Was what Israel did in Gaza a War?

Israel keeps referring to its military actions in Gaza as "War."

But was it, is it, really a war?

Gaza is an occupied territory since 1967, according to United Nations and International Court of Justice rulings. Israel disengagement does not change this status, because Israel continued to exercise control over Gaza's borders, water, electricity, fuel, food and medical supplies, air and sea access.

Now, under international law, with its status as an occupied territory, Israel bears responsibility of guarding and protecting the well-being of the population in Gaza. Even in conflicts with armed groups, such as Hamas, Israeli's military must follow strict rules in combating such armed groups. 

Israel has the right to use "policing" methods with targeted arrests, riot control, and so on.

Now, let's imagine a situation, where a terrorist organization has taken hostages in New York, went inside a bank with many customers inside.

Will NYPD bomb the bank in order to neutralize the terrorist group?

The answer is obvious.

The use of heavy military force in crowded, occupied areas, including apartment buildings, schools, hospitals, universities, bakeries, malls, marketplaces, and so on, is unthinkable, so why did Israel think it?

Then why have Western leaders and media kept telling us, Hamas uses children as human shields and therefore, Israel has the right to bomb schools even if it meant killing over 20,000 children?

In fact, the President of the UN General Assembly, while still a minister in the German government, effectively implied that Israel has the right to kill civilians:

Link: https://youtube.com/shorts/QsJPSgbcyeQ?si=53j6iJEhEspDbSu9

But in the same video, Craig Mokhiber , a human rights lawyer and former UN official, explains that:

• Israel doesn't have the right to defend itself in territories it occupies.
• The "Hamas uses civilians as human shields" argument does not mean Israel has a carte blanche to murder these civilians.

Here is how legal experts and the laws of war view these ideas:

Israel's Right to Use Force

Policing vs. War: International bodies, such as the Human Rights Watch, explain that when a state controls an occupied territory, its security forces are generally expected to use policing methods—such as targeted arrests or riot control—to maintain order without harming civilians and the population. 

The Rules of Combat

Even when a state is legally allowed to fight an armed group, it cannot simply use any weapon. The laws of war demand two main things:

• Proportionality: An army cannot use extreme force if the military advantage is small and the damage to civilians is huge.
• Distinction: Forces must separate civilians from fighters. Dropping large bombs or missiles in heavily populated areas makes it almost impossible to protect normal people. 

The Rules of Occupation

The Occupier's Duty: The International Court of Justice outlines that because Israel has long controlled Gaza's borders, airspace, and resources, it is legally an "occupying power".

Protection: This means Israel is legally required to protect the basic needs, safety, and health of the people living there, rather than treating them as enemy combatants in a standard war. 

Did Israel protect the health of Gazans?

In light of:

• Bombing apartment buildings
• Bombing hospitals, bakeries, schools, ...
• Cutting water, food, fuel, electricity
• Killing healthcare workers and first responders
• Blowing up water treatment and desalination plants

It seems that Israel was intent on destruction of the health of the population.

In fact, many Israeli ministers, media pundits and opinion leaders said that Israel would make Gaza unlivable as to "encourage" Gazans to opt for "voluntary migration."

Perhaps, this explains the large number of casualty specially among women and children.

What Does Israel Want?

Over decades, as Israel swallowed more and more Palestinian land and erected hundreds of

illegal settlements

on occupied Palestinian territories, it made a Palestinian state unviable, nullifying the two-state solution.

Israel wants many things which cannot happen simultaneously. Israeli actions and behavior seem irrational, contradictory, and self-defeating.

Netanyahu comes out and says

he doesn’t accept a two-state solution. But if a two-state solution is unacceptable, the only solution left is a one-state solution, from the river to the sea, which is the de facto situation on the ground. But this means the end of Israel as a Jewish State, simply because there is an equal number of Palestinians and Israelis between the river and the sea, and we haven’t even

counted the millions

of Palestinian refugees in diaspora, who according to International Law, enjoy the

right of return, as per UN resolution 194.

Read more:

https://x.com/WaelNawara/status/1784815162681090536 

Global Debt Crisis: 

Can a Collective Currency Devaluation Do the Trick?

First Published on HuffPost, Sep 2, 2011, 10:34 AM EDT

Some brave economists have made it clear that we need a new International Monetary System, a "New Bretton Woods" sort of agreement in order to solve things in the long term. But still, what do we do with the existing debt crisis?

By 

Wael Nawara, Contributor

Writer

Updated Nov 2, 2011

Every country in the world, except for perhaps a handful, severely suffers from a growing debt crisis. Collectively, this is crippling the world economy and threatening the world with global instability following an imminent collapse of the international financial and economic systems. But if virtually all countries are in debt, who is lending? In fact, since almost all countries, or states, are in debt, that might be the solution to the problem.

Some brave economists and even politicians such as Brown and Sarkozy have made it clear that we need a new International Monetary System, a "New Bretton Woods" sort of agreement. That would probably solve things in the long-term. But still, what do we do with the existing debt crisis?

Let us assume that a country like the United States, with GDP of about $14 Trillion and a Public Debt roughly the same amount, "creates" or "prints" 12.5 percent of that amount annually for the next eight years, as to totally pay off its public debt problem. This generates some "fake" $1.75 Trillion a year, slightly more than the current US annual budget deficit. Usually, printing money this way would lead to significant inflation, U.S. consumer suffering and a severe devaluation of the American currency in addition to dissipation of the investors' trust into U.S. currency and economy, things which could probably spark off a global financial meltdown. But what if every other country agreed to more or less do the same process, and that newly created money does not find its way into the money markets in terms of additional liquidity or government spending, but instead is solely used to pay off the staggering debts?

The result may be that all major currencies would be devalued, but because they are all devalued, their relative value or exchange rate will be more or less the same, give or take a few points. If you think about it from a collective perspective, this idea may not be as crazy as it sounds at first.

So, if the G20 States, which together make up a sizeable portion of the global economy, and also where most of debtors and creditors come from; lending and borrowing institutions exist, signed up to such an arrangement within a larger effort to reinvent the international monetary and financial systems, followed by the rest of the world's states approving and repeating the same arrangement, could that solve the problem? Would that work as a global debt relief for everybody? A giant Paris Club to relieve the entire world from a deadly debt problem?

Of course the global economic and financial systems need to be totally redesigned. Yes, governments should stop spending beyond their means creating these monumental deficits. Yes, we need to shrink the speculative portion and reduce reliance on instruments creating virtual money, things which are poisoning existing systems.

We eventually have to even create a new accounting currency, be it ICU (International Currency Unit, or simply ECO), Bancor or SDR, which will work as an international bench mark currency to reduce the risks of relying on any one currency for reserves. But for now, the debt crisis seems urgently threatening yet highly ridiculous. After all, when everyone stands on their tiptoes, no one will ever seem taller.

Link: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/collective-currency-devaluation_b_926476

لن تستطيع أن تخدع الأرض

  لقد خدعتَ مَنْ خدعت

ولكن صدقني
مهما فعلتَ
فلن تستطيع أن تخدعَ الأرض

من ديوان "البحث عن الصبي - صور من ألبوم الأسرة" - 2009

It's not just Israeli Policies in OPT that are Illegal - its very Presence in OPT is Illegal and MUST Immediately END

Many Western Media outlets came out with the headlines:

ICJ rules that Israeli Policies in OPT are Illegal!

But that is an odd reading of the ruling - which summary the Chief Justice read for over an hour.

It is not just the policies that are illegal!

Any action Israel takes or fails to take in Occupied Palestinian Territory is illegal because its very presence in these territories is illegal. It is a "wrongful act".

Its occupation is illegal.

Annexation is illegal.

Apartheid and segregation are illegal.

Its Wall is illegal.

Detaining Palestinians (let alone torture, abuse and rape) is illegal.

Home demolitions are illegal. 

Land confiscation is illegal.

Settlements are illegal.

"Outposts" are illegal.

Stealing water and other resources is illegal.

Putting Palestinians under siege is illegal.

Preventing Palestinians from exercising self-determination is illegal.

Preventing Palestinians from freely moving is illegal.

etc. etc. etc.

The ICJ has just reiterated the position of UNSC, UNGA and virtually every country on earth - that its entire presence in Occupied Palestinian Territory is and always has been (for 57 years) illegal and must rapidly end.

The only legal actions Israel can take are to:

• End its occupation.
• Evacuate its illegal settlements.
• Make reparations.
• Apologize to the tens of millions affected.

Now, we come to downplaying the ruling as an "advisory" and non-binding!

The ruling is advisory because the UNGA asked the ICJ for advice!

It was not a case raised by one State against another.

The UNGA asked the ICJ certain questions and the ICJ answered these questions.

Is the ruling - or answers - binding?

The ICJ ruling reads itself (Pages 73-75)- and says that:

• Continued Israeli presence in the OPT is a wrongful act.
• Israel is under obligation to:
• end these unlawful acts, 
• cease all settlement activity
• repeal all discriminatory legislations and attempts to modify the demographic composition of any parts of the territory.
• provide reparations and compensation for damage caused by these wrongful acts
• return the land and all physical and cultural property 
• Other states: All States are under obligation (not some optional discretion) to:
• not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by Israel’s
• illegal presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
• must cooperate with the UNGA and UNSC to take the appropriate measures to end the occupation.
• must not enter into investments, treaties or economic deals with Israel that relate to the OPT
• must not recognize Israeli presence in OPT as legal
• must ensure compliance by Israel with IHL

So, from an International Law point of view, States are must adopt positions which are congruent with their obligations under the multiple international treaties and UNSC resolutions related to this matter.

Source:

https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/186/186-20240719-adv-01-00-en.pdf 

Ruling:

Also watch Dr. Ralph Wilde:

Missing a Highway Exit

Sometimes, the desired change is just not possible or available as an option.

It's like missing a highway exit.

Or like being on the wrong train.

Your desired destination is just not on the menu.

What's the next stop?

The Value of being Capable of Doing the Unthinkable

Is Peterson Admiring the Ability to Commit Genocide?

Jordan Peterson tells Israeli Jews that the fate of the world depends on the decisions they make, then he starts crying, as usual. pic.twitter.com/RoIPwF5qn1

— Jayda Fransen (@JaydaBF) July 10, 2024

 "You attract the world because of what you are capable of doing."

Interesting things to say. 

"Capable of doing."

Does Peterson see a special value in a state that is still, in this day and age, capable of committing genocide? 

He often criticizes liberals for what he perceives as weakness caused by “postmodern neo-Marxism” and argues that it undermines traditional values and hierarchies that he believes are essential for a stable society to effectively respond to evolutionary challenges successfully. 

So, is he actually promoting genocide to "get rid of the weak and eradicate victimhood"?

Isn't this an extension of the eugenics?

But even to his point, Palestinians, by their very mere survival despite the collusion and persistent efforts to ethnically cleanse them, deny their existence, change the names of their country, towns and villages, etc., despite all of these efforts by the world's most powerful, ruthless and resource-rich empires throughout the past 100 years, Palestinians prove that they are anything but weak.

In this war alone, Israel has carpet-bombed the Palestinians with intensity that had never before been seen - even in World War II ...

Using more ammunition than what was used in some of the biggest battles of history, those where the warfront stretched over continents ...

Israel used more bombs to destroy a 365 sq. km area, receiving endless supplies and hundreds of billions in funding from governments and private donations, while facing an enemy that has been under siege for 20 years, or 76 years - depending how you look at things. 

Yet, Israel has failed to achieve any of its stated goals.

But Peterson thinks, hopes or at least preaches - that a Shining City on a Hill will ultimately manage to "finish the job" and that "the fate of the world depends on the people of Israel" ... "this tiny people in no man's land" . He actually said "no man's land"!

For a while I thought he was just using reason. But then he said "You show the world what the "holy city" should look like" and teared up. He choked on his tears. This is not coming from philosophy, logical reasoning or Darwinian social evolution. This is coming from something much more emotionally poweful. It is faith. And when faith and genocide intersect we must suspect messianic beliefs.

Now I am starting to realize how these messianic beliefs actually mess up your reasoning and kill your humanity. One becomes just an extension to the virus or meme which is trying to propagate Armageddon.