Hamas Is Fair Game Just Like ISIS and Al-Qaeda

...Hamas will continue attacking Israel—as it has this week after the collapse of the latest ceasefire—not because they’re upset about what happened to Deif and his comrades but because their belief system will not allow them to make peace, no matter what the Israelis do. The next generations of terror are not motivated so much by specific tales of “martyrs”—be they terrorist killers or civilian casualties—as they are by the mission of avenging the real offense given by Israelis: their presence in their historic homeland that Hamas and other Palestinian factions believe should be cleansed of Jews.

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary Magazine..
21 August '14..

Hamas supporters came out in their thousands today in Gaza for the funerals of three senior commanders of the terror group’s “military” wing. The trio, along with their chief, Mohammad Deif, whose fate is still unknown, was targeted by Israeli air strikes after days of renewed rocket fire from Gaza on Israeli cities. While no one blinks an eye when the U.S. takes out leaders of al-Qaeda affiliates and other jihadists throughout the Middle East, the deaths of these Hamas figures is being discussed as a provocation that may well lead to more fighting that could have been avoided. But the attempt to draw any meaningful distinctions between Hamas and al-Qaeda or ISIS murderers in Syria and Iraq is mistaken.

The targeted killings of this latest group of Hamas murderers will, no doubt, set off the usual chorus of critiques of Israel from those who will claim that this action will somehow be the cause of more violence. As with acts of Israeli self-defense, we will be told that their deaths will sow the seeds of new generations of terrorists.

Throughout the history of Israel’s battles with Palestinian terror factions, Israel’s security services have been constantly lectured about the costs of their successes as well as their near misses.

Whenever attempts to take out known terrorists fail or result (as is often the case with similar attacks by the U.S. on al-Qaeda figures) in casualties among civilians or family members of the targets, Israel is lectured for its inability to differentiate between combatants and non-combatants. But when it does manage to take out Hamas members personally responsible for terror attacks, it is then told that doing so will anger the Palestinians so much that it will only cause them to double down on their war on the Jewish state.

Are they grossly ignorant or are they willfully slandering the IDF?

...One cannot claim that the IDF is both a uniquely bloodthirsty army using precision weapons to target civilians and at the same time maintain that the IDF is so poor at targeting. Anyone claiming that the IDF is deliberately targeting civilians is either grossly ignorant of how wars are waged, or they are willfully slandering the army.

Elder of Ziyon..
03 August '14..

I have described how Hamas is violating at least 19 principles of international law in the current fighting.

Now, is Israel?

The criticism most often given of Israel's actions is that it is violating the "principle of distinction." The Geneva Conventions Additional Protocol 1, article 52, states it this way:

1. Civilian objects shall not be the object of attack or of reprisals. Civilian objects are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 2.

2. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.

3. In case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used.

Many countries, when they ratified this article, clarified it to ensure that collateral damage is not covered by the first sentence of paragraph 2. So, for example, Canada wrote:

It is the understanding of the Government of Canada in relation to Article 52 that ...the first sentence of paragraph 2 of the Article is not intended to, nor does it,deal with the question of incidental or collateral damage resulting from an attack directed against a military objective.

Italy, Australia, the UK, France and New Zealand added similar language (CIHL II para. 83-91)

Logic dictates that it cannot be otherwise. If these caveats aren't in place, then anyone can make any military target immune from attack placing a civilian there, or placing the target in a house or church or hospital that is still used as such. So, for example, Australia's Defence Force Manual states:

The presence of noncombatants in or around a military objective does not change its nature as a military objective. Noncombatants in the vicinity of a military objective must share the danger to which the military objective is exposed.

Note that we are not saying that the existence of civilians at a military target can be ignored; that is part of the Proportionality discussion that will be forthcoming. But clearly international law allows the attack on military targets even if there are some civilians there.

Who determines whether something is a military target or not?

(Continue)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Check-it out!
.

More False Allegations vs. Israel from Human Rights Watch

NGO Monitor..
20 December '12..





NGO’s attacks following a series of moral embarrassments

Jerusalem – After losing credibility over a number of Middle East-related issues, Human Rights Watch (HRW) is once again leveling false charges against Israel. The claim that there was an “unlawful” attack on “journalists” and buildings containing the offices of news agencies during the recent Gaza fighting is false both legally and factually, and the timing of this release appears to be a cynical attempt to divert attention from many scandals currently plaguing the organization,” stated Jerusalem-based research institute NGO Monitor.

“This is yet another example of HRW’s systematic lack of credibility and its biased approach to Israel,” said Prof. Gerald Steinberg, president of NGO Monitor. “Calling a military attack ‘unlawful’ is a serious charge, which should not be made lightly. But HRW cannot substantiate these allegations.”

HRW claims, without any military expertise or necessary information, that the targets in the Israeli strikes were “making no apparent contribution to Palestinian military operations” and were not valid “military objectives.” HRW clearly has no knowledge of the military intelligence possessed by Israeli commanders at the time of the strikes, or the military and moral concerns that guided their thinking. Contrary to HRW’s claims, its employees cannot possibly know the “intent” of the commanders who ordered the attacks. Furthermore, international law is clear that neither the presence of civilians during an attack nor the fact that civilians were tragically killed means that the attack was unlawful. Moreover, NGO Monitor notes that contrary to HRW claims, the targets included four senior Islamic Jihad combatants that were directly involved with the planning, manufacture, and execution of rocket attacks on Israeli civilians and other attacks.

“As with most of the NGO’s claims in previous conflicts, HRW’s ‘evidence’ is without substance. The organization presents no proof whatsoever that the targets involved were not being used for military operations or that the ‘journalists’ were not Hamas and Islamic Jihad fighters,” noted NGO Monitor legal advisor Anne Herzberg. “HRW’s bogus charges ignore that Al Aqsa TV is a globally designated terrorist by the US government and they appear to be based on self-serving statements by a Hamas official. The Israeli government does not owe this totally discredited and biased organization any explanations. Just because HRW claims something is a war crime does not make it so.” The ease with which some media outlets continue to quote HRW’s long discredited allegations, without any independent analysis or due diligence, is also disturbing.

Pillar of Defense's first fake PCHR "civilian"

Elder of Ziyon..
22 Novenber '12..

As EoZ readers know, after Cast Lead I led a team that identified hundreds of people who were called "civilians" by the Palestinian Center of Human Rights - but were in fact terrorists.

We scoured through official jihadist websites and forums to see which of these "civilians" were called "mujahadeen." We crosschecked obituaries published on Hamas and other terror group websites, often months later, against the PCHR list.

In short, we showed that PCHR was happy to lie in order to make it appear that the IDFwas targeting civilians.

Looks like we have our work cut out for us again:

According to investigations conducted by PCHR, at approximately 17:45 on Tuesday, 20 November 2012, an Israeli warplane fired a missile at Hussam Mohammed Salama, 30, and Mahmoud Ali al-Koumi, 29, cameramen of the Gaza-based al-Aqsa Satellite Channel, while they were traveling in a civilian car clearly marked with ‘TV’.

Luckily, I just made a poster about Mr. Salama, along with a photo of the car where he had crudely spray-painted "TV".

(Continue...)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook.
. 

The "ceasefire" as periodic lull

Andrew C. McCarthy..
national review.com..
21 November '12..

It’s amusing to read (in Patrick’s update) that the Israeli government has agreed, as part of the “ceasefire,” to stop the “targeting of individuals.” What moral universe do we live in where Hamas launches hundreds of missiles and sets off bombs the intent of which is the mass homicide of civilians, yet what the world is whipped up about is Israel’s targeted assassination of the jihadist leaders who direct the mass homicide of civilians?

If you’re actually concerned about human rights, Israel’s approach, targeting the terror chiefs in order to minimize civilian casualties (notwithstanding that Palestinian civilians are the ones who voted to put Hamas in charge), compares quite favorably to Hamas’s intentional targeting of civilians and its storage of military assets in and around civilian infrastructure — guaranteeing that there will be Palestinian civilian casualties when Israel inevitably reacts to Hamas’s relentless provocations. If Israel is not going to target the terrorist leaders — who then have license to orchestrate mass-murder attacks with impunity — what is it going to target?

Interesting that Israel is pressured to treat the terrorist leaders as if they were heads of state but the Palestinians are never expected to concede that Israel has a right to exist. In fact, Hamas’s reason for existing is to destroy Israel by violent jihad — as I’ve pointed out here before, that’s not just me saying so; it’s in the Hamas charter. I wonder what, for example, the State Department and our Muslim Brotherhood “allies” in Egypt and Turkey would say were Prime Minister Netanyahu to counter, “No ceasefire, and we’re going to keep targeting individuals, until Hamas repudiates the introductory section of its charter”:

They must know that they are a moving target at every coming moment.

The arch-terrorist Ahmed Jabri

Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, Esq...
Shurat Hadin-Israel Law Center..
15 November '12..

I was walking in Tel Aviv a few hours ago when the civil defense (code red) sirens started to sound. It meant rockets that had been launched from Gaza were estimated to be targeting the "White City." Although I have been in other areas of the country during different wars and sirens, I have never heard them in Israel's central Gush Dan region. Everyone always complains that Tel Aviv is comfortable and oblivious to the rest of the country's suffering. Some even call Tel Aviv residents as Tzfonim (northerners) living in a bubble, as they are derogatorily called, who ignore the plight of those under enemy rocket attack in southern and northern Israel. Indeed, Tel Aviv has always been spared the rocket barrages other regions of the country have endured for years.

Those who found themselves running frantically for the shelters tonight can attest that the Tel Aviv bubble has now burst. The city’s population finally understands what Sderot has been dealing with since Israel withdrew from Gaza. Those in the Negev, who have always complained that the government will never do what needs to be done until Tel Aviv is also hit, now have a chance to put their theory to the test. It seems certain that the IDF will launch a ground offensive and enter Gaza to try and stop the terrorist rocket fire. This time Israel needs to deliver Hamas and the other terror groups, infesting the enclave, a devastating blow.

As reserve units are being called up for duty, schools are being closed and shelters are being prepared. Everyone is anxiously awaiting the IDF's retaliatory operation. We are a democracy under attack by Palestinian terror.

Gold - Legalizing targeted killings

Dore Gold..
Israel Hayom..
30 March '12..

For most of the last decade, Israel has absorbed incessant criticism for its policy of targeted killings against the leaders of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other terrorist organizations. After the elimination of Sheik Ahmad Yassin and Abdul Aziz Rantissi, both of whom had masterminded Hamas attacks against Israeli civilians during the Second Intifada, then U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan demanded that Israel “immediately end” its practice of “extrajudicial killings” – a convenient term for Annan, implying that military targets should be tried on the battlefield in the midst of a war.

At a meeting of the U.N. Security Council in April 2004 on this question, Israel was castigated by one country after another. The British representative said the practice was “unlawful.” The French spokesman said that Israel was violating “fundamental principles of international law.” The Russians said they rejected Israel’s policy. When Israel began using targeted killings more extensively to put an end to the wave of suicide attacks in the heart of Israel’s cities after the outbreak of the Second Intifada, even the U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Martin Indyk, adopted the same tough rhetoric against Israel. He appeared on Israeli television in July 2001, saying: “The United States government is very clearly on the record as against targeted assassinations.’’ He specifically added: “They are extrajudicial killings, and we do not support that.”

It is against that background that the speech by U.S. Attorney-General Eric Holder on March 5 at Northwestern University School of Law appeared revolutionary. He announced: “It is entirely lawful ... to target specific senior operational leaders of Al-Qaida and associated forces.” Holder rejected calling these operations “assassinations.” He said, “They are not, and the use of that loaded term is misplaced,” because assassinations were “unlawful killings.” The context of his legal decision was significant, for he made clear: “We are at war with a stateless enemy.” This meant that the laws of war applied to the war on terrorism. It was not a police action, in which terrorists were to be arrested and read their rights. The terrorist masterminds that were being targeted were combatants, plain and simple.

Bryen - Targeted Strikes and Collateral Damage

Shoshana Bryen..
The Jewish Policy Center..
11 January '12..

A few years ago, a group of senior American military professionals were in discussion with high-level IDF commanders on what the Israelis called "extremely narrowly focused attacks." In the beginning, they tiptoed around blunt language—"targeted killing" or "assassination"—but the bottom line emerged. Israel faced an enemy that was hiding among civilians who may have been human shields, held against their will, or may have been willingly giving aid and shelter. But in either case, the civilians were presumed to be innocent and, to the extent possible, off limits.

The question was whether technology could help eliminate the bad guy, free the rest of the people and allow for political progress. The Israel Air Force commander was proud of how small a hole he could make with a very large airplane.

How far we have come from the days of Allied bombing runs over Dresden or Tokyo. There is no issue to be taken with those, or with the American decision to use the atom bomb, given the limitations on technology and the need to save American lives while ending the war. But one can appreciate that the current environment makes it possible to eliminate an entrenched enemy with markedly fewer casualties.

Why is this important today?

Because a motorcycle rider placed a bomb on the car of Iranian scientist Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan, identified by Iranian television as head of a department at the Natanz uranium enrichment facility in Isfahan. This is the fourth nuclear scientist killed in Iran since 2007 and comes after a series of explosions in factories/facilities that have a connection to Iran's nuclear program.

Someone is taking proactive but narrow measures to ensure that the technological capacity to build nuclear weapons does not exist in Iran and to ensure that nuclear scientists who might be inclined to work for the regime think twice—or at least pay up their life insurance.

Tobin - U.S.-Israel Split on Iran Assassinations?

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary/Contentions..
12 January '12..

Earlier today, I noted the skewed morality of left-wing writers in general, and Salon’s Glenn Greenwald, in particular, who consider the mysterious deaths of Iranian nuclear scientists to be an act of terrorism. Quite the contrary, I think it’s clear the Iranians are the terrorists and it is the duty of both the United States and Israel to do anything in their power to pre-empt Iran’s ability to build a nuclear weapon. But it’s worth adding to the discussion that it appears President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton are eager to avoid being labeled terrorists by left-wing pundits. The United States has not only disavowed any participation in attacks on Iranian nuclear personnel but went so far as to actually condemn the killing.

Given that this administration has fully embraced the doctrine of targeted killings of terrorists and regards drone strikes against individuals and groups that Washington deems bad guys, its scruples about knocking off people involved in a project that would give the ayatollahs the ability to pull off a second Holocaust seems curious. The reasons U.S. officials have given for their opposition to the assassinations also fall flat.

Harel: Will bin Laden killing pave way for similar moves by Israel?

Amos Harel
Haaretz
05 May '11



http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/will-bin-laden-killing-pave-way-for-similar-moves-by-israel-1.359736

Former top IDF intel official talks to Haaretz about a gradual change in the rules of confrontation in the framework of the global war on terror.

At the height of the second intifada, until the middle of the last decade, Israel developed and enhanced a system of assassinations of terrorists which was euphemistically referred to as "pinpointed assassinations." Maj. Gen. Aharon Ze'evi (Farkash ) headed the IDF General Staff intelligence branch at that time. While the American assault force's operation against al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden was an operation on a much bigger scale than the Israeli actions and took place far from the borders of the United States, to a large extent it employed a similar format to that used previously by the Israel Defense Forces and the Shin Bet security service.

Aharon Ze'evi (Farkash ), Will the assassination of bin Laden at the hands of the United States pave the way for similar moves by Israel in the future, against [Hezbollah leader] Hassan Nasrallah or even [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad?

We must not forget that we are not a power. Not everything that is permitted to the Americans is permitted to us as well. But nevertheless, there is a gradual change in the rules of confrontation in the framework of the war on terror. A wider maneuvering space has been opened. Nassrallah understands that too. It is no coincidence that he so seldom leaves his bunker in recent years.

Is there greater legitimacy today, for Israel also, to make moves against heads of terrorist organizations that refuse to hold any kind of negotiations?

In the past, the countries of the West were opposed to the Israeli claim that no distinction should be made between the so-called political echelon and the "military" echelon in the terrorist organizations. There is an important message in the Americans' decision to do away with bin Laden. It is not possible to distinguish between the leader and the operational echelon subordinate to him. The decision-makers have to be dealt a blow. Seven years ago, when we killed the senior Hamas officials such as Ahmed Yassin and Abdel Aziz Rantisi, our approach was not accepted by the international community.

In retrospect, did the Israeli policy of assassinations prove itself at all? Did it not merely provide encouragement for revenge attacks and the continuation of the cycle of bloodshed?

Since Israel unfortunately suffered more terrorist attacks, it became a kind of experimental laboratory for the front line in this struggle. The assassinations were an important tool. It can't be helped. These leaders don't like committing suicide. It's different than sending other people to carry out suicide missions for them. When they are being chased, they are less effective. The pinpointed assassinations are still a very important deterrent tool against senior leaders of the terrorist organizations. It is true that every terrorist leader can be replaced. Bin laden will also have a replacement. What is important is the continuum of assassinations that is directed at the heads of the organization and indicates to them that they too have something to lose.

Rafi Israeli: Bin Laden lessons for Israel

Rafi Israeli
Israel Opinion/Ynet
03 May '11



http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4063858,00.html

Op-ed: Killing terror leaders apparently a privilege reserved for superpowers like America

When President Obama, a reserved family man, announced his intention to convene a late-night press conference, everyone held their breath. Some people attributed his quick action to his rush to salvage his sinking prestige ahead of the upcoming presidential elections; others spoke of his great sensitivity and incredible humanism in informing relatives of 9/11 victims without delay that the monster had been nabbed and hurled into the sea, in order to prevent a gravesite that would have drawn zealous Islamic pilgrims.

As the United States and its allies celebrated the superb operational and intelligence achievement, which took years to plan and execute, the sense of satisfaction was doubly great as the arch-terrorist who became a martyr (after educating an entire generation to do so before him) swore to undermine the West, fight the Jews (not the Israelis or Zionists) and bring a new Holocaust upon them.

Indeed, bin Laden and his people were overjoyed by the large number of Jews hurt at the World Trade Center. Had Obama truly been sensitive, he could have at least expressed empathy to the Israeli people, which was marking Holocaust Remembrance Day at the time, in his dramatic announcement.

He didn’t do it because he’s preoccupied with the struggle against global Islamic terror, just like Roosevelt was preoccupied with World War II and did not bother dedicating any effort or attention to assisting the Jews murdered in the camps, even when he could do so. Obama was bothered because we were dealing not with Afghanistan, but rather, with its neighbor Pakistan – the so-called US ally that provides a base and vitality to the Taliban and also a shelter for al-Qaeda.

Targeted Killing Vindicated

Alan M. Dershowitz
Hudson New York
02 May '11

http://www.hudson-ny.org/2093/targeted-killing-vindicated

The decision to target and kill Osama Bin Laden is being applauded by all decent people. Approval to capture or kill this mass-murdering terrorist leader was given by Presidents Obama and Bush. It was the right decision, both morally and legally.

Although Bin Laden wore no military uniform and held no official military rank, he was an appropriate military target. As the titular and spiritual head of Al Qaeda, he was the functional equivalent of a head of state or commander in chief of a terrorist army. From the beginning of recorded history, killing the king was the legitimate object of military action. The very phrase "check mate" means "the king is dead, "signifying the successful end of the battle.

Yet there are those who claim that all targeted killings are immoral and illegal. These critics characterize such actions as "extrajudicial executions" and demand that terrorist leaders and functionaries be treated as common criminals who must be arrested and brought to trial.

The operation that resulted in Bin Laden's death was a military action calculated to kill rather than to "arrest" him. It is possible, though highly unlikely, that he could have been captured alive and brought to trial. The decision to employ military personnel with guns, rather than a drone firing rockets, was probably made by generals rather than lawyers.

Had it been militarily preferable to fire a rocket, that option would almost certainly have been selected--as it was by the NATO forces that rocketed Ghadafy's compound. A rocket attack would have been a pure targeted killing with no possibility of live capture. The operation directed against Bin Laden may have been designed, in part, to have preserved the theoretical option of "arrest", though the likelihood of a live capture was virtually impossible under the circumstances. Indeed it is likely that Bin Laden's death was deemed preferential to his capture and trial, because the latter would have raised the probability that Al Qaeda would take hostages and try to exchange them for Bin Laden.

Indeed, a US national security official has confirmed to Reuters that "this was a kill operation" and there was no desire to capture Bin Laden alive. This was a targeted kill appropriate for a military combatant but not for an ordinary (or even extraordinary) criminal.

Nonetheless, our government felt it necessary to announce that Bin Laden was shot after he allegedly resisted thus suggesting he was not killed in cold blood. But it is clear that he would have been killed whether or not he resisted, since this was a kill operation from the outset and it is unlikely he was ever given the opportunity to surrender an opportunity not required under the laws of war.

Accordingly, those who have opposed the very concept of targeted killings should be railing against the killing of Osama Bin Laden.

Insane, but this is how the IDF operates

Carl
Israel Matzav
13 December '10

On Twitter, Jennifer Rubin posted a link to this New York Times editorial, and commented, "should a court decide every time a soldier aims his rifle on the battlefield? obvious but NTY eds are insane.

Jennifer may have been surprised when I tweeted back that this is precisely how the IDF operates. No, we don't have a secret court to which the IDF turns before it decides to target a terrorist. But the government is involved in any decision to target a terrorist (certain targets must be approved by the Prime Minister - if the criteria are public I'm not aware of them).

In December 2006, the Supreme Court severely restricted the IDF's ability to execute targeted killings. In essence, it decided that terrorists hiding among civilians are civilians and not combatants. The court established four primary criteria that must be met in order for a targeted killing to be justified.

(Read full "Insane, but this is how the IDF operates")

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Warfare by Drone

Yaacov Lozowick
Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations
28 September '10

I recognize that 2004 was a very long time ago, and no reasonable person ought to be expected to remember things that far back. Me too. Alas, upon reading this news item in the New York Times, about how the Americans are stepping up their drone attacks against nasties in Pakistan - an article in which the words "Illegal by international law" never appear, I had this strange urge to find out how far back was it since the general international consensus was united in its condemnation of Israel's illegal assassinations. 2000? 2001? Perhaps even as late as September 12th 2001?

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page. 
.