lördag 31 januari 2015

Abbas tjänstemän, rikligt betalda av Löfvén, i arbete. Snart ska de pussas.

Löfvéns systerpartis hårda arbetare fortsätter sitt slitsamma arbete för våra skattepengar. De gör det i Samarien, välkänt från Bibeln och Osloavtalet när Arafat fick Nobelpris bl.a för att få kontroll över 95% av araberna i Judéen/Samarien och deras land, och låta Israel få full kontroll över resten, där 5% av araberna bodde och bor. Den första gången i historien en palestinsk enhet fick laglig politisk kontroll över land.

Erekat rapar och rapar om att det är olagligt att följa Osloavtalet. Tror du hans gagg får du gå om några skolklasser.

Wahlström, när hon fär sin älskade Arafat i sina klor har hon lovat "tala honom till rätta" 

Hon ska trivialt lyckas när ingen annan lyckats på 20 år.....

Firebomb Terrorist Killed by IDF in Samaria Paratroopers identify two terrorists as they hurl firebombs near Yitzhar, kill one. The second one was caught.
Abbas tjänstemän.

Fallskärmsjägare identifierar två terrorister som slungar brandbomber nära Yitzhar, dödar en. Den andra fångades [med hundnät antar jag - rabiata hundar tas lättas så].

Av Gil Ronen
Först Publish: 2015/01/31, 22:08

En terrorist dödades lördag kväll av en styrka IDF fallskärmsjägare, efter att han och en andra terrorist identifierades när han kastade brandbomber på fordon på Gilad-vägen i Samarien, intill Yitzhar.

Den andra terroristen flydde och fångades en kort stund senare. Han blev lätt sårad.

Chefen för regionfullmäktige Samarien, Gershon Mesika, sade lördag kväll: "Jag vill gratulera de soldater som reagerade på rätt sätt gentemot terroristen i kväll. Tyvärr vert vi redan vilket hemskt resultat klippstycken och brandbombsterror kan ha. "

"Därför måste vi stärka våra soldater som står inför fienden dagligen och som vi såg i kväll, tveka inte att reagera. Det är viktigt att varje terrorist vet att när han förbereder att kasta en sten eller brandbomb på en IDFsrtyrka eller israeliska medborgare - är han mål för rättvisan ".





A terrorist was killed Saturday evening by a force of IDF paratroopers, after he and a second terrorist were identified throwing firebombs at vehicles on the Gilad road in Samaria, next to Yitzhar.

The second terrorist escaped and was caught a short while later. He was slightly wounded.

The Head of the Samaria Regional Council, Gershon Mesika, said Saturday evening: “I wish to congratulate the soldiers who reacted properly vis-a-vis the terrorist this evening. Unfortunately, we already know what terrible results the rock and firebomb terror can have.”

"Therefore, we must strengthen our soldiers who face the enemy daily and as we saw this evening, do not hesitate to react. It is important that every terrorist know that once he prepares to throw a rock or firebomb at an IDF force or Israeli citizens – he is fair game.”







Hur man tar kål på en terroristledare.

Jihad Mughniyeh - en ung Hizbollahledare som nyligen dödades när han utforskade möjligheterna att attackera det israeliska Golan tillsammans med bl.a. en iransk general (va katten han hade på den Israeliska gränsen att göra.) TGS

Hans terroristledare till far hade ett väldigt långt syndaregister Wiki när hans bil råkade explodera i Damaskus 2008.

Historien om faderns förolyckade har nyligen släppts, här berättas hur Israel och CIA hjälptes åt.

Marine Le Pen: France Was Attacked by Islamic Fundamentalism

Hon vågar kalla islamsk fundamentalism för vad det är - den franska regeringen vågar inte, så de kommer aldrig att lösa problemet.

Se hennes artikel i New York Times.

Egyptisk domstol trotsar EU och dömer Hamas som terrorister.


Länk
Se också Egypten flygbombar Sinai.

Hamas lägger en fatwa på Egypten att de inte får förhandla mellan Hamas och Israel mer. Så vem har Hamas förtroende för, Carter, Kerry eller Wallström? 

Domstolen i Kairo dömer för att förbjuda Qassambrigaderna och listar det som terroristorganisation.

Bilden nedan.
Hamasmedlemmar på en anti-israelisk demonstration i Rafah i södra Gaza, den 13 november 2014.. (bild Fotograf: REUTERS)

fredag 30 januari 2015

Regeringens utbildningsnivå.

Stefan Löfvén, statsminister.
2 år på ekonomiskt gymnasium, en svetsarkurs och klarade 1½ år på socialhögskola innan han hoppade av misslyckad.
Kristina Persson, nån minister med lång konstig titel som inte säger något.
Civilekonom.
Morgan Johansson, justitie och migration
Fil. kand.
Anders Ygeman, Inrikesminister
Ingen utbildning.
Margot Wallström, Utrikesminister
Ingen akademisk utbildning.
Isabella Lövin, Biståndsminister
Har studerat Filmvetenskapstatsvetenskap sociologi italienska vid Stockholms universitet och gick radioproducentutbildningen vid Dramatiska Institutet
Peter Hultqvist,Försvarsminister
journalist
Annika Strandhäll,Socialförsäkringsminister
läst psykologi och sociologi
Gabriel Wikström,Folkhälso-sjukvårds- och idrottsminister
Ingen utbildning.
Åsa Regnér, Barn-, äldre- och jämställdhetsminister
Fil.kand.
Magdalena Andersson,Finansminister
Civilekonom
Per BolundFinansmarknads- och konsumentminister, biträdande finansminister
biolog
Ardalan Shekarabi,Civilminister
Juridik vid Uppsala universitet.
Gustav Fridolin,Utbildningsminister
1999–2002 i Mediagymnasiet i Nacka strand.
Aida Hadzialic,Gymnasie- och kunskapslyftsminister
Examen i juridik från Lunds Univeritet.
Helene Hellmark Knutsson, Minister för högre utbildning och forskning
grundkurser i historia, nationalekonomi och statistik men ingen examen. Behövs inte fär att bli minister i högre utbildning och forskning i Sverige.
Åsa Romson, Klimat- och miljöminister, vice statsminister
Doktor, miljörätt
Ibrahim Baylan,Energiminister
Assyrisk kristen turk. Munk. 1997-98 Uppsala universitet.
Mikael Damberg, Närings- och innovationsminister
Ingen formell utbildning.
Mehmet Kaplan, Bostads- och stadsutvecklingsminister
Ingen formell utbildning nämnd. Behövs kanske inte för hans ministertjänst.
Anna Johansson, Infrastrukturminister
Ingen utbildning
Sven-Erik Bucht, Landsbygdsminister
(Från och med den 1 januari 2015 statsråd i Näringsdepartementet.)
Ingen formell utbildning.
Alice Bah Kuhnke, Kultur- och demokratiminister
Fil kand
Ylva Johansson, Arbetsmarknad
lärare

Summa summarum ca 10 av 24 med avslutad akademisk utbildning, ca 40%.

Vad innebär det att vara akademiker? Beror på nivån förstås, men först och främst bör det innebära att du iär dig  fakta i ämnet innan du börjar snacka, inte bara stöta ut vaga fakta som du inte har något bevis för. Vid högre nivå innebär det att du hämtar fakta, inte från läroböcker utan originalkällor så nära ursprunget som möjligt. Fil. kand., fil.mag. innebär att du kan lära ut till folk som kan mindre än du, du blir högskolelärare etc. Är du fil.lic.  har du licens att berätta för alla underliggande vad du vet och har inhämtat från verkligheten, du har fördjupat dej i något speciellt och skrivit en längre artikel om det. Är du doktor ska du ha skrivit en längre avhandling om din specialitet. En professor ska vara mycket självständig att inhämta kunskap och kunna bevisa att det är korrekt. Akademin ska alltså hantera och förmedla information på ett helt annat sätt än media. Där finns gamla grenar som utbildning av präster etc.
Eftersom jag är speciellt intresserad av Israel kan man göra liknande undersökningar av deras Knessetmedlemmar - du får ta dem en och en från en lista som denna. Där är 120 medlemmar och om vi speciellt tittar på deltagande araber, som f.n. är 12 för att begränsa arbetet. De återstående, judar, har inte lägre genomsnittsutbildning....
Afu Agbaria (kommunist), läkare, kirurg
Hamad Amar, drus, Liebermans parti, fil.kand i sociologi, senare juridik. Varit i den israeliska armén.
Taleb  Abu Arar, beduin, arablista (där är ett par listor med enbart araber av olika schatteringar), lärare
Mohamad Barakeh, (kommunist), matematikstudier på Tel Avivs universitet.
Masud Ghnaim, arablista, fil.kand i historia sedan undervisning
Basel Ghattas, kristen arab, universitetsstudier, ingenjör. PhD i environmental engineering.
Issawi Frej, Meretz (marxistiskt israeliskt parti), Ekonomi på universitet.
Ibrahim Sarsur, arablista, universitetsstudier i Engelska. Aktiv anti-Zionist.
Hana Sweid, kristen arab, kommunist, doktor i Civil Engineering och Urban Planning.
Ahmad Tibi, ökänd medhjälpare till Arafat, arablista, vice talman i Knesset, Universitetsstudier i gynekologi.
Jamal Zahalka, Arablista. Doktor i farmakologi.
Haneen Zoabi, Arablista, Master i kommunikation.Kvinna som hatar judar och deltog i den illegala turkiska attackflottan mot Israel för att hjälpa Hamas, Uppger höga tjut i tid och otid, Är med i varje demonstration hon kan, har blivit portad ett halvår från Knesset.
Sen är det bara att börja räkna antalet universitetsutbildade och doktorer bland svenska regeringen och araber i det israeliska Knesset, deras riksdag.


Obama har gått med på 80% av Irans krav.

Länk.


ISIS-anhängare anfaller från Sinai.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4620994,00.html

Tydligen läser många araber den tidningen, om man ser på kommentarerna.

Sisi har börjat rensa i Sinai, så snart  kommer Västvärlden att klaga över att han är hårdhänt, inte för att de har något bättre förslag, han vill inte reservera Sinai som en zoo för Islamister.


Simultaneous attacks in Egypt's Sinai kill 27


Islamic State-linked Ansar Beit al-Maqdis claims responsibility for wide-ranging attacks in Sinai, targeting military base, newspaper; army major shot dead in Rafah.
Elior Levy
Latest Update: 01.29.15, 23:10 / Israel News

Militants struck more than a dozen army and police targets in the restive Sinai Peninsula with simultaneous attacks involving a car bomb and mortar rounds on Thursday, killing at least 27 people, including civilians, officials said.
  
Meanwhile, an army major was shot dead at a checkpoint in Rafah near the Gaza Strip, medical and security sources said

An Islamic State affiliate previously known as Ansar Beit al-Maqdis claimed the attack, the group has launched several attacks against the police and the army in Sinai in recent years, particularly following the military overthrow of Islamist President Mohammed Morsi in 2013.





But the wide-ranging attacks late Thursday, which struck the Northern Sinai provincial capital el-Arish, the nearby town of Sheik Zuwayid and the town of Rafah bordering Gaza, indicate a previously unseen level of coordination.

The officials said Thursday's attacks included at least one car bomb set off outside a military base and mortar rounds fired at a hotel, a police club and more than a dozen checkpoints. At least 36 people were wounded in the attack, according to medical officials, who also confirmed the death toll.


Officials said the death toll is expected to rise after the military base hit by the car bomb was also struck by mortars that destroyed buildings inside the camp, burying people under the rubble.

All officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the press.

The state news agency MENA said more than one car bomb was used in the attacks, without elaborating.

The explosions smashed windows and shook residential areas in el-Arish.





The areas where the attacks took place have been under a state of emergency and a curfew since October, when militants killed dozens of soldiers in a deadly attack on a checkpoint in Sinai.

In an attempt to stop weapons smuggling to and from the Gaza Strip, authorities demolished houses and residential buildings located within 500 meters of the border, where a complex network of tunnels had long been used to bring consumer goods, as well as weapons and fighters, to and from the Palestinian territory.

Ansar Beit al-Maqdis was initially inspired by al Qaeda, but last year it pledged allegiance to the Islamic State, which controls large parts of Syria and Iraq.

Sinai-based militants have exploited long-held grievances in the impoverished north of the peninsula, where the mainly Bedouin population has complained of neglect by Cairo authorities and where few have benefited from the famed tourist resorts in the more peaceful southern part of Sinai. The police in northern Sinai largely fled during the 2011 uprising that toppled longtime autocrat Hosni Mubarak, as militants attacked their stations and killed scores of security forces.

Egypt has a long history of Islamic militancy. Former President Anwar Sadat was assassinated by Islamic militants in 1981, and extremists carried out a wave of attacks targeting security forces, Christians and Western tourists during the 1990s.

First Published: 01.29.15, 22:43






Abbas till Sverige för att beundras.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4621148,00.html

ABBAS ska besöka Sverige efter att Israel avtackar sig besök från den svenska FM av förklarliga skäl.



Efter det att den svenska utrikesministern avbröt sitt Israelbesök mitt under diplomatiska spänningar mellan de två länderna, bjuder Stockholm den f.d. palestinska presidenten (WikiAbbas' ämbetsperiod avslutades den 9 januari 2009) att besöka.

Itamar Eichner
Publicerad: 01.30.15, 17:57

Palestinske f.d. presidenten Mahmoud Abbas besöker Stockholm nästa månad efter Sverige blev den första stora staten i EU att "erkänna Palestina", meddelade svenska regeringen på fredagen.

"Besöket av f.d. president Abbas, genom inbjudan från premiärministern, bekräftas för februari 10," sade UDs taleskvinna Ulla Jacobson till AFP. "Han kommer också att träffa utrikesministern, kungen och ärkebiskopen [biskop för vilken religion?]."

Hon sade att dagordningen skulle inkludera den arabisk-israeliska fredsprocessen [som hon inte vet ett dyft om - eller förhör henne på kunskapen om Osloavtalet.] och "vad Sverige kan erbjuda efter (sitt) erkännande" av "Palestina" i oktober.

Sveriges erkännande av jultomten, förlåt "Palestina" kom trots stark kritik från Israel [och USA], som tidigare denna månad sade att svenska utrikesministern Margot Wallström inte var välkommen för ett officiellt besök i landet.

Wallström hade planerat att besöka Israel i mitten av januari för att delta i en minneshögtid för den svenska diplomaten Raoul Wallenberg, som räddade judar under Förintelsen. Hon förväntades också att besöka de palestinska områdena.

Wallström sade att hon skulle använda Abbas besök att verka för att de avstannade fredssamtalen mellan israeler och palestinier återupptas.

"Vi kommer att ställa krav på palestinierna. Det är vad vi kommer att använda vår relation till," sade hon till Sveriges Radio. [Så plötsligt :)]

http://avpixlat.info/2015/01/30/stefan-lofven-bjuder-in-mahmoud-abbas-till-sverige/

http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/israel-ogillar-abbas-sverigebesok_4295003.svd

http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=83&artikel=6080949



Abbas to visit Sweden after Israel shuns FM visit

After Swedish foreign minister cancels Israel visit amid diplomatic tensions between two countries, Stockholm invites Palestinian president for visit.

Itamar Eichner
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas will visit Stockholm next month after Sweden became the first major state of the European Union to 
recognize Palestine, the Swedish government announced Friday.
"The visit of president Abbas, by invitation from the prime minister, is confirmed for February 10," foreign ministry spokeswoman Ulla Jacobson told AFP. "He will also meet the foreign minister, the king and the archbishop."


Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (Photo: AFP)
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (Photo: AFP)


[No idea  why they put Arafat here . a mistake I guess.]
he said the agenda would include the Arab-Israeli peace process and "what Sweden can offer after (its) recognition" of Palestine in October.



Sweden's recognition of Palestine came despite strong criticism from Israel which earlier this month said Swedish Foreign Minister Margot Wallstrom was not welcome for an official visit in the country.<
Israeli FM Lieberman and Swedish FM Wallstrom
Israeli FM Lieberman and Swedish FM Wallstrom
Wallstrom had been due to visit Israel in mid-January to attend a memorial service for the Swedish diplomat Raoul Wallenberg who saved Jews during the Holocaust. She was also expected to visit the Palestinian territories.

Wallstrom said she would use Abbas' visit to push for stalled peace talks between the Israelis and Palestinians to resume.

"We will make demands of the Palestinians. That's what we will use our relationship for," she told Swedish Radio.<











Valet i Israel.

De största partierna Likud och Arbetarpartiet+Livni ligger på samma nivå, se sammanfattning.

En artikel från i dag med fler detaljer på länk.

Knesset har 120 stolar, för att bilda en koalition krävs 61. Inget enstaka parti är i närheten som du ser. Den stora katastrofen vore om vänstern tog över, de allierar sig gärna med arabpartierna och marxistpartiet Meretz. som alla hatar tanken att de bor i en Judisk Stat. 23 muslimska stater utan mänskliga rättigheter oroar dem inte.

Vad vänstern vill kan du se här. De vill ha Abbas gäng så nära som möjligt med iranska raketer i Juda Berg med god överblick över Tel Aviv och den internationella flygplatsen Ben Gurion.

Det vill säga nästa Förintelse - som EU och Obama försöker pressa fram på ett fint sätt så de kan skylla attacker på palAraberna.

Jag är gammal og att minnas när arbetarpartiet i både Sverige och Israel var till nytta för landet, och undrar varför vänstern i bägge länderna har fått totalt fnatt och försöker rentvätta terrorism. Som Sverige som nu bjuder in terroristledaren, eller som ledningen för vänsterpartierna i Israel, som beundrar Arafat och höjer honom till skyarna.

Nåt fel är det.






Stora hemska Bibi, [English]

Big Bad Bibi

January 28th, 2015 - 10:03 pm

Roger L Simon

Fee fi fo fum. Big bad Bibi is coming to DC town — and Barack is VERY angry. Not only that, and possibly worse,  Jeffrey Goldberg at The Atlantic may be equally as angry. The journalist insists Netanyahu making a speech to Congress at the speaker’s invitation is a “disaster” or — in the words of my grandmother — “not good for the Jews.”  And Jeff should know.  He’s an important guy, I am told.  He gets to talk… to Barack.

Goldberg accuses Netanyahu of electioneering (a rare thing indeed for a politician) and not showing the proper “RESPECT” for our president (cue Aretha), who always demonstrates so much respect for the Israeli prime minister.

Excuse me while I rend my clothes.  Meanwhile, lost in Goldberg’s posturing, and the funfkeying by such great State Department intellects as Jen Psaki,  is the subject of Netanyahu’s putative speech. What was it?   Oh, yes… Iran.  Now I remember.  That country that has its hand in nearly every piece of  Islamic mayhem from Buenos Aires to Sanaa.

Oh, wait. I made another mistake. I said Islamic mayhem. That’s a no-no for Goldberg’s hero.  I meant, um, “workplace violence.”  Better?  Good.  The death of Alberto Nisman in Argentina was “workplace violence,” no?  He was at work,  investigating the coverup of the terror bombing of that  Buenos Aires Jewish center that killed 85 and wounded over 300 by Hezbollah or whoever it was.  They’re not Islamic, are they?

Anyway, not to worry.  We have our best journalistic minds at work.  Goldberg and others similar have assured us that Barack Obama has the best interests of Israel and obviously the West in mind. We shouldn’t be concerned that Iran has been continuing to advance its technology and nuclear  capabilities, even building ICBMs (what do they want with those — Israel’s not that far away) while talks drone on and on and on.  Obama will pull something out of the hat.  He always has.  Look at Libya.  Oh, wait… That was just the jayvee team.

Scratch that and all those other countries from Nigeria to Pakistan and back. Obama has handled the war very well without naming it.  As Goldberg et al will tell you, he doesn’t need some rude foreign dignitary pontificating to him about what to do about Iran.  Barack knew exactly what to do when all those Green demonstrators were marching for freedom in the streets of Tehran.  Ignore them and negotiate with responsible leaders like Ahmadinejad.  Oh, wait… I screwed that up again

I’m sorry.  I should know better than to criticize my betters like Jeffrey Goldberg. It’s not  his fault Obama has no discernible policy after six plus years in office  to deal with the Islamic terror war.  The president probably doesn’t want one.  Give the guy a break.

And I feel for Goldberg, really I do.  I’m sure he’s embarrassed by Bibi. And Goldberg, of all things, would like to keep his access, like CNN with Saddam.  It’s much easier to blame pushy Bibi then tell it like it is about Obama, Kerry and the rest of the mealy-mouthed crew that make Neville Chamberlain seem like Patton. But again not to worry.  If Ayatollah Khamenei nixes a deal at the end, as most sentient beings assume he will, maybe Kerry can get James Taylor to serenade him.

And I’m sorry again to be so hostile to Goldberg and his “liberal” ilk, but I’m having echoes these days of 1938. Another Kristallnacht hasn’t quite happened yet, but we’ve come mighty close.  Time’s up for being polite. Protocol-shmotocol.  Benjamin Netanyahu isn’t the problem.  Barack Obama is.






Stora hemska Bibi, [English]

Big Bad Bibi

January 28th, 2015 - 10:03 pm

Roger L Simon

Fee fi fo fum. Big bad Bibi is coming to DC town — and Barack is VERY angry. Not only that, and possibly worse,  Jeffrey Goldberg at The Atlantic may be equally as angry. The journalist insists Netanyahu making a speech to Congress at the speaker’s invitation is a “disaster” or — in the words of my grandmother — “not good for the Jews.”  And Jeff should know.  He’s an important guy, I am told.  He gets to talk… to Barack.

Goldberg accuses Netanyahu of electioneering (a rare thing indeed for a politician) and not showing the proper “RESPECT” for our president (cue Aretha), who always demonstrates so much respect for the Israeli prime minister.

Excuse me while I rend my clothes.  Meanwhile, lost in Goldberg’s posturing, and the funfkeying by such great State Department intellects as Jen Psaki,  is the subject of Netanyahu’s putative speech. What was it?   Oh, yes… Iran.  Now I remember.  That country that has its hand in nearly every piece of  Islamic mayhem from Buenos Aires to Sanaa.

Oh, wait. I made another mistake. I said Islamic mayhem. That’s a no-no for Goldberg’s hero.  I meant, um, “workplace violence.”  Better?  Good.  The death of Alberto Nisman in Argentina was “workplace violence,” no?  He was at work,  investigating the coverup of the terror bombing of that  Buenos Aires Jewish center that killed 85 and wounded over 300 by Hezbollah or whoever it was.  They’re not Islamic, are they?

Anyway, not to worry.  We have our best journalistic minds at work.  Goldberg and others similar have assured us that Barack Obama has the best interests of Israel and obviously the West in mind. We shouldn’t be concerned that Iran has been continuing to advance its technology and nuclear  capabilities, even building ICBMs (what do they want with those — Israel’s not that far away) while talks drone on and on and on.  Obama will pull something out of the hat.  He always has.  Look at Libya.  Oh, wait… That was just the jayvee team.

Scratch that and all those other countries from Nigeria to Pakistan and back. Obama has handled the war very well without naming it.  As Goldberg et al will tell you, he doesn’t need some rude foreign dignitary pontificating to him about what to do about Iran.  Barack knew exactly what to do when all those Green demonstrators were marching for freedom in the streets of Tehran.  Ignore them and negotiate with responsible leaders like Ahmadinejad.  Oh, wait… I screwed that up again

I’m sorry.  I should know better than to criticize my betters like Jeffrey Goldberg. It’s not  his fault Obama has no discernible policy after six plus years in office  to deal with the Islamic terror war.  The president probably doesn’t want one.  Give the guy a break.

And I feel for Goldberg, really I do.  I’m sure he’s embarrassed by Bibi. And Goldberg, of all things, would like to keep his access, like CNN with Saddam.  It’s much easier to blame pushy Bibi then tell it like it is about Obama, Kerry and the rest of the mealy-mouthed crew that make Neville Chamberlain seem like Patton. But again not to worry.  If Ayatollah Khamenei nixes a deal at the end, as most sentient beings assume he will, maybe Kerry can get James Taylor to serenade him.

And I’m sorry again to be so hostile to Goldberg and his “liberal” ilk, but I’m having echoes these days of 1938. Another Kristallnacht hasn’t quite happened yet, but we’ve come mighty close.  Time’s up for being polite. Protocol-shmotocol.  Benjamin Netanyahu isn’t the problem.  Barack Obama is.


torsdag 29 januari 2015

Diakonia/Sverige finansierar totalt dravel från B'tselem i deras försök att begripa juridik.

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.se/2015/01/btselems-interpretation-of.html#disqus_thread

I denna artikel går man igenom den israelhatande NGOn B'tselems fantasier. Diakonia står bland de viktigaste donatorerna med svenska skattemedel. Har du saknat dina pengar nyligen är det en anledning.

Där är många rapporter som inte har synts i Sverige:

Obama försvarar Saudi-relation""

Såg du DN-artikeln?

De kör i stor stil fram mänskliga rättigheter-tåget utan den blekaste aning om alla anklagelser om antisemitism mot Amnesty och Human Rights Watch. Mera De mänskliga rättigheterna mår mycket sämre i Iran men där är det tyst. Var i Asien de är bättre än Saudiarabien kan diskuteras. Självklart bör man måna om de verkliga mänskliga rättigheterna överallt, t.ex. åsiktsfriheten som stoppats i nästan alla svenska media, är direkt brott mot demokratin. PalAraberna får miljarder från Sverige för att förbättra sådant, inte ett dyft har förändrats, reportrar där måste lyda Abbas. Följaktligen ger Löfvén nu än mer.

Är Israel skyldig till krigsbrott?

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5158/israel-war-crimes

En lång och gedigen rapport från Gatestoneinstitute, som alltid är mycket detaljerade och  korrekta.


Can the International Criminal Court [ICC] even be considered an impartial legal body, any more than a Jim Crow court in America's old South?
The supporters of this repackaged anti-Semitism always seem perfectly comfortable "forgetting" that Hamas offers its people no human rights. Thus is a liberal democracy, Israel, maligned by a theocratic tyranny.
It is clear that these illustrious members of the international community are secretly hoping that if they can rig the system so that the Arabs can finish off Israel, they, in the international community, will still be able to preen and congratulate themselves that the obliteration of the Jewish state had nothing to do with them.
Groups such as al-Qaeda, the Islamic State, Hizbullah or Hamas are considered terrorists because they do not abide by the principles of international or domestic law. That, as well as the acts they commit, is what identifies them as terrorists. The differentiating factor with Islamist terror organizations is that they do not recognize international law at all.
Islamic law frees Hamas and other such groups from any obligation to abide by international standards, which they demonize as "Western" or "Christian" and therefore "Satanic."
As stated by an official UN report of 2009, among others, systematic and deliberate targeting of civilians violates International Humanitarian Law and amounts to a war crime.
Any movement, such as Hamas, that is openly determined to bring about the abolition of a sovereign state and the genocide of its citizens, breaks every clause in every charter of international law.
On November 4, 2014, Amnesty International published a scathing report on Israeli "war crimes" in Gaza during the war between Hamas and Israel last year. Entitled, "Families under the rubble: Israeli attacks on inhabited homes," the report accuses Israel of displaying "callous indifference" in launching attacks on family homes in the densely populated coastal strip, and argued that in some cases the conduct amounted to war crimes. The report makes difficult reading. The toll of human tragedy in the conflict was enormous. Over 2,100 Palestinians were killed, about 1000 of them civilians. But did Israel commit war crimes? And is Amnesty reading war crimes legislation in a balanced way?
The following day, the recently retired UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, published an article in the New York Times, in which she calls for Europe to allow "Palestine" to be admitted to the International Criminal Court [ICC], a body to which neither Israel nor the United States is party.
One day later, November 6, 2014, the chief military commander of the U.S., General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a man with lifelong military experience, including senior service in Iraq, flatly contradicted both Amnesty and Pillay in an outspoken insistence that Israeli troops had behaved in an exemplary fashion. "I actually do think that Israel went to extraordinary lengths to limit collateral damage and civilian casualties," he said. "They [the IDF] did some extraordinary things to try and limit civilian casualties to include ... making it known that they were going to destroy a particular structure".
Dempsey's remarks are a direct echo of sentiments expressed (and not for the first time) by a former British commander in Afghanistan, Col. Richard Kemp: "The way that this conflict [Operation Protective Edge] is being portrayed in many, many media outfits by many reporters, by some politicians round the world, is the mirror opposite of reality. Israel has been demonized, Israel has been accused of committing war crimes. The real war crimes have been committed by Hamas."[1]
It is, surely, quite clear that the debate about the ethics, policies and actions of the IDF could not be more polarized -- not least between amateurs who have never been in combat, and professional soldiers who have fought against Islamist foes for many years. Either the IDF is made up of war criminals or, as Kemp has said, "the Israeli Defence Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare."
Already during the conflict between the Jewish state and Hamas, on July 23, 2014, Pillay was accusing Israel of possible war crimes: "There seems to be a strong possibility that international law has been violated, in a manner that could amount to war crimes," Ms. Pillay said. Already well known for her anti-Israel views, her comment was hardly surprising; nor was hers the only voice to issue this claim. Speaking earlier in the year, Human Rights Watch had already said much the same in a public statement.
A few months later, at the end of December, Mahmoud Abbas, acting as president of a joint government between the Palestinian Authority in Judea and Samaria and Hamas in Gaza, signed the Rome Statute in order to join the International Criminal Court. On January 6, 2015, UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon announced that the Palestinians could do so on April 1. He based eligibility on a majority vote of the General Assembly, on October 30, 2014, to recognize "Palestine" as a state. This decision came in spite of a vote against recognition of a full-fledged Palestinian state by the UN Security Council, on 30 December 2014.
There is an ongoing debate about all of this: whether "Palestine," which has few of the characteristics of a sovereign state, can legitimately join the ICC and launch war crimes accusations against Israel; whether the ICC will consider itself legally empowered to take on such a case, whether the Palestinians may not risk being investigated for war crimes themselves, and not least whether the ICC can even be considered an impartial legal body, any more than a Jim Crow court in America's old South.
It is clear that, should the Israeli Supreme Court prosecute individual Israeli citizens for crimes during the last Gaza war, the ICC would automatically need to recuse itself from a broader prosecution, as attorney Alan Dershowitz has written.
The fundamental issue is whether any of the accusations against Israel are true. Has Israel been committing terrible crimes in Gaza? Or were the war crimes in this conflict actually committed by Hamas, while Israel and its armed forces behaved in an exemplary fashion, in hard-fought battles, to minimize civilian casualties? Further, are the claims of war crimes and indiscriminate killing born, not from humanitarian anxieties, but from a recrudescent anti-Semitism? It often seems as if your grandmother's old-fashioned anti-Semitism has merely morphed and been repackaged as anti-Israel invective and rallies that call on Hamas to rise up for human rights. The supporters of this repackaged anti-Semitism, however, always seem perfectly comfortable "forgetting" that the Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement [Hamas] offers its people no human rights, and often liberal helpings of human wrongs. Thus is a liberal democracy maligned by a theocratic tyranny.
It is time that Israel's harsher critics, politicians, and the media acquainted themselves with the physical and legal facts of this conflict. Their goals may be admirable, even if their motives are not; for which of us does not wish to minimize the deaths of innocents? But, sadly, they seem have taken precisely the wrong side of the moral argument.
Rather than help save innocent lives, they seem actually to relish putting Israel into the dock. They promote incessant rounds of boycotts, divestments and sanctions, mounted against Israel and no other nation. At the UN, they continually vote lopsided for sanctions against Israel and no other nation -- not Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Pakistan or the Sudan. They will, if they are successful, merely bring about another round of fighting, which will be followed by another round and so on, with thousands of civilians and soldiers dying in the process.
It is clear that these illustrious members of the International community are secretly hoping that if they can rig the system so the Arabs finish off Israel, they, the illustrious members of the international community, will still be able to preen and congratulate themselves that the obliteration of the Jewish state had nothing to do with them.
Israel is not mankind's enemy; it is not even an enemy of the Palestinian people. Hamas, on the other hand -- a brutal, internationally-recognized terrorist organization -- is the greatest threat to, first and foremost, Palestinians.
Western attempts to weaken Israel only serve to strengthen its enemies. Hamas is explicit in its 1988 Charter that its long-term goal is to commit genocide, not only of all Jews in Israel, but of all Jews everywhere. It could not be plainer. Cries that Israel deliberately commits war crimes just support this genocidal intent. That alone will encourage even wider genocides in Syria and Iraq, or massacres of Christian infidels in Europe -- something that has already started to happen in earnest. Is this what the anti-Israel marchers, the sloganeers and the NGOs really want?
Most people know and agree that Islamist groups such as al-Qaeda, the Islamic State [IS, Da'ish, ISIS], Hizbullah, or Hamas are considered terrorists because they do not abide by the terms of international or domestic law. That, as well as the acts they commit, is what identifies them as terrorists rather than "freedom fighters" or "militants." Like the German Red Cells or the Italian Red Brigades and other European terrorist bodies in the 1970s, a terrorist's job is to terrorize: they use terror to achieve their ends, and this comparison helps us place Hamas within that category. But there is a differentiating factor with the Islamist terror organizations, and that is that they do not recognize international law at all.
All the norms of the Geneva Conventions, UN resolutions, international treaties, the protection of refugees, all other things that govern military action and aspects of internationally accepted norms of law, they reject because they only recognize one legal system, namely Islamic shari'a law. And the aspect of shari'a law in all the five law schools (four Sunni and one Shi'i) that applies to international relations, the fighting of war, and the making of truces and treaties, is the law of jihad. It has a special section in all books of general shari'a law.
A dependence on Islamic law frees Hamas and other such groups from any obligation to abide by international standards, which they demonize as "Western" or "Christian" and therefore "Satanic." When the Islamic State gives Christians or Yazidis a choice between conversion, payment of protection money (jizya), or death, they abide by the strict terms of jihad law as it has been practiced for fourteen centuries. When they kill without offering a subordinate status in return for the annual jizya payment, they breach Islamic law in the case of Christians, but not in the case of Yazidis (or Hindus or other "pagans"). Therefore, calling on Hamas to abide by recognized conventions is pointless.
To illustrate this, let us just examine three passages from Article 13 of the Hamas Charter[2]:
"(1) Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse directed against part of religion. Nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its religion.... (2) Now and then the call goes out for the convening of an international conference to look for ways of solving the (Palestinian) question. Some accept, others reject the idea, for this or other reason, with one stipulation or more for consent to convening the conference and participating in it. Knowing the parties constituting the conference, their past and present attitudes towards Moslem problems, the Islamic Resistance Movement does not consider these conferences capable of realizing the demands, restoring the rights or doing justice to the oppressed. These conferences are only ways of setting the infidels in the land of the Moslems as arbiters. When did the infidels do justice to the believers?.... (3) There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. The Palestinian people know better than to consent to having their future, rights and fate toyed with." (Italics added)
Hamas's statement of purpose reads: "Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes." (Article 8).
It is inevitable that any movement, such as Hamas, that rejects peacemaking outright, and is outspokenly determined to bring about the abolition of a sovereign state and the genocide of its citizens, breaks every clause in every charter of international law. Thus, from the Introduction of the Hamas Charter: "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it;" and from Article 7: "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews and kill them (hatta yuqatil al-muslimun al-yahud fa-yaqtuluhum al-muslimun[3]), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him".
It is this assumption of superiority to international legal norms, and complete indifference to their demands, that makes Hamas, like all other jihadi movements, such formidable enemies. Glorification of suicide also increases their alienation, not only from legal standards in warfare, but from the ethical standards of civilization. It is not only their own thirst to die that marks these extremists out, it is that they wish for the deaths of their own people, whether as suicide bombers or as casualties of a conflict started by Hamas itself.
The spokesman for Hamas in Gaza, Sami Abu Zuhri, said on July 13, 2014, in an interview on Al Aqsa TV (Hamas's TV network), "We aren't leading our people today to destruction. We are leading them to death." Several basic elements should be taken into account:
  • Israel has never initiated any of the conflicts in which it has been engaged. Not the 1948 war, when seven Arab armies from five countries invaded it. Not the 1967 Six-Day War, when Israel found itself surrounded by armies from Egypt, Syria and Jordan about to invade. Not in 1973, when a coalition of Arab states led by Egypt and Syria with Jordan again invaded Israeli territory and were fought off at great cost. Not the first Gaza war, the second Gaza war, or the 2014 conflict. All Israel's actions have been defensive, all Arab actions offensive. This has a serious bearing on the issue of which side has acted legally within the confines of international law. This is not a matter of opinion, but of history: of plain, verifiable fact.
  • Since 2002, Hamas and Islamic Jihad have bombarded southern Israeli towns and villages with rockets and mortar fire. Over the years, those rockets have become larger and more accurate, with supplies of advanced rockets from Syria and Iran. Over 15,000 missiles have struck Israel during that period. During 2014, strikes were made across most of Israel, including Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. All of these attacks have been offensive and indiscriminate.
  • Israel has taken the defense of its citizens seriously, providing them with bomb shelters, ordering all houses to be equipped with secure rooms, creating an extensive alarm system to warn of incoming rockets, and building the very effective Iron Dome missile defense system. This has meant that Israeli casualties have been few, while defensive measures have never hurt a single Palestinian. Israel's defensive measures have also protected its own Arab population, which has a direct bearing on the spurious claims of "disproportion" in fighting.
  • Hamas provided absolutely no defenses for its civilian population. There are no bomb shelters, no secure rooms, no alarm systems, and no anti-missile installations in the Gaza Strip. On the contrary, Hamas has spent billions of dollars of aid money to supply itself with a vast array of rockets, only used in offensive attacks, as well as on underground tunnels designed to import weapons, to protect the Hamas military forces, and to serve as conduits for attacks on Israel civilians during Gaza-Israel cross-border kidnapping and murder attacks. (The tunnels are now being used to allow Hamas to launch attacks into Egypt's Sinai Peninsula, and it is thought that Hizbullah is digging similar tunnels into Israeli territory in the north.)
  • Hamas has, as mentioned, fired thousands of rockets onto Israeli civilian centers, including several thousand before and after the latest conflict. Its firing has been indiscriminate and has impacted on civilian areas only. This is a war crime, as indicated in paragraphs 4-5b of Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions.

Hamas boasted that Palestinian civilians were killed while Hamas's terrorists remained alive, hiding in their underground bunkers and tunnels. (Image source: Hamas video screenshot)
As stated by several sources, including the official UN report published in August 2009, deliberate and systematic targeting of civilians and civilian objects in southern Israel since 2001 by Palestinian armed groups' rocket attacks violates International Humanitarian Law and amounts to a war crime. The Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center [ITIC] notes that such attacks contravene the Principle of Distinction, as encapsulated by Article 48 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
Former Canadian justice minister and McGill University law professor Irwin Cotler and ITIC both point out that a violation of this prohibition also amounts to a war crime as defined in the Article 8(2)(b)(i), p. 9 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
With respect to Palestinian terrorist acts and the discovery of armed Hamas operatives entering Israeli civilian areas through tunnels, it is also worth noting that this is also a war crime according to Article 8(2)(g) of the same Statute.
Human Rights Watch and the pro-Palestinian Israeli rights group B'Tselem have both issued reports stating that, even had the above attacks been directed at a specific military objective, they would still be unlawful, since the types of rockets used by Palestinian armed groups are imprecise and cannot be directed in a way that discriminates between military targets and civilians. A Human Rights Watch report, "Rockets from Gaza," on the 2008-2009 Gaza war (but no less true last year), stated that, "Palestinian armed groups unnecessarily placed Palestinian civilians at risk from retaliatory attacks by firing rockets from densely populated areas. Additionally, reports by news media and a nongovernmental organization indicate that in some cases, Palestinian armed groups intentionally hid behind civilians to unlawfully use them as shields to deter Israeli counter-attacks."

The use of human shields

There is overwhelming evidence that Hamas used human shields in various ways. Children have been used to protect fighters, who physically hold them. Numbers of civilians have been ordered into buildings containing military emplacements, against which Israeli attacks are likely or planned. More broadly, there is evidence that Hamas military structures, rocket launch pads, and command centers have been situated directly in or next to civilian dwellings, hospitals, mosques, and schools. This is historically a deliberate Hamas policy, as is clear from a 2008 video of aspeech by Fathi Hammad, the Hamas Interior Minister:
"The enemies of God do not know that the Palestinian people have developed their methods of death and death-seeking. For the Palestinian people, death has become an industry, at which women excel, as do all the people living in this land. The elderly excel at this, and so do the mujahidin [i.e. the jihad fighters] and the children. This is why they have formed human shields [duruq bashariyya] of the women, the children, the elderly, and the mujahidin, in order to challenge the Zionist bombing machine. It is as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: 'We desire death, just as you desire life.'"
How does Hamas's use of human shields potentially play out in legal terms? According to the conclusions reached during and after the 2008-09 Gaza War, in which Hamas used tactics similar or identical to those it has used in 2014, the BBC reported on January 5, 2009 that "Witnesses and analysts confirm that Hamas fires rockets from within populated civilian areas." Amnesty International, which now condemns Israeli "war crimes," earlier assessed that Hamas fighters put civilians in danger by firing from homes. UN Humanitarian Affairs Chief John Holmes accused Hamas of war crimes, saying "The reckless and cynical use of civilian installations by Hamas, and the indiscriminate firing of rockets against civilian populations, are clear violations of international humanitarian law."
In the course of the fighting in Gaza in 2008 and 2009, purported evidences of Hamas's exploitation of civilian infrastructure were recorded in reports from the Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center: "Civilians as Human Shields", "Evidence of the Use of the Civilian Population as Human Shields", "Using civilians as humans shields."
A study by the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies [CSIS] suggests that Hamas must share responsibility for the effects on Gaza's civilian population, as it seems to have relied on the population density of Gaza both to deter Israeli attacks and as a defense against Israeli offensives. Irwin Cotler has said that attacks from within civilian areas and civilian structures -- such as apartment buildings, mosques or hospitals -- in order to be immune from a response, are unlawful. He argues that in these cases, Hamas bears legal responsibility for the harm to civilians, as enshrined in general principles of International Humanitarian Law.
ITIC accused Hamas of making systematic use of protected civilian areas (including homes and mosques) for hiding and storing rockets, explosives and ammunition; the use of civilian facilities (such as universities) for developing weapons, and calling on Palestinians to flock to targets expected to be attacked in order to form human shields. Such conduct contravenes the Laws of Armed Conflict, and some of the practices above amount to a war crime under, for example, Art. 8(2)(b)(xxiii) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.'
It is obligatory, under international law, to distinguish between military and civilians. This is a major theme in international law protocols. Article 51 of the protocol additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions makes this clear.
That human shields are used by Hamas is self-evident from detailed maps, which show how totally embedded Hamas military forces were within the public and private buildings across the Strip, but mainly in Gaza City, where entire neighborhoods are as much military bases as residential sectors. This is also illustrated in a report released by the Israel Defense Forces [IDF] Military-Strategic Information Section on August 9, 2014, under the title "Hamas War Tactics: Attacks from Civilian Centers."
That document provides a table showing, among other things, that Hamas fired rockets from 31 UN facilities, 41 hospitals, 50 children's playgrounds, 85 medical clinics, 248 schools, 331 mosques, and 818 other civilian sites. On the next page, we read that, "Hamas uses UN facilities, schools, children's playgrounds, water towers, mosques and countless other active civilian facilities as launching sites for rockets and attacks. In this operation alone, Hamas has launched above 1,600 rockets from civilian sites."
The report continues:
"Additionally, Hamas purposefully engages IDF troops in conflict in urban areas. For example, in Shuja'iyya and in Jebaliyya, IDF troops have come under intense attack by terrorists in highly populated areas, and have been forced to defend themselves.
"Hamas also uses civilian infrastructures for other military purposes, and places weapon caches and C2 [command and control] centers in civilian places. Hamas's tactic serves two purposes. Firstly, because the IDF responds to attacks with acute concern for innocent lives, attacking from these sites gives Hamas a major strategic advantage. Secondly, any civilian casualties that are incurred from these attacks are used to create international pressure against Israel, even though it is ultimately Hamas that is to blame for these deaths.
"Such tactics flagrantly violate international law and the most basic of moral precepts."
The report provides links to videos showing Hamas firing from civilian areas, placing civilians in the line of fire, and admitting that they do this. It shows detailed aerial reconnaissance maps, which provide overwhelming evidence of the extent of launching sites in Gaza north, central, and south. Further maps and videos show launches from educational facilities, from UN and Red Cross facilities, from mosques, from power plants, hospitals and hotels, with the maps delineating rocket trajectories towards Israeli towns and villages.
A detailed map of Gaza City's Shuja'iyya district shows the area peppered with terrorist locations of every size. In the accompanying text, we read:
"The UN recently published a map that marks areas of Shuja'iya damaged during IDF strikes. A comparison of the two maps clearly demonstrates that the areas targeted by the IDF are the same areas that the UN marked as damaged. The conclusion: the IDF distinguishes between structures used for terror purposes and structures used only for civilian purposes."
A few things emerge from the above statements. First, Hamas has done its level best to avoid distinguishing its fighters from the civilian population. Not only do they hide among that population, they do not wear distinctive uniforms; and as often as not, they play dual roles as fighters and civilians. This makes it difficult if not impossible for the IDF to make that essential distinction. Second, it is legitimate to attack embedded military sites. And third, such attacks on undistinguished sites are subject to the condition that injuries and damage to civilians and their property should be proportionate to the damage that could be inflicted by the targeted site.
The prohibition of using human shields is contained in countless military manuals. Using human shields constitutes a criminal offence under the legislation of many states. This practice includes that of states not necessarily a party to Additional Protocol I or to the Statute of the International Criminal Court.
Many say the casualties from last year's fighting in Gaza were disproportionate because some 2,100 Gazans died in the conflict, as opposed to 66 Israeli soldiers and a mere 5 civilians. But this apparent disproportion is simplistic as well as incorrect. Gatestone author Shoshana Bryen has written in some detail about the principle of proportionality in international law. She argues that "Proportionality in international law is not about equality of death or civilian suffering, or even about firepower returned being equal in sophistication or lethality to firepower received. Proportionality weighs the military necessity of an action against the suffering that the action might cause to enemy civilians in the vicinity."
The claim that Israel's response to Hamas attacks was disproportionate also ignores that 50% or more of the Gazan casualties have been among men of fighting age -- a statistic detailed in several places. Both the BBC and the New York Times, neither remotely friendly to the Israeli narrative, have pointed out the enormous discrepancies in the figures provided. "If the Israeli attacks have been 'indiscriminate,' as the UN Human Rights Council says, it is hard to work out why they have killed so many more civilian men than women," the BBC's Anthony Reuben wrote in "Caution needed with Gaza casualty figures."
The New York Times reached much the same conclusion. Jodi Rudoren describes the issue in "Civilian or not? New Fight in Tallying the Dead From the Gaza Conflict," where the names of 1,431 casualties were reviewed. The report showed that "the population most likely to be militants, men ages 20 to 29, is also the most over-represented in the death toll. They are 9% of Gaza's 1.7 million residents, but 34% of those killed whose ages were provided." Women and children form 71% of the population yet a mere 33% of casualties. That is also a discrepancy.
Anthony Reuben of the BBC quoted IDF Spokesman Capt Eytan Buchman, who said that "the UN numbers being reported are, by and by large, based on the Gaza health ministry, a Hamas-run organisation." Buchman added that we should keep in mind that "when militants are brought to hospitals, they are brought in civilian clothing, obscuring terrorist affiliations," and that "Hamas also has given local residents directives to obscure militant identities."
As no independent investigations were carried out in Gaza during the last war, and as Fatah, Hamas and other groups have a long-standing history of falsifying figures and filming fake scenes of carnage, it is highly likely that the true civilian casualty figures will prove to be much lower than claimed.
The sense of a discrepancy in the number of casualties dwindles to almost nothing when we consider the contrast, already noted, between Israeli defensive measures to save lives, compared to Hamas's use of civilians as human shields. It should also be noted that claims that Gazan civilians were killed and injured because they had nowhere to run to are simply laughable: there are vast open areas in the Strip in which Hamas fighters might have placed military infrastructure or to which they might have directed civilians in the event of war (since it was Hamas that started the war in the first place). Gatestone author Alan Dershowitz has demonstrated in detail that Gaza's population density is not a source of vulnerability for its civilian population.
It is also is highly irresponsible to speak of Israeli attacks as "indiscriminate." No army in history has fought with as great a concern to avoid civilian casualties, as has the IDF. It is Israeli policy to warn civilians of impending attacks by dropping thousands of leaflets, making telephone calls, sending text messages, and even dropping projectiles called "knocks on the roof" to give residents advanced warnings to evacuate the premises. This alone makes Amnesty International's accusation of "callous indifference" to civilian deaths utterly indefensible. Giving advance warning of attacks is disadvantageous for the Israeli Air Force in two ways: it warns Hamas fighters and rocket-launching teams that they have been spotted and designated as targets, and it allows Hamas to order civilians to remain in buildings or go onto flat roofs to dissuade Israelis from firing. This policy of warning civilians of a coming attack is stated clearly inIsrael's Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006).[4]
When Hamas fighters fire from near or inside a school, mosque or hospital, and civilians are killed in the return fire, Hamas benefits by parading dead civilians, dead children (and dead fighters dressed as civilians) before the eyes of the world media.
Those who condemn Israeli actions in war should first read this useful article which argues that every IDF officer receives detailed and ongoing training in international law relating to combat; that the IDF has a website devoted to international law issues; that there is a legal expert in every IDF division; that Israeli assaults are either called off or adapted to avoid illegal action; that every single shell shot by Israeli artillery or the air force was thought about in advance, and that targets were vetted in advance, after being visually identified by one or more of the technical layers of "eyes" the IDF had over Gaza -- satellites, drones, and radar.
Israel, more than any other nation, doubtless understands the need to stay on the right side of the law and knows that the eyes of the world are on it, while Hamas sneers at the Geneva conventions and seems to disregard international law in every way. That disparity leads one to ask why the world condemns Israel yet gives Hamas billions of dollars to build more missiles and tunnels.
To speak of "indiscriminate" attacks by Israel mocks understanding that Israel's military equipment is second to none with regard to its technological sophistication. Given Israel's international reputation as one of the most technically advanced countries in the world, this hardly surprising. We can expect an Israeli aircraft to hit its target with precision. As every civilian casualty is detrimental to Israel's standing in the world, it makes no sense at all for such a technically savvy country to fire indiscriminately on civilians -- a move that would only help Hamas to win the war through media coverage alone.
If that is so, some may ask, why did Israeli attacks kill so many civilians? The answer is simple: first, as discussed, many civilian deaths may not even have been civilian deaths, as in previous conflicts. Second, the primary cause of many of those deaths may have been Hamas's use of human shields, and the proximity of firing sites, command centers and munitions stockpiles to every sort of civilian location. Casualties did not come from an irresponsible and self-defeating lack of discrimination or incompetence on Israel's part.

Going forward

It seems that half the world supports demands for Israel to lift its entirely legal weapons and dual-use materials blockade of Gaza, so that Hamas can get down to seriously importing long-range missiles from Iran and its other allies, as well as large quantities of cement to build more terror tunnels. In a recent interview between a Reuters reporter and a Hamas leader, the Hamas official stated openly that "the group would press on with restocking its arsenal or [sic] rockets and other weaponry and shoring up its underground network. In peace we make preparations, and in war we use what we have readied."
Calls for an end to the blockade (which does not block the import of genuine humanitarian goods at all) amounts to a policy of arming terrorists. Hamas has already diverted billions of dollars of aid money to build concrete-lined tunnels and purchase missiles and other arms, leaving ordinary Gazans without the basic necessities of life, while the Hamas elite drives expensive cars, shops at a mall selling designer goods, and builds luxury apartments.
After the premature end Operation Protective Edge, the international community promised to pour in more billions to rebuild Gaza. If there is no blockade, those billions will build another arsenal, and with that arsenal, Hamas will start another war in which even more Gazans and Israelis will die or fall injured.
The simple solution to this is peace -- which Israel has always asked for. But Hamas, as stated in its Charter, rejects peace out of hand and for all time. What is needed is a government in power in Gaza that cares about the well-being of all its citizens, and that might see permanent peace with its neighbours as the right way forward for everyone.
Denis MacEoin is a former university teacher in Arabic and Islamic Studies and a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute.

[1] "The Gaza War in 5 Minutes: Thoughts from Col. Richard Kemp", YouTube, 10 November 2014. And see other videos by Kemp listed on the same page.
[2] For a good translation of the original Arabic text, see Yale Law School's Avalon Project version.
[3] My translation here is more accurate than the Yale version.
[4] See in greater detail, International Committee of the Red Cross, "Israel: Practice Relating to Rule 20. Advance Warning", Customary IHL.