BEST QUOTE OF 2015 from UN : “It is terrifying that on the one hand there is more and more impunity for those starting conflicts, and on the other there is seeming utter inability of the international community to work together to stop wars and build and preserve peace,” said UN High Commissioner for Refugees António Guterres in June. 2014

Pope Francis Calls Christmas A 'Charade' As The 'World Continues To Wage War'

Pope Francis said Thursday in a sermon that Christmas this year will be a "charade" because the "world continues to wage war" and "we do not understand peace."
"Today, Jesus weeps as well because we have chosen the way of war, the way of hatred, the way of enmities. We are close to Christmas. There will be lights, there will be parties, bright trees, even Nativity scenes - all decked out - while the world continues to wage war," he said during Mass at the chapel of the Santa Marta residence in the Vatican.
The pontiff said of the Christmas cheer, "It's all a charade," the TheJournal.ie, an Irish news site, reported.
"What shall remain? Ruins, thousands of children without education, so many innocent victims and lots of money in the pockets of arms dealers. Jesus once said: 'You can not serve two masters: Either God or riches.' War is the right choice for him, who would serve wealth: 'Let us build weapons, so that the economy will right itself somewhat, and let us go forward in pursuit of our interests. There is an ugly word the Lord spoke: 'Cursed!' Because He said: 'Blessed are the peacemakers!' The men who work war, who make war, are cursed, they are criminals," Francis said.
"A war can be justified - so to speak - with many, many reasons, but when all the world as it is today, at war - piecemeal though that war may be - a little here, a little there, and everywhere - there is no justification - and God weeps. Jesus weeps."
Just last week, Paris was attacked by jihadist gunmen and suicide bombers, leaving 129 dead and 352 wounded.
On Friday, 10 gunmen overwhelmed the Radisson Blu Hotel in Mali's capital - shouting "Allahu Akbar," or "God is great," in Arabic - before firing on guards and taking 170 people hostage.

----------------

Blogged:

Canada Military News: DIRTY EU/TURKEY AND UN- sell out refugees for $$$-even Turkey citizens wild/ God cries and humanity mourns- what happened to our world - O Canada

http://nova0000scotia.blogspot.ca/2015/11/canada-military-news-turkey-european.html

QUOTE: One soldier who deployed to Afghanistan in 2002 has told me that one MSF facility refused to treat an injured child because she was brought to the hospital by U.S. troops. Their laudable commitment to medical ethics and political neutrality in war seems to falter when Americans get involved

What Does a Humanitarian Double Standard Mean for Civilians?

Posted on October 30, 2015

Over at FPRI, where I am a non-resident fellow, I wrote about a troubling double standard in how human rights and other humanitarian organizations discuss rights violations in conflict zones. Specifically, they seem to reserve the vast majority of their opprobrium for the United States, while excusing other parties to conflict, including other governments:

There is a reflexive, open anti-Americanism from the aid group. The group proudly says it treats everyone at their hospitals, regardless of affiliation: Taliban, Boko Haram, civilian. They find moral courage in treating even “bad” people because of their belief in the humanitarian principle of treating all people equally… unless the U.S. is involved. One soldier who deployed to Afghanistan in 2002 has told me that one MSF facility refused to treat an injured child because she was brought to the hospital by U.S. troops. Their laudable commitment to medical ethics and political neutrality in war seems to falter when Americans get involved.

But reflexive anti-Americanism probably does not tell the whole story: plenty of aid groups are deeply skeptical, even mistrustful, of the U.S. military without displaying MSF’s double standards. Globally, the U.S. is held to a higher standard than any other party to conflict, partly as a consequence of America’s unmatched military power, partly because of American global economic and cultural dominance, and partly because of a general sense of anti-imperialism that influences many internationalists.

Now this does not excuse bad or even criminal conduct by the U.S., and rights groups are entirely within the right to condemn the U.S. when it commits heinous acts that violate the laws of war. But I’m just as curious as to why they won’t apply that standard even to other states involved in conflicts.

Take Russia. While the U.S. received instant, and sustained, international condemnation for its strike against an MSF hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, Russia has attacked four hospitals in Syria, two of which are operated by MSF. Moreover, they have adopted the Assad regime’s approach of targeting ambulances and other first responders after bombings — the so-called “double tap” strike that many vociferously condemned when the U.S. did it in Pakistan. And the reaction to these deliberate, outrageous war crimes is… silence.

In its official statement about the strikes, MSF does not that medical facilities in Syria are under attack. However, rather than condemning Russia for bombing their hospitals, MSF instead chooses to note “all parties to this conflict” are “flouting international humanitarian law.” That’s a far cry from MSF’s reaction to Kunduz, where it said within hours of the attack that it was a war crime while demanding a UN investigation.

I don’t have a solid explanation for why so much of the humanitarian (and general, global) Left is so quick to condemn the United States and repeatedly, consistently soft pedals much more abusive regimes that deliberately commit illegal acts. I think part of it is a vaguely defined “anti-Imperialism,” though this explanation is inadequate. In Ukraine, as an example, Russia is clearly the imperialist power but that crowd still blames the U.S. for it.

So anti-Americanism is part of it. But that doesn’t explain everything, because often the humanitarian wing of the Left is one of the first to demand the U.S. unilaterally intervene in a conflict to somehow ease civilian suffering (like with Syria and Libya). So it’s not just a rote hatred of the U.S. that drives this one-sided criticism.

There is also this idea of holding the U.S. to a higher standard than anyone else in the world for various reasons (from our own stated ideals to the ideals other people somewhat cynically apply to the U.S. when circumstances warrant). But that, too, rings hollow, given how uncharitably the humanitarian Left treats any statement, investigation, or conclusion from the federal government. It almost rises to the level of journo-derp, requiring the belief that thousands of people can all lie in unison with no inconsistency, because otherwise it might paint the feds in a positive light and that’s just not possible.

So it’s a mystery to me as to why this double standard exists. Maybe it’s all of those reasons, combined to just general anger at the seemingly intractable conflicts that involve the U.S. I don’t know.

What I do know, however, is that the double standard of only and uniquely criticizing the U.S. creates a horrifying environment where the one actor that exerts a huge amount of effort to attempt compliance with international humanitarian law (Lefty rhetoric aside, this is undeniable to any honest person) is the one actor most crippled by it.

The conundrum the humanitarian double standard represents is also apparent in the issue of targeted strikes against western citizens who voluntarily join terrorist groups. When a citizen joins a foreign army at war with his own government, there is no obligation under domestic or international law to respect his citizenship when attacking that army. He forfeits his protection by joining the opposing force. But when American citizens join al Qaeda, a non-state group literally at war with the US, many in the humanitarian Left think that citizen should still enjoy the protections afforded by his citizenship. It is an inversion of how the law actually works.

Similarly, when a terrorist group uses civilians as shields and attacks a state (say, the U.S. or Afghan governments) and that state responds in a way that harms or kills those civilians, the onus should be on the group illegally using civilian shields. But over the last fifteen years a shift has occurred whereby the state responding to an attack is now held responsible for the plight of civilians being illegally manipulated by a non-state actor. This, too, is an inversion of the law but it is where the conventional wisdom for the humanitarian Left is definitely moving.

Hospitals are a bit different. Under the Geneva Conventions (some sections of which the U.S. has not yet signed), they are given a much higher consideration than any other facility, and an attacking force faces a much higher standard for when it can even respond to an attack. And this is fine as far as it goes, at least if you can laugh off the idea of protecting a Taliban firing position inside a hospital as “inject[ing] a vital dose of humanity into the devastation of war,” as some present these conventions.

The end result of all of this work is that the U.S. (and other western states) are treated unfairly, to the detriment of civilians in conflict areas. This is a conclusion that cuts against the humanitarian Left conventional wisdom, but the logic is impossible to escape. When only western, liberal governments are held accountable for their conduct in war, and holding accountable other actors is hand waved away as futile or irrelevant, there is a grey area where one party to a conflict can violate the laws of war with impunity and another is tightly bound, unable to respond in kind. This has been the central frustration of the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq, where insurgents abuse the Geneva conventions at will and the rules of engagement meant to uphold them essentially cripple the capacity of the U.S. to respond effectively.

Instead of derping out on that last clause as a call for massacre (because it is not and you are a dishonest moron if you try to argue I mean it as such), consider whether this situation protects civilians or places them in greater harm by creating an informal norm that the “lesser” party to conflict feels it can successfully abuse civilians without legal or political consequence. At least so far, that seems to be precisely what happens: the discourse favors “revisionist” forces (defined at non-Western forces), and punishes “statist” forces that plays by the rules. And civilians suffer.

So with this double standard creating a gray zone, where does that leave the U.S.? Non-western parties to conflicts have managed to create a global political environment where they can rampantly violate international humanitarian law while also hiding behind it to try to escape reprisal. There isn’t an easy answer for this conundrum, since it is the outgrowth of several decades of evolution in thought concerning conflict, the laws of armed conflict, and global norms. But the consequence is that the U.S. is faced with a uniquely high expectation of its conduct while being sent into ever-less rules-abiding conflicts. One way or another, this double standard is going to be resolved, either by removing the requirement to adhere to international law or by finally holding others to account when they violate it. I suppose we can just pray it is the latter.

http://joshuafoust.com/what-does-a-humanitarian-double-standard-mean-for-global-security/

------------------

Victims of September 11, 2001

----------------------

Canada military news: GOOD FOR UK- and nations tired of their troops being sacrificed by ambulance chasing lawyers over the rights of monsters who slaughter millions with no rules, no country, no code, no geneva convention ...which they swipe their arses on.... 2015 december 27 – BRAVE UK – troops and innocents matter....

Like RWANDA- like the monsters who swipe their arses with the Geneva Convention that allows Doctors Without Borders and International Red Cross to provide the same medical care to the butchers as to the innocents they slaughter and maim without regard to law, ethics, decency for world fairness for innocents- and who take huge pleasure hiding under the skirts of their mothers and behind their sons and daughters..... NO MORE...

QUOTE: Michael Fallon attacked “ambulance-chasing law firms” that have brought thousands of cases against the Ministry of Defence over the conduct of British forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. He said soldiers were worried that their actions could land them in court defending compensation claims brought by enemy fighters they capture or relations of those killed.

Ministers are now drawing up plans to pull Britain out of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in order to stop troops being sued for carrying out their duties.

Defence secretary Michael Fallon: suspend the human rights act to protect our troops

British troops are being held back in the fight against terror, the defence secretary tells The Telegraph

Eight RAF Tornados based at Akrotiri in Cyprus have been flying armed reconnaissance missions over Iraq since September 2014 Photo: Heathcliff O'Malley/The Telegraph

By Tim Ross, Senior Political Correspondent

10:00PM GMT 26 Dec 2015

British troops are being weakened in their fight against terrorists because they fear human rights lawyers will take them to court, the Defence Secretary has warned.

Michael Fallon attacked “ambulance-chasing law firms” that have brought thousands of cases against the Ministry of Defence over the conduct of British forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He said soldiers were worried that their actions could land them in court defending compensation claims brought by enemy fighters they capture or relations of those killed.

Michael Fallon Photo: JANE MINGAY

Ministers are now drawing up plans to pull Britain out of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in order to stop troops being sued for carrying out their duties.

Mr Fallon argued that there was “a strong case” for suspending the European human rights law when sending forces into action overseas.

“We don’t need these ambulance-chasing British law firms,” he told The Sunday Telegraph. “It is not only extremely expensive but it inhibits the operational effectiveness of our troops because they start to worry about whether they will end up in a court or not.”

The Defence Secretary’s intervention represents the Government’s toughest public statement in the row over the application of human rights laws to the battlefield. It is the clearest sign so far that ministers are ready to ditch the European convention during military action.

His warning comes after The Telegraph disclosed that taxpayers faced a £150 million bill for defending more than 2,000 separate legal cases, brought by people claiming to have suffered breaches of their human rights in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Last week, British and American forces were sent to help Afghan forces fighting a resurgent Taliban, which captured Sangin, in Helmand province, where more than 100 British soldiers died during their previous mission.

A file photograph of British troops in Helmand, Afghanistan Photo: Heathcliff O'Malley

Elsewhere, RAF fighter-bombers are in action in Iraq and Syria in the fight against Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, along with Special Forces and military trainers who are preparing the Iraqi army for combat on the ground.

Mr Fallon warned that service personnel feared legal action when they returned home and argued that the European convention – which applies in the UK through the Human Rights Act – was “not needed” in the field of military conflict overseas.

He added that international agreements such as the Geneva Convention already provide human rights protection for combatants and “we don’t need the duplication”.

Mr Fallon and Michael Gove, the Justice Secretary, are working on plans for a British Bill of Rights to replace the Human Rights Act, which enshrines the European convention into law.

“We will ensure our Armed Forces overseas are not subject to persistent legal claims that undermine their ability to do their job. Ministers have commissioned detailed work and will make any further announcements in due course.”

MOD Spokesman

As part of that package, clearer measures could be included to enable ministers to withdraw from the convention temporarily – a process known as “derogation” – when sending forces into battle.

Mr Fallon said: “I would like to see [the Bill of Rights] soon because some of these court rulings are beginning to affect the effectiveness of British troops.”

Since 2004, the MoD has spent £100 million on investigations and compensation cases related to the Iraq war, with a further £44 million earmarked for new claims.

Soldiers who are caught up in these cases have been forced to relive “gruesome and harrowing” experiences under cross-examination.

An image of detained Iraqis guarded by a British soldier, shown previously at the the Al-Sweady inquiry Photo: The Al-Sweady Inquiry/PA

The £31 million Al-Sweady Public Inquiry found that while mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners did occur, the most serious allegations, including murder, were “wholly without foundation”.

If military action is required before the new Bill of Rights becomes law, ministers could declare that Britain is to derogate from the ECHR to prevent future human rights claims being brought against the Armed Forces. This public declaration would need to be approved by votes in both the Commons, where the Government has only a small majority, and the Lords, where it does not have a majority.

With this in mind, officials are working on a series of backup options. These include setting a time limit for legal claims to be brought, and taking legal action against law firms that have brought bogus cases.

Further reforms could end legal aid for claimants who are living outside the UK.

An MoD spokesman said: “We will ensure our Armed Forces overseas are not subject to persistent legal claims that undermine their ability to do their job. Ministers have commissioned detailed work and will make any further announcements in due course.”

ABOUT

Human Rights Act

What is it?

The Human Rights Act (HRA) of 1998 ensures that the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is enshrined in domestic law.

What's changing?

The Conservative party wants to scrap the HRA in favour of a new British Bill of Rights that isn't bound by European courts.

The case for change:

The Conservative party says the European Court of Human Rights shouldn't have power to override British court rulings and laws.

The case against:

Moving away from the principles of the ECHR would weaken human rights of the most vulnerable say human rights groups, and threaten the Good Friday Agreement.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12070235/Defence-secretary-Michael-Fallon-suspend-the-human-rights-act-to-protect-our-troops.html

-----------

The Irish Repubic

Good Friday Agreement

Published April 10, 1998

Also known as the Belfast Agreement, this agreement was part of the peace plan in Northern Ireland. It provided for Northern Ireland to be run by a elected assembly overseen by an executive committee of both Unionists and Nationalists. Among its many provisions, it also set up a human rights commission, a plan for decommission ofparamilitary weapons, and ended the Irish Republic's claim to Northern Ireland by modifying its constitution. Negotiations for another peace proposal were reopened July 2013 through December 2013.

Excerpt:

DECLARATION OF SUPPORT

1. We, the participants in the multi-party negotiations, believe that the agreement we have

negotiated offers a truly historic opportunity for a new beginning.

2. The tragedies of the past have left a deep and profoundly regrettable legacy of suffering.

We must never forget those who have died or been injured, and their families. But we can

best honour them through a fresh start, in which we firmly dedicate ourselves to the

achievement of reconciliation, tolerance, and mutual trust, and to the protection and

vindication of the human rights of all.

3. We are committed to partnership, equality and mutual respect as the basis of relationships

within Northern Ireland, between North and South, and between these islands.

4. We reaffirm our total and absolute commitment to exclusively democratic and peaceful

means of resolving differences on political issues, and our opposition to any use or threat of

force by others for any political purpose, whether in regard to this agreement or otherwise.

5. We acknowledge the substantial differences between our continuing, and equally

legitimate, political aspirations. However, we will endeavour to strive in every practical way

towards reconciliation and rapprochement within the framework of democratic and agreed

arrangements. We pledge that we will, in good faith, work to ensure the success of each and

every one of the arrangements to be established under this agreement. It is accepted that all

of the institutional and constitutional arrangements - an Assembly in Northern Ireland, a

North/South Ministerial Council, implementation bodies, a British-Irish Council and a British-

Irish Intergovernmental Conference and any amendments to British Acts of Parliament and

the Constitution of Ireland - are interlocking and interdependent and that in particular the

functioning of the Assembly and the North/South Council are so closely inter-related that the

success of each depends on that of the other.

6. Accordingly, in a spirit of concord, we strongly commend this agreement to the people, North and South, for their approval

http://www.cfr.org/ireland/good-friday-agreement/p12815

----------

Immunity from Attack

By Emma Daly

Our friend lay in bed, plucking nervously at the gray, bloodstained sheets, her eyes covered by a bandage, her face patterned with glass cuts. “I want to go home,” she said vehemently. “I’m terrified of staying in this building.”

We could understand her concern: the concrete blocks and curved facades of the Kosevo hospital complex in Sarajevo were scarred by shrapnel marks, bullet marks, and shell craters. Two weeks earlier, two patients had been killed when a shell hit their ward. We could hear the sounds of bombardment in the distance, and, suspiciously close to the hospital, the hollow sound of outgoing mortar fire. Hospitals are generally immune from attack under the Geneva Conventions, which grant civilians and civilian objects a high level of theoretical protection in times of war. The siege of Sarajevo, however, made a mockery of the humanitarian ideal that the dangers of war should be limited, as far as possible, to the armed forces engaged in the fighting.

The concept of immunity, the rule that certain people and places should be “protected and respected” during wartime, can be dated back at least to 1582, when a Spanish judge suggested that “intentional killing of innocent persons, for example, women and children, is not allowable in war.” The Geneva Conventions of 1949 confirmed immunity for civilians, hospitals, and medical staff, and the 1977 Additional Protocols to the conventions state: “The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against the dangers arising from military operations.”

The absolute rule is that civilians must not be directly targeted for military attack. Furthermore, some individuals considered especially vulnerable —children under fifteen, the elderly, pregnant women, and mothers of children under seven—are granted special protection and may, for example, be moved to safe zones exempt from attack by agreement of the warring parties. The wounded, sick, or shipwrecked, military personnel who are considered to be hors de combat, are protected, as are prisoners of war.

Hospitals, both fixed and mobile, ambulances, hospital ships, medical aircraft, and medical personnel—whether civilian or military—are also entitled to protection from hostile fire under the Geneva Conventions, provided that structures are marked with a red cross or red crescent and not used improperly or near military objectives, and staff are properly protected. Staff include not only doctors, nurses, and orderlies, but the drivers, cleaners, cooks, crews of hospital ships—in short, all those who help a medical unit to function. Some aid workers—for example, Red Cross volunteers treating the sick and wounded on the battlefield—are also covered, as are military chaplains. Other than hospitals, certain other buildings cannot be attacked. Places of worship and historic monuments are protected, as are civilian structures like schools and other objects that are not being used to support military activities. Under the 1954 Convention on Cultural Property important places of worship, historic sites, works of art, and other cultural treasures are likewise protected from attack.

There are exceptions. A school, for example, becomes a legitimate military target if soldiers are based there. With hospitals, the situation is more complicated since they are permitted to keep armed guards on their grounds. But immunity from attack can be lost if the people or objects are used to commit acts that are harmful to one side in a conflict. If the Bosnian Serbs besieging Sarajevo had concluded that government forces were firing weapons from within the Kosevo hospital complex, they would have had the right to fire back—but only if they had first asked the Bosnian government to stop using the hospital as a shield and had given them a reasonable period to comply.

Causing harm to an innocent person or object is not always illegal. Civilian deaths and damage are allowed as the result of an attack on a military target, but only if the attack is likely to confer a definite military advantage. Damage to people or objects who are in principle deemed to be immune under international humanitarian law must not be excessive in relation to the expected military gain. For example, breaking the windows of a hospital during an attack on an arms dump five hundred meters away would not be illegal since the civilian damage would be far outweighed by the military gain.

But keeping legitimate military targets separate from protected civilian sites is hard to do on the ground. Under international humanitarian law, the parties to a conflict are obliged to separate their military from their civilians as much as possible. But the reality is that this can be difficult. In Sarajevo, for example, the territory under siege was so small that to do so was all but impossible. That said, in Sarajevo, as in many towns across Bosnia-Herzegovina, it seemed clear that the besiegers’ primary target was civilians. That was one of the reasons why Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, the civilian and military leaders of the secessionist Bosnian Serbs, were charged with war crimes by the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague.

1. Civilian Immunity

2. Hospitals

3. Free Fire Zones

http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/immunity-from-attack/

----------------

Afghan Amnesty Law a Setback for Peace

By Katherine Iliopoulos

An amnesty law that prevents the prosecution of individuals responsible for large-scale human rights abuses has officially become law in Afghanistan.

The law states that all those who were engaged in armed conflict before the formation of the Interim Administration in Afghanistan in December 2001 shall “enjoy all their legal rights and shall not be prosecuted.” Brad Adams of Human Rights Watch said the law is “a disgrace” and “a slap in the face to all the Afghans who suffered for years and years of war crimes and warlordism.”

The National Reconciliation, General Amnesty and National Stability Bill was passed three years ago by the Afghan parliament, which is made up largely of lawmakers who once belonged to armed groups, some of whom have been accused of war crimes.

According to Article 1, the law is supposed to strengthen “reconciliation and national stability, ensuring the supreme interests of the country, ending rivalries and building confidence among the belligerent parties.” It seems, however, to fly in the face of President Karzai’s commitment to pursue justice and fight impunity as expressed in his 2006 Action Plan on Peace, Reconciliation, and Justice. Among other things, this Action Plan focused on the documentation of past violations and the pursuit of truth and reconciliation mechanisms that respect the rights of both victims and alleged perpetrators. The law also appears to contravene international law.

The blanket amnesty not only shields those involved in past violations, but seems to extend a similar reprieve to current armed groups engaging in acts of terrorism and hostility throughout the country, whom the law says will be granted immunity if they agree to reconciliation with the government.

Although President Hamid Karzai had promised not to sign the bill when it was first approved in 2007, a spokesman for Mr. Karzai, Waheed Omer, said on 16 March 2010 that since it was passed by a parliamentary majority and recently published in the official gazette in December, his signature was unnecessary. On other words, the lower house of parliament (Wolesi Jirga) can override presidential objections with a two-thirds majority vote pursuant to Article 94 of the Afghan Constitution. However another provision in the Constitution could theoretically be invoked by Karzai in order to overturn this law. Article 6 obliges the state to create a society “based on social justice, [the] protection of human dignity, [and the] protection of human rights.”

The legality of the amnesty could also be challenged based on Afghanistan’s commitments under international treaty law and customary international law.

While it is hard to say categorically that there is a general prohibition against amnesties in international law, international treaty law – including some of the conventions to which Afghanistan is a state party such as the Geneva Conventions, the Torture Convention, the Genocide Convention – obliges states to prosecute or extradite in relation to certain crimes. Afghanistan is also a party to the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutes of Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity (1983), which specifically bars State Parties from enacting legislation that provides for statutory or other limitations to the prosecution and punishment for crimes against humanity and war crimes and requires them to abolish any such measures which have been put in place (Article IV). The amnesty law appears to breach all of these obligations.

A reference to customary international law in the context of amnesties is particularly important for crimes which are not included in treaties, such as crimes against humanity and war crimes in internal armed conflicts. There is no clear answer as to whether customary international law generally prohibits amnesties for serious crimes. However, according to scholars including Anthony Cassese, despite some evidence of state practice to the contrary, there is a gradual evolution of a customary prohibition of amnesty for serious crimes. Cassese argues that States’ general obligation to uphold fundamental human rights is incompatible with impunity or blanket amnesties for serious international crimes.

There is a growing consensus among states and the United Nations that amnesties for international crimes are illegal. Principle 24 (a) of the UN Commission on Human Rights’ ‘Principles For The Protection And Promotion Of Human Rights Through Action To Combat Impunity’ says that “Even when intended to establish conditions conducive to a peace agreement or to foster national reconciliation, amnesty and other measures of clemency shall be kept within the following bounds: the perpetrators of serious crimes under international law may not benefit from such measures until such time as the … perpetrators have been prosecuted before a court with jurisdiction.”

Moreover, the UN Secretary General in his report on the establishment of the Special Court for Sierra Leone of October 2000 reiterated that: “the UN has consistently maintained the position that amnesty cannot be granted in respect of international crimes, such as genocide, crimes against humanity or other serious violations of international humanitarian law.” The Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) ruled in the case Prosecutor v. Furundzija on 10 December 1998 that amnesties for torture were prohibited under international law (paragraph 155).

Supporters of the amnesty law say that allowing prosecutions would risk another civil war, and that in any case, it still allows individuals to bring criminal claims against perpetrators. However, as mentioned above, international law requires states to investigate and prosecute serious crimes and human rights violations, obligations that cannot be transferred to individuals. Further, Human Rights Watch reports that access to justice for individuals is severely limited in Afghanistan, where the judicial system is almost dysfunctional, corruption is widespread, and there is no witness protection system.

Any attempt to extend the amnesty to cover recent or current fighting would be limited by the role of the International Criminal Court, to which Afghanistan has been a party since it ratified the Rome Statute on February 10, 2003. This means that the ICC has jurisdiction over war crimes and crimes against humanity committed on its territory after that date– whether by Afghan or international forces. A domestic amnesty would not affect the ICC’s power to prosecute an individual suspected of international crimes. It was reported in September that the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court has started gathering information on alleged war crimes in Afghanistan.

Conflict has raged in Afghanistan since 1978, when the Marxist-Leninist People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) staged a coup against then-President Mohammed Daoud Khan. The Soviet Union invaded the following year, installing a puppet regime that held power until 1992. Four years of chaos were followed by the rise to power of the Taliban, who controlled Kabul and much of the country until they were deposed following the US attack in 2001. War crimes including the massacre of tens of thousands of Afghans, widespread torture and indiscriminate bombing of residential areas were endemic throughout the conflict.

Among the most notorious incidents were the massacre by Uzbek fighters of 3,000 Taliban prisoners in Mazar-i-Sharif in 1997, and the killing of at least 2,000 people, mainly ethnic Hazaras, by the Taliban the following year.

Katherine Iliopoulos is an international lawyer based in The Hague, Netherlands.

Related Links:

Discussion Paper on the Legality of Amnesties [PDF]
Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission
February 21, 2010

Casting Shadows: Blood World War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity (1978-2001) [PDF]
The Afghanistan Justice Project, 2005

World Report 2009: Afghanistan
Human Rights Watch

1. 2009 Deadliest Year for Civilians in Afghanistan

2. Amnesty

3. US Airstrikes Kill Dozens of Civilians in Afghanistan

http://www.crimesofwar.org/commentary/afghan-amnesty-law-a-setback-for-peace/

--------------

Asia > Commentary > Regions > 2009 Deadliest Year for Civilians in Afghanistan

2009 Deadliest Year for Civilians in Afghanistan

By Katherine Iliopoulos

2009 was the worst year since the fall of the Taliban regime in 2001 for civilians caught up in the armed conflict, with the number of Afghan civilians killed the highest of any year since the beginning of the insurgency.

According to a United Nations report released this month, the deaths of 1,630 innocent civilians – including at least 345 children – were predominantly due to the insurgents and their indiscriminate use of roadside bombs and other terror tactics. NATO and Afghan troops were responsible for the deaths of 596 civilians last year, with the drop of nearly 30 per cent from 2008 attributable to new orders given last June to NATO forces by General Stanley McChrystal for troops to follow much stricter rules of engagement to avoid civilian casualties.

There are fears that there will be a further increase in civilian casualties as the intensity of fighting increases with the surge of over 30,000 US and NATO troops due to be completed by the middle of 2010.

The report of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) pointed to the use asymmetric tactics by the armed opposition as a significant factor in the increase in the number of civilians who killed or injured, together with the use of air strikes and the placement of military facilities in civilian areas.

Violations of international humanitarian law (IHL) occurred regularly in 2009. Common Article 3 to the 1949 Geneva Conventions applies in the case of an armed conflict of a non-international character occuring on the territory of a state party. This is the case for Afghanistan (a state party), in which the Government is fighting against a number of non-state armed groups, particularly the Taliban. The conflict is also regulated by other provisions of customary international law.

On 24 December 2009, Afghanistan became party to 1977 Additional Protocol II, which deals with non-international armed conflicts. The threshold of violence for the application of the Protocol is higher than it is for common Article 3, but since the Protocol entered into force for Afghanistan it has applied to the conflict at its current intensity, not only to Afghan government forces, but also to the armed forces of any state member of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan (ISAF) and who is also a party to the Protocol.

In some cases, insurgents intentionally used civilians and their homes as shields from military attack, in violation of IHL. Some anti-government elements (AGEs) who were targeted in military operations had deliberately taken shelter in the houses of those not involved in the insurgency in order to deter attacks. Some took advantage of traditional codes of hospitality and power imbalances which prevented villagers who live in areas with a significant AGE presence from refusing to shelter AGE commanders.

According to customary international law, the use of human shields is prohibited. This means that the “intentional collocation of military objectives and civilians or persons hors de combat with the specific intent of trying to prevent the targeting of those military objectives” is prohibited (ICRC Customary International Law Study). The report identified the use of this tactic combined with the use of air strikes by international forces as having put civilians at risk of attack by Afghan and international forces.

Suicide attacks and the use of improvised explosive devices (IED) by AGEs were responsible for the majority of civilian deaths. While they were primarily targeted at international forces, they were often conducted in residential areas. AGEs frequently feign civilian status while conducting suicide and other attacks, violating the prohibition of perfidy under customary international law. This deception often made it difficult for pro-Government forces to respect their obligation under international humanitarian law to distinguish between civilians and combatants.

The report also expressed concern at the deliberate American strategy to bring the battle to populated areas, such as bazaars and district centres, increasing the risk of harm to civilians and running counter to international humanitarian law principles designed to protect the civilian population against the dangers of military operations. The report stated that the UN “has highlighted concerns in numerous reports, briefings, and dialogue with ISAF [International Security Assistance Force] on the issue of the location of military facilities within or near areas where civilians are concentrated.”

Health centres have also been targeted. The report details an air strike on a clinic by Pro-Government Forces (PGF) on 26 August 2009 where an injured Taliban Commander and at least two other AGEs were receiving medical treatment. The clinic was partially damaged and civilian casualties were recorded. During an armed conflict, health centres are presumed to be civilian objects – even if they are treating wounded combatants – and thus immune from attack, except if they are used as a base for military activities.

As well as being victims of air strikes, suicide attacks and roadside bombings, Afghan children have also been recruited and illegally detained by armed groups. In some situations children are being used as suicide bombers, human shields, or even to plant explosives, often resulting in their deaths and the deaths of other civilians.

The detention and ill-treatment of minors allegedly associated with armed groups by pro-government military forces also remains a concern according to the report, which revealed children have been detained for extended periods of time in government detention centres without due process.

The report details the case of Mohammed Jawad. Aged 12 at the time of his arrest in 2002 for allegedly throwing a hand-grenade at a US military vehicle, he was eventually released in July 2009 from Guantanamo. According to his legal team, Jawad was subjected to “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment amounting to torture” during his time in detention in Afghanistan and Guantanamo.

The United Nations called on all parties involved in the conflict to maintain their obligations under the international law and, as the conflict continues into 2010, to “minimize [its] impact on civilians.”

More than 110,000 international troops are currently based in Afghanistan, including about 68,000 US troops. UNAMA, a political Mission directed by the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO), was established by the Security Council in 2002 to provide political and strategic advice for the peace process following the overthrow of the Taliban.

Katherine Iliopoulos is an international lawyer based in The Hague, Netherlands.

Related Links:

Annual Report on Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict, 2009
United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan
January 2010

1. US Airstrikes Kill Dozens of Civilians in Afghanistan

2. In Sri Lanka, No Victory for Civilians at War’s End

3. Afghanistan

http://www.crimesofwar.org/commentary/2009-deadliest-year-for-civilians-in-afghanistan/

----------

CRIMES OF WAR

http://www.crimesofwar.org/category/a-z-guide/crime/

---------

Two Sides to Every Story: Congo and the Rwandan Genocide

A Hutu refugee with open machete wounds on his head stands amidst a group of hundreds of fellow refugees who were surrounded by the Tutsi Army Thursday April 27, 1995, in the school compound of Kibeho, southern Rwanda. At least 2,000 people were killed by army gunfire or trampled in a stampede the previous week while the Rwandan army was trying to close the camp, which the government considered a center for extremist Hutu militias. (AP Photo/Jean-Marc Bouju)

By Katherine Iliopoulos

Narratives on the 1990s in Rwanda focus invariably on the country’s darkest hour: the genocide perpetrated by the Hutu against the Tutsi. It seems to many as if the story began shortly before April, 6, 1994, when the incumbent President’s plane was shot down on approach to Kigali airport, unleashing a wave of mass violence that claimed 800,000 lives.

There are scholars such as Mahmood Mamdani who have sought to go beyond popular understanding, by contextualising the genocide in terms of colonial history and developments in neighbouring countries and moving away from the popular understanding that the genocide was simply the product of ethnic hatred. Without wishing to trivialise the 1994 genocide, argue ”moral equivalence” or promote the so-called ”double genocide theory,” most would agree that it is important to recognise that mass violence was committed by both sides. Furthermore, the 1994 genocide needs to be placed in the context of the Rwandan Civil War that began in 1990.

The question of the Rwandan genocide has never really disappeared from the media and popular discourse, but it has been in the spotlight in recent weeks after a draft UN report on the most serious violations of human rights in the Democratic Republic of Congo over an eleven-year period (1993-2003) was leaked to the French newspaper Le Monde.

The lengthy report states that after the Rwandan Patriotic Front’s (RPF) takeover of Rwanda in 1994, it proceeded to carry out “systematic and widespread attacks” against Hutu refugees who had fled Rwanda to neighbouring Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo) as well as against the Hutu civilian population of Zaire in general. It concludes that the pattern of these attacks “reveal[s] a number of damning elements that, if they were proven before a competent court, could be classified as crimes of genocide.” Luc Côté, a war crimes prosecutor from Montreal who led the investigation and co-authored the report, told Agence France Presse that the evidence of genocide includes speeches in which Hutus were targeted for elimination, systematic and repetitive killings, the burning of corpses and attempts to bar outsiders from visiting massacre sites.

This is not the first “public” revelation of RPF crimes. In 1994, Robert Gersony, an employee of the U.S. Agency for International Development then attached to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, had been dispatched to survey the situation inside Rwanda to determine if conditions were right for a return of the Hutu refugees who had fled the RPF. Instead, he found that the RPF had been committing systematic massacres of the Hutu population in Rwanda starting in April 1994 and continuing through the date of his oral presentation to the UN Commission of Experts on Rwanda on October 11 of that year.

With the RPF sweeping through the country, the Hutu génocidaires – including politicians, priests and militias – fled to neighbouring Zaire where they hid among more than a million genuine Hutu refugees. When they regrouped to continue their resistance, RPF leader Paul Kagame – the current President of Rwanda – ordered an invasion of eastern Zaire in 1996 marking the beginning of the First Congo War. This triggered a conflict that drew in six additional countries (Burundi, Uganda, Angola, Zimbabwe, Namibia and the Central African Republic) and led to the deaths of about 4 million people.

The leaked UN report, based on interviews with 1,280 individuals and review of more than 1,500 documents, raises deep and troubling questions about the use of the word ‘genocide.’

The common understanding of RPF aggression was that it was directed at those responsible for the genocide committed against the Tutsis; however, the UN report states that the majority of the incidents reported indicate that the Hutus were targeted as such, illustrated by the numerous targeted attacks against non-refugee Congolese Hutus. The report identifies the systematic use of barriers by the RPF, particularly in South Kivu, which “enabled them to identify people of Hutu origin by their name or village of origin and thus to eliminate them.”

This tendency to target all Hutus as such is, according to the report, also supported by evidence of declarations made during RPF “awareness-raising speeches” in certain places, “according to which any Hutu still present in Zaire must necessarily be a perpetrator of genocide, since the ‘real’ refugees had already returned to Rwanda.” These speeches were considered to have possibly constituted incitement for the population to look for, kill or help kill Rwandan Hutu refugees, whom they called “pigs.”

According to the definition of the international crime of genocide, certain genocidal acts such as the murder of those belonging to a particular ethnic group need to have been committed with the specific intent to destroy a particular group as such. It is this element that is the most difficult to prove in a court of law.

One of the most important issues in international criminal law is whether a genocidal policy or plan is an element of the crime of genocide. According to the jurisprudence of the ad hoc tribunals, the existence of a genocidal plan is simply one factor from which such intent can be inferred. The draft UN report opens the possibility that a court could deduce the existence of a genocidal plan from “the behaviour of certain elements of the RPF in respect of the Hutu refugees and Hutu populations settled in Zaire at this time,” which seems to equate to “a manifest pattern of similar conduct directed against that group.”

But the UN report also sets out some facts that may cause a court to hesitate in making a finding of genocide against the RPF.

One of the most significant factors that may be at odds with any portrayal of a genocidal RPF is that as of November, 15, 1996, at the beginning of the First Congo War, several tens of thousands of Rwandan Hutu refugees were repatriated to Rwanda with the help of the RPF and that hundreds of thousands of Rwandan Hutu refugees were able to return to Rwanda with the consent of the Rwandan authorities prior to the start of the First Congo War, which ended when Zairean President Mobutu Sese Seko – who was supporting Hutu extremists – was overthrown with the support of Uganda and Rwanda.

Without doubt the report presents a challenge to Rwanda’s President, Paul Kagame, who was recently elected to a second seven-year term in office. Kagame rejected the draft report and threatened to withdraw Rwanda’s peacekeeping forces from the Darfur region of Sudan and other African countries should the United Nations publish the report in its current form. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon rushed to Kigali shortly afterwards to urge him to reconsider in light of Sudan’s 2011 referendum on succession.

This is not the first time that Rwanda has threatened to withdraw its forces from Darfur. A similar threat was made in 2008 in response to the indictment issued by Spanish Investigative Judge Andreu Merelles against UNAMID (UN Assistance Mission in Darfur) deputy commander Karake Karenzi along with 39 other Rwandan officers for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and terrorism perpetrated over a period of 12 years, from 1990 to 2002, against the civilian population, primarily against members of the Hutu ethnic group.

The Spanish investigation was prompted by complaints from families of nine Spaniards who were killed, harmed or ”disappeared” during the relevant period, but the indictment was subsequently expanded to include crimes committed against Rwandan and Congolese victims, based on the doctrine of universal jurisdiction.

The Spanish proceedings revealed prima facie evidence that from October 1990, a political-military structured group, heavily armed and well organised, engaged in a series of criminal activities which were carried out in Uganda against the territory of Rwanda. The indictment, based on the testimony of 22 witnesses, identified a “large extremist group of Rwandan Tutsis based in Uganda called the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), which was created in order to achieve three purposes: 1) To eliminate the largest number of persons of the Hutu ethnic group, the ethnic group predominant in their country of origin; 2) To seize power by force; and 3) To form a strategic alliance with the Tutsi ethnic group and other Western allies, to terrorise firstly the population of Rwanda and then all the Great Lakes area in order to increase their sphere of power, control and influence and to invade Zaire, taking and using as their own the rich natural resources of the country.”

According to the indictment, on October 1, 1990, the RPF crossed the Ugandan border into Rwanda “with the purpose of invading, killing certain civilians and causing massive internal displacement.” The indictment then describes in detail a series of massacres, attacks and acts of terrorism against the civilian population in Rwanda that took place over the next four years.

In turn, Rwandan President Habyarimana’s party created its own militias, which would come be known as the Interahamwe. They launched numerous attacks against Rwanda’s Tutsi population, and were the ones who would later carry out the 1994 genocide.

The indictment goes on to describe how, in March 1994, “in order to begin the definite assault to power and to create a situation of civil conflict,” several meetings were attended by the leaders of the RPF with the purpose of preparing an attack to assassinate the President. The last of these meetings took place on March 31, 1994, and was attended by General Paul Kagame and other high-ranking officials. Arrangements for the attack were made to determine the place from where the surface-to-air missiles would be launched and the composition of the command that would carry out the attack. On April 6, 1994, the President’s plane was shot down, killing all those on board and sparking the genocide. In the following months, the RPF continued to launch attacks against civilians in Rwanda.

On July 17, 1994, the RPF seized power. Consequently, hundreds of thousands of Hutus headed for camps for internally displaced persons mainly in the western areas of Rwanda, while over a million sought refuge in neighbouring countries, especially Zaire. The indictment then details more RPF massacres and attacks against refugees and civilians in Zaire/DR Congo through to 1997, the end of the First Congo War, as well as from 1998-2002 (the Second Congo War). The draft UN report says that “the entire period [1996-1998] was characterised by the relentless pursuit of Hutu refugees and ex-Interahamwe by [RPF forces] across the entire Congolese territory.” It contains a catalogue of atrocities perpetrated by the RPF, along with forces from Uganda and Burundi, against the civilian population in DR Congo during the Second Congo War, including sexual violence and the use of child soldiers. But it does not make explicit mention of violence committed against Hutus during this period.

The majority of the victims during the wave of terror, according to the Spanish indictment, were Rwandan Hutu refugees or Congolese Hutu civilians. The Spanish judge did not indict Kagame, because as head of state, he has immunity from prosecution, even though many of the incidents clearly imply criminal involvement on his part.

But it was French judge Jean-Louis Bruguière who issued an indictment on November 17, 2006, against Kagame alleging that he was responsible for ordering the downing of Habyarimana’s plane in April 1994. A week later, Kigali severed diplomatic relations with Paris. The incident will be re-investigated by a team of experts later this month, with a view to determining from where the missiles were fired as a possible indicator of who was behind the attack.

The question of genocide aside, the UN findings are expected to lay the foundation for potential prosecutions for war crimes and crimes against humanity against senior Rwandan figures such as Colonel James Kabarebe, who led Rwanda’s military operations in DR Congo and now heads the Rwandan forces. Kabarebe is also one of ten Rwandan officials accused by Bruguière of involvement in the assassination of Habyarimana.

The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) would have the authority to try these crimes if they were committed in 1994, because its jurisdiction extends beyond the territory of Rwanda to include “Rwandan citizens responsible for such violations committed in the territory of neighbouring States between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 1994.”

It would however be unable to prosecute individuals for crimes committed before or after 1994. Ordinarily, prosecutions for crimes committed outside 1994 would rest with the Congolese judicial system. However, the draft UN report identifies a multitude of shortcomings such as the judiciary’s lack of independence, military interference in judicial affairs and a severe lack of resources.

It is clear that the system lacks the legitimacy needed to make the smallest inroads into ending impunity in DR Congo. Justice sector reform has been recommended as one component – with others including truth and reparation-seeking mechanisms – of a ”transitional justice” solution for the country.

The ICTR has been in possession of evidence that could be used in prosecutions of senior members of the RPF, however, so far it has only prosecuted Hutu defendants.

Former ICTY and ICTR Chief Prosecutor Carla del Ponte writes in her 2009 memoir Madame Prosecutor: Confrontations with Humanity’s Worst Criminals and the Culture of Impunity, that she was eventually removed from her ICTR post after she refused to yield to pressure from the then U.S. ambassador-at-large for war crimes, Pierre Prosper, to sign away investigations of allegations against the RPF.

That was not her first confrontation with blackmail, she writes. Earlier, Kagame’s government was obstructing justice by sabotaging the ICTR trials of Hutu génocidaires by introducing measures to restrict the movement of witnesses travelling to Tanzania to testify.

In a meeting with Kagame on June 28, 2002, Del Ponte requested the military prosecutor’s files relating to the killings of the archbishop and other clergymen by RPF in Kabgayi in June 1994, the only RPF incident that she wished to investigate, at least initially.

President Kagame refused to hand over the files. “You are destroying Rwanda,” he said. “If you investigate, people will believe there were two genocides.”

The President’s desire to prevent any such perception within Rwanda may be said to be one of the reasons behind the country’s ”genocide ideology” laws. Ostensibly, the laws have been created to encourage unity and restrict speech that could promote hatred, given the central role that hate speech played in the 1994 genocide. However, rights groups such as Amnesty International have criticised the legislation saying it violates the freedom of expression and is being misused to criminalise criticism of the government and legitimate dissent, including suppressing calls for the prosecution of RPF war crimes.

The final version of the UN report is due for release on October 1. It remains to be seen whether, after the Rwandan backlash, any reference to “genocide” against the Hutus goes on the record.

At the very least, war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in the DR Congo need to be exposed and addressed. As Carla Del Ponte wrote, “a victim is a victim … [and] irrespective of the identity or ethnicity or the political ideas of the person who committed it … a crime is a crime.”

Spanish Indictment (English Translation)
Rwanda Documents Project

- See more at: http://www.crimesofwar.org/commentary/two-sides-to-every-story-congo-and-the-rwandan-genocide/#sthash.VQjA3rkf.dpuf

http://www.crimesofwar.org/commentary/two-sides-to-every-story-congo-and-the-rwandan-genocide/

-------------

BLOGGED:

Canada Military News: 2015 HASHTAG OF THE YEAR: #YouAintNoMuslimBruv / Remember our troops fight shoulder to shoulder and too often die for innocents and each other in your political wars- many practice Islam- and first responders who race into hell to save us- we don't ask race, creed, sex pref or religion- no sheeeet sherlock - LET'S THE F**K DOWN - ur educated smart savvy and educated- don't buy into 'mainstream media $$$'roadkill moments' - pls. it's Christmas - all faiths love the season and birth of a baby in a stable- Jesus of Nazareth/always site and links / 9/11 #firstresponders need your help today- they are dying of towerscancers -congress and senate need to pass Bill ASAP

http://nova0000scotia.blogspot.ca/2015/12/canada-military-news-2015-hashtag-of.html

-----------------------

BLOGGED: Canada Military News: STOP UR WARS PLS.- How DARE global political leaders put our troops on battlefields yet again- in a war with no rules, laws or boundaries - and our troops stuck in 150 yr old Geneva Convention- NO WAY- It's just like Peacekeeping Rwanda and Romeo Dallaire- Canada's saviour -AND NATIONS BETRAYAL OF VIETNAM- R TROOPS- NO MORE, millions and millions of us r weary and we're the supporters- - Robin Williams Peace Plan /CANADA NEEDS TO CARE FOR OUR VETERANS- PTSD -WOUNDED- FAMILIES- its time/fk ur wars we're all tired /Environment-Humanity fking matters vs feeding $$$war machines

http://nova0000scotia.blogspot.ca/2015/11/canada-military-news-how-can-political.html

--------------------------

Geneva Conventions

1. Home

2. War & Law

3. Treaties and customary law

4. Geneva Conventions

Geneva Conventions

News Detail

08-12-2015 Article

What should we do when the world is burning? Start by restoring laws of war

25-11-2015 Publication

Commentaries on Geneva Convention I

23-10-2014 Article

The Geneva Conventions 150 years later … still relevant?

21-10-2014 Statement

Status of additional protocols relating to the protection of victims of armed conflicts: ICRC statement to the United Nations, 2014

25-03-2014 Legal factsheet

1977 Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 – Ratification kit

26-11-2012 Publication

Summary of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and their Additional Protocols

12-07-2012 Article

Bringing the Commentaries on the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols to the 21st Century

30-03-2012 Article

Falklands / Malvinas: The ICRC’s role, 30 years on

02-05-2010 Publication

The Protocols additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949

https://www.icrc.org/en/war-and-law/treaties-customary-law/geneva-conventions

-------------

blogged:

Dec 20th- 9/11 #firstresponders- PRAISE GOD CONGRESS DOES HAVE A SOUL- 9/11 First Responders are dying in hundreds- need your social media help- HEADS UP- Dear troops, vets and supportrers- 9/11 1st responders need our help- cld u share Please: from Trevor Noah’s TDS: Jon Stewart wants you to tell @SenateMajLdr to pass the 9/11 Zadroga Act. U.S. Senate Majority Leader and Senator for Kentucky Mitch McConnell. For more, follow @McConnellPress. Paul Ryan Verified account @SpeakerRyan Office of the 54th Speaker Paul Ryan. Now. #worstresponders #shameworks pic.twitter.com/tqIlzOLUYM

http://nova0000scotia.blogspot.ca/2015/12/canada-military-news-trevor-noahs-daily.html

-----------------

--------------------------------

QUOTE:

While Palestinian leaders exhort the public into volunteering their children for suicide missions, they make sure their own children are not among the volunteers.

Children Dying To Kill

Eli E. Hertz

Purposely Sacrificing Children

"... We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children.... We will only have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us."

Golda Meir, former Israeli Prime Minister, 1972

What kind of a society consciously and purposely sacrifices its own youth for political gain and tactical advantage? Suicide bombers are an escalation of a small-arms war introduced during the first Intifada (1987-1993 Palestinian’s uprising) and championed by Palestinian leaders, even prior to Arafat’s arrival from Tunis in July 1994. Today the overwhelming majority of Palestinian Arabs nurture a blind hatred of Israel. They created a cultural milieu of vengeance, violence and death - preparing their children to be sacrifices in a death cult. Proud parents dress up their toddlers not in clown costumes, but with suicide belts,¹ and countless others celebrate their children’s deaths with traditional sweet holiday cakes and candies.

Protecting our children is a universal trait that unites the Family of Man. But in Palestinian society, that standard has been turned on its head

Around the world, children are precious gifts to their parents and keys to the future. The loving care we invest in our own children is a human trait that unites different cultures: rich and poor, traditional and hi-tech. The toughest job parents have is to raise their children while making everyday sacrifices and decisions for them. We hug them, love them and watch them grow up, praying that they will come to no harm, and doing everything we can to ensure that.
From the poorest barrios in South America to the most wretched slums of Cairo, parents strive to make sure there is food for their children and money for their children’s education. Parents everywhere walk a fine line between the need for parental guidance and youthful independence, setting rules for what their children can and cannot do, trying to ensure that their children will not make mistakes that endanger them. Parents raise their children with the hope that they will grow into happy, responsible, caring, and contributing members of society. That is what unites the Family of Man from Caracas to the Caucuses, from Timbuktu to Katmandu.
It is clear that in Palestinian society something has gone dreadfully wrong. Children in Palestinian communities in the West Bank and Gaza are turned into ‘self-destructing human bombs’ capable of carrying out casualty terrorist attacks in the struggle between Palestinians and Israelis - a phenomenon whose seeds can be traced to the first Intifada.
It happened because Arab communities within the civil jurisdiction of self-rule under the Palestinian Authority (which includes 97 percent of the Arab residents in the West Bank and 100 percent of those in Gaza) foster a culture that prepares children for armed conflict, consciously and purposely putting them in harm’s way for political gain and tactical advantage in their war against Israel. The PA buses children to violent flashpoints far from their neighborhoods and Arab snipers often hide among the young during battle, using children as human shields. Teenaged perpetrators of suicide attacks have become the norm.²
In the first Intifada, a similar pattern surfaced, in which women and children led riots while young men in their late teens and early 20s, armed with rocks, sling shots, Molotov cocktails and grenades operated from the rear.³
There were thousands of Molotov cocktail attacks, more than 100 hand grenade attacks and more than 500 attacks with guns or explosive devices over the course of the first Intifada. Children in elementary and junior high school were encouraged to stone Israelis using rocks and slingshots, knowing that Israeli soldiers could do little beyond taking the youngsters into custody and fining their parents in the hopes they would ground their children. Instead, Palestinian parents sent their children back onto the streets. Some were killed. Others were maimed.
Palestinian society praised the transformation of its children into combatants during the first Intifada, dubbing them fondly “the children of the rocks.” Mahmud Darwish, the Palestinian national poet laureate, wrote a poem after the outbreak of the first Intifada, which sanctioned and sanctified their deaths, and praised “Arab youth on the road to victory, each with a coffin on his shoulder.”⁴ The poem eventually was set to music, encouraging countless Palestinian children to endanger themselves as a form of socially-condoned conduct that would bring them fame and prestige should they be hurt. This nihilistic bent took an even more destructive path in the second Intifada, as the ‘weapons of choice’ moved from rocks to explosives and the role of the children moved from reckless life-threatening behavior to conscious premeditated suicidal acts.
Clearly horrified by the use of children in armed conflict, Israeli author and peace advocate Aharon Megged wrote during the first Intifada:

“Not since the Children's Crusade in 1212 … has there been a horror such as this – no people, no land where adults send children age 8-9 or 14-15 to the front, day-after-day, while they themselves hide in their houses or go out to work far-far away. They continue, and send them time-after-time, and don't stop them even when they know they are liable to be killed, maimed, beaten or arrested.”

But the use of children to fight grownup battles, which germinated in the first Intifada in 1987, has run the full course - not only teaching and training children to kill, a crime shared by those behind an estimated 300,000 child soldiers around the world, but indoctrinating their own offspring to take their own lives.⁵

Palestinian society abuses its children, teaching them to hate and kill themselves to kill others

Under self-rule on the West Bank and Gaza, child sacrifice has turned into a normative part of the socialization process as the phenomenon of suicide bombers has escalated to epidemic proportions.⁶
From an early age, children are fed anti-Zionist, anti-Jewish and anti-Western hate propaganda. Mosques, schools, summer camps, and even children’s television programs are exploited to encourage children to become martyrs in an act that will bring them respect and parental pride:

In Hamas-run kindergartens, signs on the walls read: “The children of the kindergarten are the shahids (holy martyrs) of tomorrow.”⁷
A television show called “The Children’s Club” shows a young Palestinian, age 9 or 10 proclaiming, “When I wander into Jerusalem, I will become a suicide bomber.”⁸
The Palestinian Authority-controlled television,⁹ broadcasts MTV-style videos for teens that glorify suicide bombing and martyrdom.
A 6th grade Palestinian textbook, Our Beautiful Language, includes the “Shahid Song” that encourages death in war as a shahid or martyr. Other textbooks carry similar messages.
At a Palestine Authority summer camp in 2002, 25,000 children were trained in how to make firebombs, use firearms, and ambush and kidnap targeted enemies.¹⁰
An Islamic Jihad summer school massages the libidos of teenage boys by telling them they will “liberate Palestine from the Jews” by becoming martyrs, and promise the boys that they will be greeted by 72 virgins.¹¹
Kindergartens, schools, summer camps, and school sports tournaments (and other institutions) are named after terrorists and young suicide bombers, who are used as pedagogic role models.¹²

One of the most chilling examples of Palestinian role modeling occurred in the case of Aziz Salha, age 20, a participant in the lynching of two Israelis at the Ramallah police station in October 2000.¹³ The London Telegraph reported how Salha “choked one of the soldiers while others beat him. When he saw that his hands were covered in blood, he went to the window and showed them to the crowd below.” This unforgettable scene, captured by a foreign news crew, is used as the focus for adoration and reenactment¹⁴ in Gaza kindergartens, much as children in American public school might reenact the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
Throughout the Palestinian territories, walls are plastered with posters of young martyrs who are idolized by Palestinian youth the way other teens worship rock stars.
Against such a backdrop, Wajdi Hatab, age 14, told his classmates days before being killed: “When I become a martyr, give out kannafa (traditional cake).”¹⁵
B’tselem, an Israeli human rights organization that monitors Israeli conduct toward Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza, sharply rebuked Palestinian leadership for making little effort to keep children away from potentially violent confrontations.¹⁶
Bassam Zakhour, a bereaved Palestinian father, was far more frank. He blamed Palestinian Authority television for enticing his 14 year-old son to run off with two other schoolmates ‘to kill Jews.’ The trio was chosen by Hamas handlers because their ‘innocent’ looks would not arouse suspicion. They entered a Jewish settlement with knives and explosives packed in their schoolbags.¹⁷
Indeed, the age of children volunteering for suicide missions is dropping from men in their 20s to children in their teens and preteens.
At the same time, the scope of violence between the first Intifada and the second has escalated. Where Palestinian children threw rocks in the 1980s, they began throwing firebombs in 2000. In more than three years of guerrilla warfare since 2000, Palestinian leaders use children in warfare against Israel in other ways as well.
Toddlers have served as cover for terrorist activity by hiding munitions in their clothing. Paramedics found an explosive belt with 21 kilograms of explosives hidden under the pad of an ambulance stretcher carrying an ill Palestinian child.¹⁸ The Hezbollah weekly journal reported¹⁹ that children had helped make weapons and ammunition in the Jenin refugee camp, and then clashed with Israeli forces after they were armed with grenades and explosives. In July 2003, two Palestinian assailants posed as a family, accompanied by a female accomplice with a 4-year-old child (her niece). The accomplice and child were used as bait in the knife-point kidnapping of a Jewish cab driver. Later, another child passed through Israeli checkpoints while carrying supplies to the kidnappers.²⁰
In addition to growing more lethal, terrorist acts are also gradually involving more Palestinian teenagers, including girls.²¹ Some examples of these alarming trends:²²

February 16, 2002. An 18-year-old boy blew himself up outside a pizzeria in the territories, killing three Israelis and wounding 30.
March 30, 2002. A 16-year-old girl walked into a Jerusalem supermarket and detonated a bomb concealed under her clothing, killing two Israelis and wounding 22 others.
April 23, 2002. Three teenagers from Gaza, armed with knives and explosives, were killed attempting to crawl under a perimeter fence to attack residents of a Jewish settlement.
May 2002. A 16-year-old boy with a suicide belt strapped to his body, was arrested in a taxi near Jenin
June 13, 2002. A 15-year old girl was arrested for throwing a firebomb at IDF soldiers. She admitted she was a recruit.
July 30, 2002. A 17-year-old boy from Beit Jala, an Arab suburb of Jerusalem, became disoriented after being dropped off by his adult handler, blew himself up outside a virtually empty falafel stand in the city and injured five Israelis.

The milieu that encourages hatred and revenge and glorifies death draws more and more children into violence. On January 11, 2003, two children, ages 8 and 14, who had armed themselves with knives, were apprehended in an Israeli settlement after trying to stab a Jewish passerby.²³ Are these isolated incidents? A survey of 1,000 Palestinian children between the ages of 9 and 16, conducted by the Islamic University in Gaza, found that 73 percent of the children surveyed wanted to be martyrs.²⁴

Countless Palestinian parents support, encourage and praise the sacrifice of their children in suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks.

Arab culture holds these child-soldiers in such high regard that parents accept the deaths of their children with pride. A June 2002 public opinion survey conducted by the independent Arab-polling institute Jerusalem Media and Communications Center, found 68 percent of Palestinian adults support suicide bombing operations.²⁵ The father of a 13- year-old says, “I pray that God will choose him [to be a martyr].” The father of another youth who carried out a June 2002 attack outside a Tel Aviv disco declares: “I am very happy and proud of what my son did, and frankly, I’m a bit jealous.”²⁶ Financial incentives to families of suicide bombers also provide parents with reason to acquiesce, especially given the poverty of a majority of Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza, where living standards have plummeted since September 2000.

The Palestinian Authority pays parents $2,000 for each child killed and $300 for each wounded child.
Saudi Arabia pledged $250 million as part of a billion-dollar fund established to aid families whose children are killed.
The Arab Liberation Front, a group loyal to former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, was paying $10,000 to the parents of each child killed and $25,000 for suicide bombers.²⁷

Moral support also comes from other Arab nations. The Saudi ambassador to Great Britain wrote an ode to a 17-year-old female suicide bomber. One of the most frightful messages among those who justify young suicides came from Dr. Adel Sadeq, chairman of the Arab Psychiatrists Association and head of the department of psychiatry at Ein Shams University in Cairo. He wrote an open letter to President George W. Bush entitled, “Class Isn’t Over Yet, Stupid” that declared:²⁸

“Don't you understand, stupid, that when a girl of 18 springs blows herself up, this means that her cause is right, and that her people will be victorious sooner or later?”

In an interview on Egyptian satellite TV Iqraa, Dr. Sadeq further clarified:

“Our culture is one of sacrifice, loyalty and honor. … Bush was mistaken when he said that the girl was killing the future when she chose to kill herself. On the contrary: She died so that others would live. … When the martyr dies a martyr's death, he attains the height of bliss.... The message to Israel is that we will not cease. … It is very important to convey this message. … The child who threw a stone in 1993 today wraps himself in an explosive belt. … Either we will exist or we will not exist. Either the Israelis or the Palestinians - there is no third option.”²⁹

Some parents and social organizations do protest the barbaric use of children as warriors, although not necessarily criticizing suicide bombing as a tactic. Unfortunately, they are small voices in the wilderness.

Some Arab parents have condemned the use of children as combatants, but their voices are isolated and they carry the risk of being ostracized and vilified. In December 2000, a local group of Palestinian women trade unionists called on the Palestinian Authority to stop using children as cannon fodder: “We don’t want to send our sons to the front line, but they are being taken by the Palestinian Authority,” said a mother of six from the West Bank city of Tulkarem.³⁰ A nurse from Gaza who spoke out on television was condemned in the Arabic media as a traitor. Others reveal that they have been threatened by armed Fatah officials for discouraging their children from participating in clashes.³¹

While Palestinian leaders exhort the public into volunteering their children for suicide missions, they make sure their own children are not among the volunteers.

Many Palestinian leaders who tell parents that it is their patriotic duty to sacrifice their children³² have sent their own offspring abroad (as have other Palestinians with the financial means), while others keep their own children under close supervision to ensure their safety.
Past’s PA Chairman Yasser Arafat, for instance, sent his wife and young daughter to Paris, where they reportedly lived on a generous monthly PA allowance of $100,000, The Palestinians’ First Lady Suha endorsed suicide operations: “There would have been no greater honor” than watching her son take his own life for the Palestinian struggle for independence – if only she had a son, the Sorbonne graduate told a London-based Arabic paper.³³
In October 2000, a London-based Lebanese columnist, Hodo Husseini, condemned Palestinian leadership in the pan-Arab daily Al Sharq al-Awsat by asking: “What kind of enlightened independence will rise on the blood of the children, while the leaders [and] their [own] children and grandchildren are sheltered?” She and other critics were branded as “too Westernized to understand” in an editorial published in the PA’s state-controlled daily Al Hayat al-Jadida.
One of the most poignant protests against turning children into warriors came from Abu Saber, a bereaved father. He wrote to the London Arabic daily Al-Hayat about his eldest son who had been convinced to become a shahid, and how he learned that his dead son’s friends “were starting to wrap themselves like snakes around my other son, not yet 17, to direct him down the same path … to avenge his brother’s death.” He asked in anguish:³⁴

“By what right do these leaders send the young people, even young boys in the flower of their youth, to their deaths? Who gave them religious or any other legitimacy to tempt our children and urge them to their deaths?... Why until this very moment haven’t we seen one of the sons or daughters of any of these people don an explosive belt and go out to carry out in deed, not in words, what their fathers preach day and night?”

In his letter, Abu Saber cited by name sheikhs and leaders who had sent their sons abroad “the moment the Intifada broke out” – including the son of the past head of Hamas in Gaza – the late Dr. Abdul Al-Rantisi,³⁵ whose wife, he charged, “has refrained from sending her son Muhammad to blow himself up. Instead, she sent him to Iraq, to complete his studies there.”

International law prohibits using children to fight

Article 38 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (adopted in 1989) condemns the recruitment and involvement of children in hostilities and armed conflicts. In 2000, the UN General Assembly adopted a treaty that raises the age limit for compulsory recruitment and participation in combat to age 18. Article 36 of the same UN document calls on states to protect children against any kind of exploitation.³⁶
United Nations Under-Secretary-General Olara Otunni condemned terrorist groups’ use of children as human shields, gunmen and suicide bombers. At a UN Security Council debate on January 14, 2003 devoted to measures to protect children in armed conflict, he said:

“We have witnessed child victims at both ends of these acts: Children have been used as suicide bombers and children have been killed by suicide bombings. Nothing can justify this. I call on the Palestinian authorities to do everything within their powers to stop all participation by children in this conflict.”³⁷

The UN could do much more. Although the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (or UNRWA) funds nearly all PA-controlled schools in the West Bank and Gaza, UNRWA rejects criticism that it allows Palestinian pedagogues and educators to propagate hatred of Israel and identification with suicidal martyrdom, saying UNRWA has no mandate to set curricula or means to control terrorist activity within its camps.³⁸
When Arab children are killed or injured, it makes headlines in Western media reports. But rather than investigate who is behind the participation of children in armed confrontation, Western journalists tend to report what they see on the streets.
Moreover, the age-old news adage, “If it bleeds, it leads,” is all the more true when the victims are children. No matter what the circumstances, the sight of a wounded or dead child is heartrending.
Journalists in Palestinian areas also are subject to threats and intimidation, and their film is confiscated if they take what Palestinian leadership considers “unflattering” footage that “undermines” the PA’s message.³⁹ Aware that manipulation of children gives them a bad image abroad, Palestinian leaders have tried to hide their role in enticing children to endanger or kill themselves from Western cameras. The Palestinian Journalists Syndicate, a union of Arab journalists, forbids its news photographers from taking pictures of children who carry weapons or participate in activities sponsored by militant groups. Those who ignore the ban are threatened with disciplinary procedures.⁴⁰
In the meantime, the cynical manipulation of Palestinian children continues unchecked.

Palestinians are killing their children because they make effective delivery systems for killing Israelis. They also sacrifice them because wounded or dead children paint Israelis as heartless and cruel in the eyes of the world and the Israelis themselves

Five months into the first Intifada in 1988, a Palestinian leader told an Israeli reporter: “We will make you cruel.” He said the use of women and children on the front lines, leading violent riots, would make Israelis look bad in the eyes of the world and make the Israelis hate themselves because Israel is morally sensitive.
In the first Intifada, the strategy of sending children into battle worked on both fronts: it produced painful headlines and anguished Israelis, leading to negative coverage of Israel abroad, including articles by American Jews who worried that Israel was losing its soul. The feeling of having been ‘tainted’ was reflected in a letter sent by an Israeli medic in the reserves to MK Haim Oron, writing that while his unit’s behavior was devoid of any case where “soldiers or officers stepped out of bounds,” the unpleasant task of apprehending rock-throwing youth was unbearable. “But now the Palestinians hate me and I hate myself. So what the hell do I do?”⁴¹
While the mobilization of children on the front lines did not have the effect Palestinians ultimately sought – a unilateral Israeli withdrawal without peace – Palestinians did note the success the strategy had in demonizing Israel in the eyes of the world and the Israelis themselves. This so-called success encouraged Palestinians to enlarge the role of their children by using them as human shields, direct combatants and suicide bombers and by glorifying, rather than mourning, their deaths.

As long as the deaths of children serve the Palestinian cause, Palestinian leaders will continue to employ this strategy. If deploying Palestinian children as combatants and targeting Israeli children is to halt, the world community must take a clear moral stand.

The death of Arab children on the front lines – extolled as shahids or martyrs – has become a cynical weapon in the arsenal of Arab leaders. They have learned that when their children are killed, they gain world sympathy, especially in Europe and North America - where the death of any child is viewed as a tragedy and portrayed as such in the media, regardless of circumstance.
In January 1990, at the close of the second year of the first Intifada, an Israeli journalist wrote of the sacrifice of Palestinian children and what seems to fuel it:⁴²

“The numbers are horrendous. However these child victims of the Intifada are not targets. They are weapons. Few … in the West stop to ask – Who sends children to the front with coffins on their shoulders and potentially lethal projectiles in their hand? … The Intifada is unconventional warfare, using women and children as weapons, because it is a psychological war … [for] the hearts and minds of world opinion … to erode traditional support of Israel by the diaspora … to victimize Israelis by manipulating moral sensibilities inherent in Jewish ethics and Western society to undermine motivation and paralyze the Israeli body politic by systematic de-legitimization of our self-image … The only way to break this brutal and vicious circle and put an end to Palestinian moral-mental blackmail is to get to the source and recognize that the youthful victims and their elder victimizers hail from the same camp.”

Not much has changed since then except that the Palestinians’ exploitation of children has reached new heights. Their 1988 threat to Israel – “We will make you cruel” – hangs in the air. With sometimes 20 or more tips of planned terrorist attacks in their final stage of execution every day, Israelis are forced, against their will and against their humanitarian instincts, to take extreme measures to protect their own children from these onslaughts. Perversely, Israel is condemned for protecting herself from these lethal ‘children.’ To add insult to injury, the hapless victims are often not mentioned by name in the world press – not even in short obituaries - while the young perpetrators are the focus of compassionate coverage, with long, empathetic profiles like the one about the suicide bomber in The New York Times Sunday Magazine. It described the killer as a person who “raised doves and adored children.”⁴³
A 2002 Washington Post editorial headlined “Death Wish,” following a conference in which 57 Islamic nations rejected the idea that Palestinian ‘resistance’ to Israel had anything to do with terrorism, said:

“In effect, the Islamic conference sanctioned not only terrorism but also suicide as a legitimate political instrument.... It is hard to imagine any other grouping in the world’s nations that could reach such a self-destructive and morally repugnant conclusion.”⁴⁴

The Post castigated Muslim states and suggested their behavior was liable to be the seeds to their own destruction. It concluded:

“The Palestinian national cause will never recover – nor should it – until its leadership is willing to break definitely with the bombers.

IN A NUTSHELL

A criminal Palestinian Arab leadership, along with cowardly and intimidated Palestinian parents on the West Bank and Gaza, exploit their children to engage in armed conflict - in opposition to values held by the rest of the civilized world and in flagrant violation of international law and common decency.
There is no excuse – nor any widespread precedent among the wretched of the earth - for sacrificing the youth of any society for political gain and tactical advantage. If this is to stop, the culpability must be put squarely on the shoulders of Palestinian society and others who legitimize, support and ‘understand’ such child sacrifice.

¹ “Baby Bomber Photo ‘Just Fun,’” BBC, June 29, 2002, at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2075072.stm. (10421)
² The Times, London, March 15, 2002.
³ Reuven Koret, “Child Sacrifice, Palestinian Style,” Capitalism magazine”, November 13, 2002, at:
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=2110. (10422)
⁴ January 1988, shown in footage of a documentary on the radicalization of Palestinian youth, Israel Broadcasting Authority.
⁵ “Child Soldiers,” BBC World Service, at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/people/features/childrensrights/childrenofconflict/soldier.shtml. (10425).
⁶ See Professor Gerald Steinberg, “Palestinian Child Sacrifice,” October 25, 2000, at:
http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/isreport/septoct00/sacrifice.html. (10426).
⁷ USA Today, July 5, 2001.
⁸ See: http://www.operationsick.com. (11605)
⁹ See Kenneth R. Timmerman, “Palestinian TV glorification of ‘martyrdom’ on upswing,” Insight magazine, December 19, 2002.
¹⁰ See: http://www.operationsick.com. (11605)
¹¹ Jeremy Cooke, “School trains suicide bombers,” BBC, July 18, 2001, at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1446003.stm. (10430)
¹² Among those memorialized, Dalal Mughrabi, who took part in the killing of 36 Israelis and Gail Rubin, the niece of U.S. Senator Abraham Ribicoff in 1978. See:
http://www.zoa.org/pressrel/20030313b.htm, (10799) and Wafa Idriss – the first female suicide bomber, at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3395973.stm.(11606)
For sports tournaments, see:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2003/PA%20Soccer%20Tournament%20Named%20After%20Terrorists%20-%20Jan. (10595)
¹³ Alan Philips, “Lynch mob suspects held by Israelis,” Telegraph, June 26, 2001, at:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/06/26/wisr26.xml. (10596)
¹⁴ The preschooler was photographed in a Hamas kindergarten holding up her palms – dipped in red paint, in front of a model of the el-Aqsa mosque.
¹⁵ Al-Hayah Al Jadida, Palestinian Authority newspaper, November 9, 2000.
¹⁶ USA Today, December 8, 2000.
¹⁷Kenneth R. Timmerman, “Palestinian TV glorification of ‘martyrdom’ on upswing,” Insight magazine, December 19, 2002.
¹⁸ See “Indictment on Use of Ambulances for Terrorist Activities,” IDF Spokesperson, March 12, 2003 at:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2003/Indictment+on+Use+of+Ambulances+for+Terrorist+Acti.htm. (11590) Jeff Forster and Mike Taigman, “We have no choices: EMS in Israel,” Emergency Medical Services Magazine, January 16, 2003.
¹⁹ “Palestinian children's role in Jenin warfare,” IDF Spokesperson, November 25, 2002. See at:
http://www.kokhavivpublications.com/2002/israel/11/0211252319.html. (11607)
²⁰ Amos Harel, “Rescued abductee Eliyahu Gurel tells of his ordeal,” Haaretz, July 24, 2003, at:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=318838&sw=taxi. (10434)
²¹ Partially using modesty as a means of preventing detection of the perpetrators.
²² See: “Chronology of suicide bombings” at:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/isrl-pa/ISRAELPA1002-08.htm - P1295_378245. (10600)
²³ See “Exploitation of Children for Terrorist Purposes,” Israel Action Committee, January 14, 2003 at:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2003/1/The+Exploitation+of+Children+for+Terrorist+Purpose.htm.
²⁴ Ibid.
²⁵ For further details, see: http://www.jmcc.org/publicpoll/results/2002/no45.htm. (10437)
²⁶ Justus Weiner, “The Recruitment of Children in Current Palestinian Strategy,” Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, October 1, 2002. See:
http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief2-8.htm. (11609)
²⁷ Ibid.
²⁸ Special Dispatch #373 – Interview on Egyptian satellite TV, April 30, 2002, at:
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP37302. (10438)
²⁹ Ibid.
³⁰ USA Today, December 8, 2000. For a summary of the article see:
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=53&x_article=323. (11610)
³¹ Ibid.
³² For instance, Hafiz Barghouthi, editor of the PA daily Al Hayat al-Jadida, labeled those who refuse to endanger their children “traitors”; see David Schenker, “An Arab Debate on ‘Child Sacrifice,’” Jerusalem Post, November 15, 2000, at:
http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?docid=1P1:37853485&refid=SEO. (11611)
³³ See Michelle Malkin, “Sick: Kiddie Suicide Bomber Chic,” Capitalism magazine, April 17, 2002, at:
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=1539. (10030)
³⁴ Special Dispatch #426, MEMRI, October 8, 2002, at:
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP42602. (10439)
³⁵ Dr. Abd Al-Rantisi was killed April 17, 2004 after an Israeli helicopter gunship attacked his car.
³⁶ Convention on the Rights of the Child at:
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm. (11613)
³⁷ See, “Children and Armed Conflict” at:
http://157.150.184.6/OSRSGCAAC/East.cfm?CNT=174. (11612)
³⁸ “Setting the Record Straight,” UNRWA, at:
http://www.un.org/unrwa/allegations. (10440)
³⁹ For a radio documentary on the intimidation of Palestinian journalists, see the Australian Broadcasting Company transcript: Robert Bolton, “The State of the Media and Journalism in the Palestinian Territories,” February 4, 1999 at:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/mediarpt/mstories/mr990204.htm. (10441)
⁴⁰ “Palestinian Group Warns Journalists,” Associated Press, August 26, 2002. See:
http://www.geocities.co.jp/SiliconValley-Oakland/1295/jews/news0827child.html. (10442)
⁴¹ Quoted in Daniella Ashkenazy, “An answer to a soldier’s letter,” The Nation, January 30, 1989.
⁴² Daniella Ashkenazy, “Small-arms Warfare,” Jerusalem Post, January 31, 1990.
⁴³See Andrea Levin, “The Unbearable Urge to Sympathize,” CAMERA, February 22, 2002, at:
http://world.std.com/~camera/docs/oncamera/ocramin.html. (10443)
⁴⁴ “Death Wish,” Washington Post, April 4, 2002, at:
http://www.mefacts.com/cache/html/icj/11482.htm. (11482)

This document uses extensive links via the Internet. If you experience a broken link, please note the 5 digit number (xxxxx) at the end of the URL and use it as a Keyword in the Search Box at www.MEfacts.com

http://www.mythsandfacts.org/Conflict/9/childrendyingtokill1.htm

CANADA: True Patriot Love Foundation launches Highway of Heroes concert tour

Sunday, December 27, 2015

Pope Francis Calls Christmas A 'Charade' As The 'World Continues To Wage War'

Canada Military News: DIRTY EU/TURKEY AND UN- sell out refugees for $$$-even Turkey citizens wild/ God cries and humanity mourns- what happened to our world - O Canada

What Does a Humanitarian Double Standard Mean for Civilians?

ABOUT

Human Rights Act

What is it?

What's changing?

The case for change:

The case against:

Good Friday Agreement

Immunity from Attack

Afghan Amnesty Law a Setback for Peace

2009 Deadliest Year for Civilians in Afghanistan

Highlights

Countries

Topics

Key Operations

Regions

Geneva Conventions

Geneva Conventions

No comments:

Post a Comment