October 5, 2009 | Eli E. Hertz
To finance, recruit, train, house, feed, transport, kidnap and murder innocent Jews, is a collective Palestinian Arab effort that demands a collectively responsible response from the international community. Israel is often portrayed in the media, by Western leaders, human rights activists and the many different organs of the United Nations, as inflicting disproportionate and collective punishment on many Palestinian Arabs for the deeds of a few terrorists [The Goldstone Report refers to Hamas as "Palestinian armed group"].
It is a denial of reality to assume that only a small "armed group" of terrorists could be involved in thousands of documented acts of terror in the past 12 years by Palestinian Arabs from all walks of life. It would be reckless to assume that these acts of terror are isolated, undertaken independently, without the direct involvement of the Palestinian Arab populace and the leadership they opt to elect.
In fact, poll after poll shows widespread collective support among the majority of the Palestinian Arab population for the destruction of Israel. In a poll released July 2006[1] the majority of Palestinian Arabs responded - 77.2% expressed support for the abduction of the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit and - 60.4% supported the continuation of indiscriminate firing of deadly Qassam rockets into Israeli towns.
Ironically, Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention [2] that deals with prohibition of imposing collective punishment on civilian population under occupation, should have been applied by the Goldstone Mission to protect over 1,000,000 innocent men, women, and children in the Israeli towns of Sderot, Ashkelon, and hundreds of smaller communities that are collectively punished day-in and day-out for offences they never personally committed.
Interestingly, the British in 1929 thought that collective punishment was a perfectly legitimate measure when inhabitants of Arab villages attacked the Jews. This collective punishment was not merely a single necessary step, but actually an existing ordinance of the British Mandate supported by the League of Nations, in dealing with Palestinian Arabs:
"The Collective Punishments Ordinances were applied to the [Arab] towns and villages whose inhabitants were guilty of participation in the concerted attacks on Jews at Hebron, Safad, Motza, Artuf, Beer-Tuvia, and heavy fines were inflicted." [3]
Throughout history, Jews have been law-abiding, peaceful people defending themselves against Arab aggression. In a 1946 Report, the Anglo-American Committee described its observation regarding Jews living in the land of Palestine:
"The Jew had to train himself for self-defence, and to accustom himself to the life of a pioneer in an armed stockade. Throughout the Arab rising, the Jews in the National Home, despite every provocation, obeyed the orders of their leaders and exercised a remarkable self-discipline. They shot, but only in self-defence; they rarely took reprisals on the Arab." [4]
Israel's reaction to Arab aggression is nothing more than a measured, fair response designed "to effectively terminate the attack [s]" by a conglomerate of Palestinian Arab terrorists, supported by Iran, in order to prevent its recurrence.[5]
Palestinian Arabs, by their first use of armed force against Israeli civilians and non-combatant Jews in contravention of the United Nations Charter, constituted prima facie [Latin: on its face] evidence of an act of aggression - aggression being defined by international law as "the most serious and dangerous form of illegal use of force." [6]
The rule of proportionality in this case of continuous Hamas aggression, needs to be met by Israeli acts that will 'induce' the wrongdoing aggressors to comply with its international obligations. A countermeasure need not be the exact equivalent of the breaching act. [7] Judge Schwebel, the former president of the International Court of Justice is quoted saying:
"In the case of action taken for the specific purpose of halting and repelling an armed attack, this does not mean that the action should be more or less commensurate with the attack." [8]
The perception among Palestinian Arabs that politically motivated violence is legitimate and effective - is nothing new. From a broader perspective, if the Palestinians are rewarded with political gains following their acts of aggression, it can be expected that other radical groups will also make use of the rockets and suicide bomber model. Israel will no longer be the main target of such tactics. No one will be immune.
[1] JMCC Poll no. 59 on Palestinian attitudes towards the abduction of the Israeli soldier and Firing of Rockets, 9 July 2006. See: http://www.jmcc.org/publicpoll/results/2006/no59.pdf.
[2] See: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/c525816bde96b7fd41256739003e636a/72728b6de56c7a68c12563cd0051bc40?OpenDocument
[3] From the report by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Council of the League of Nations on the Administration of Palestine and Transjordan for the year 1929.
[4] Report of the Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry regarding the problem of European Jewry and Palestine. Lausanne, 20th April, 1946.
[5] See Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy; 3/22/2002; Beard, Jack M.
[6] See UN GA Resolution 3314.
[7] United States Department of State, Draft Articles on State Responsibility, Comments of the Government of the United States of America,
March 1, 2001. See: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/28993.pdf.
[8] Ibid.
1 comment:
As a Human Rights Reseacher,I am interested in Israel and the Occupied territories alongside other places. I also manage to keep my jb my producing thoroughly researched and excruciatingly carefully worded reports. If I produced a report that was not either of these things i could lose my job.
Now this is not a report, it's a blog so lets not be too critical; however, much of the material on 'writing the wrongs' is especially innacurate and it drives me mad veing so aware of how much propaganda and misinformation is eing produced online by un-qualified sources.
Major criticism here is the sources, especially as putting several sources at the bottom gives the article a sense of validity. Firstly, you will notice that large amounts of the introduction is opinion and not referenced; when I write anything that is a point i wan't to make, it has to be referenced (in a good report, this is pretty much every other sentence, with two complementing refs for every statement).
Secondly, lets look at numbers. There are 7 sources, none of which are verified by a complementing source unde the same no' (ie. every statement has ONLY come from one place.)
No.3 is a quote that has been amended by this author without proper indication; [arab] was not in the original text, it was put there because it has been assumed which is why it is in parantheses []. It is also from 1929 but has been generalised to apply to a modern situation; AUTHORS WHO USE OLD SOURCES DO IT BECAUSE THEY CANT FIND SOMETHING MORE RECENT TO SUPPORT A POINT (See below)
4, again is from a source that is from 1946 but is used here to ustify a modern situation. It does not mean that throughout history jews were law abiding people defending themselves, as this was specific to the date of the report(1946) and certainly wouldn't be generalised like this anywhere else.
1 is higly likely to constitute a compromised source as JMC stands for Jerusalem Media Centre, and the Israeli media is well known for its bias; even if this poll was carried out objectively, it was highly unlikely to generate valid respsonses from a vulnerable group that is over-represented by the most vocal (ie.those that gladly want their views recorded). I can comfirm for a fact that the MAJORITY of ISRAELIS and MAJORITY of PALESTINIANS want peace. I know what you're thinking but the government is still largely exclusive in both areas and yes, a minority can dictate which way it goes.
2? well actually this is a very reliable source, and one I would happily use.
Same with 6, although the quote doesn't make any sense whatsoever in relation to the text - it has been frced in t bulk it out and so it's entirely unclear what point the author is trying to make.
5 is from a journal which means it represents the views of an individual; it has not had the same rigorous checking for neutrality that other sources will. By and large, Journal sources are good but should only really be used as general refs.
7 is from a source that I am again familiar with, but suffers 2 problems; in my own research I have often found US government and country information to be highly innacurate and rushed, and anyone will also tell you that the US has a vested interest in Israel, which is why you're unlikely to find any solid US document that is entirely objective on the obligations of its very own '51st state'.
So, how'd we do? I'd say that at least two of the sources here are valid. Unfortunately, I think I've just proved how easy it was to just skirt around the other 5 sources so that the article can make 8 points (the ones that are referenced at least)of which 6 are somewhat questionable.
Next time, we'll have a closer look at what it means to be a 'pro-Israeli Grassroots Organisation'. See you then.
Post a Comment