any of the countless number of news sources in our area.

The only "Americans" who are cheerleaders for Netanyahu's blatant Gaza genocide are gullible victims of America Ziono-media "news", traitorous "Israel Firsters" and homicidal psychopaths.

(1). "Israeli military accused of targeting journalists and their families in Gaza"​

"Committee to Protect Journalists says at least 68 journalists and media workers killed since 7 October"

Israeli military accused of targeting journalists and their families in Gaza

Committee to Protect Journalists says at least 68 journalists and media workers killed since 7 October

www.theguardian.com

EXCERPT "The Committee to Protect Journalists has accused the Israeli military of targeting journalists and their families in Gaza amid the highest death toll of media workers in any recent conflict.

The New York-based CPJ said at least 68 journalists and other media workers had been killed in Gaza, Israel and southern Lebanon since the Hamas cross-border attack on 7 October and subsequent Israeli assault.

“More journalists have been killed in the first 10 weeks of the Israel-Gaza war than have ever been killed in a single country over an entire year,” it said." CONTINUED

 

[Grau]

There is an ongoing claim justifying the murder of unarmed Israeli civilians.



Even in the current war in Gaza, in Hamas' own videos of fighting, they are not wearing uniforms and are violating the Geneva Conventions.

Contrary to what these "protestors" would have you believe, they have no interest in the law.

Re:

they are not wearing uniforms and are violating the Geneva Conventions.

Apparently, you're unaware that IDF routinely sheds their uniforms and dress as doctors, nurses, Aid Workers and Palestinian civilians but are characteristically mute when it comes to the innumerable Israeli violations of International Law.

Re:

they have no interest in the law.

That's a curious observation for someone who is loyal to one of the most criminal governments in the world led by an infamous mass murderer. (1)

The fact remains that the genocidal governments of Israel are the ones who "have no interest in the law." (2)

(1). "Benjamin Netanyahu Is the War Criminal of the Year"​

Benjamin Netanyahu Is the War Criminal of the Year

Experts aren't mincing words about the Israeli leader's brutal and disproportionate response to the October 7 Hamas attacks.

newrepublic.com

"Experts aren't mincing words about the Israeli leader's brutal and disproportionate response to the October 7 Hamas attacks."​

EXCERPT "Israeli officials, in their own words, seem to tacitly acknowledge that their critics’ worst fears are far from unfounded. In early November, Israeli security cabinet member and Agriculture Minister Avi Dichter said “We are now rolling out the Gaza Nakba,” referring to the war against Palestinians and seizure of territory that marked Israel’s founding in 1948." CONTINUED


(2). "LIST OF INTRNATIONAL LAW VIOLATIONS BY THE STATE OF ISREAL"

https://itisapartheid.org/Documents_pdf_etc/IsraelViolationsInternationalLaw.pdf

EXCERPT "The state of Israel has violated many international laws, including United Nations Resolutions and the Laws of War andOccupation as stated in the Fourth Geneva Convention. Below is a summary of some of those violations. Much of the fact sheetwas taken from the Israeli Law Resource Center (ILRC). Related articles and laws by the ILRC are linked below." CONTINUED

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

To him, civilian Gazans are cannon fodder, human shields, or expendable - however you want to put it.

This is exactly what the Son of Hamas claims. He said Hamas is pretending to be a political entity when it is a Global Jihadist entity.

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

n one clip from the protest in Jabaliya, protesters can be heard calling out against Hamas' Political Bureau chief Ismail Haniyeh and Sinwar. "Sinwar, Haniyeh, the people are the victims. Down with Hamas! Down with Hamas!" they shouted.
In Rafah, protesters also voiced opposition against Sinwar and Hamas heavyweight Osama Hamdan, who resides in Lebanon. "Listen, listen, Hamdan, go back to Lebanon!" they chanted, along with, "Listen, listen, Haniyeh, the people are the victims. Gaza will be redeemed through spirit and blood."

IDF Arabic Spokesperson Lt. Col. Avichay Adraee also shared clips from the protests on X and quoted chants from one of the demonstrations, saying, "Sinwar tell Haniyeh that the people are the victims. Go away, Sinwar! Listen, listen, Haniyeh, go back to Turkey. Listen, Listen, Hamdan, go back to Lebanon."

"Gazans recognize the reason behind the tragedy in the Gaza Strip and the consequences of the destruction and terror wrought by Sinwar and his gang," Adraee added in the post.

------
These aren't the first protests against Hamas in Gaza. In recent weeks, Adraee has been sharing numerous videos depicting similar protests where residents boldly call for the overthrow of Hamas and openly criticize its top officials.

(full article online)

'Go away, Sinwar!' Gaza protests swell as crowds rally against Hamas

During a protest in Jabaliya in northern Gaza , demonstrators voice anger against Hamas' political chief Ismail Haniyeh and terror leader Yahya Sinwar

www.ynetnews.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

[ Here is why Hezbollah is involved in this war]

Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip Yahya Sinwar secured a commitment from Hezbollah before the October 7 terrorist attack to launch a joint assault on Israel, according to documents the IDF recently obtained during its ground operations in the southern Gaza Strip city of Khan Younis.

(full article online)

Sinwar secured Hezbollah pact for joint attack on Israel, documents reveal

IDF uncovers documents in Khan Younis revealing Sinwar's belief in Hezbollah joining 'liberation project' against Israel; Nasrallah's protracted fence seating allows IDF to marshal troops along northern front

www.ynetnews.com

 

[Sixties Fan]