US backs Israeli ‘right to defend itself,’ UN chief condemns rockets

[azurnoir]

United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon Tuesday condemned the rocket attacks from Gaza and called on both sides of the conflict to halt aggressions.

Ban “reiterates his call on all actors to exercise maximum restraint and avoid further civilian casualties and overall destabilization,” his spokesman Stephane Dujarric said.

He added that Ban “condemns the recent multiple rocket attacks on Israel from Gaza” and that “these indiscriminate attacks on civilian areas must stop.”

http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-backs-israeli-right-to-defend-itself-un-chief-condemns-rockets/

[Scootaloo]

1. The usual palaver n/t

[MisterP]

2. nobody ever brings up Manchukuo's rights to self-defense, I notice

[Scootaloo]

3. Well, it's funny...

Legally, occupied people don't have the right to resist the occupation. They're expected to keep their heads low and go along ot get along until liberated by an outside force. This is why groups such as Hezbollah, the IRA, and other are legally terrorists instead of their self-applied "liberation movements" - it's not because of who they target (As we see occupiers target civilians all the fucking time) it's because of hte lack of legal standing.

of course, the legality or illegality of this has never once stopped such movements from happening, because, well, duh. This legal argument is one of the more obvious relics of the period when these laws of war were written - when sprawling western empires covered - occupied - much of the world. Can't let the natives go getting it in their heads they have the right to resist!

As an aside, if you think Palestine is a mess? Wait until the Dalai lama passes on - he is the only thing holding Tibetans back, I'm afraid. and when Tibet goes, so will Xianjiang.

For added puzzlement, watch for people cheering Tibet's revolt while condemning Xianjiang's

[azurnoir]

4. on the subject of Israel and Tibet - a blast from the past no flotillas mentioned :)

http://election.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x205255

[Scootaloo]

5. Fucking flotilla to Tibet

That will never stop being funny

[azurnoir]

6. well ya know as they say any port and all that stuff

[King_David]

7. Must be an inside joke,

Probably in such cases where nobody knows what it is, PMs are best.

[shira]

8. So do u support Hamas' right to shoot rockets (resist occupation)?

Here's what Richard Silverstein just wrote recently about Hamas.

Do you agree?

Let’s chalk up the gratuitous swipe at Hamas–since that movement appears more disciplined, and consistent than the settlers who dominate Israeli political discourse and their henchmen who murder little Palestinian boys–to Harel’s liberal Zionism. To his inability to acknowledge that Palestinian nationalism that aggressively resists Israeli Occupation is legitimate. That’s his problem, not Hamas’.

http://www.richardsilverstein.com/2014/07/07/israeli-police-plant-rumor-that-palestinian-murder-victim-was-gay-victim-of-honor-killing/

From last September, when we were discussing Mondoweiss support for Hamas "freedom fighters"…
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=46784

Do you object to that or agree?

[shira]

9. One more thing. Here's Richard Falk (UN Human Rights Rep. for Palestinians):

There is no doubt that Hamas’s reliance on rockets fired in the direction of Israeli civilian population centers are violations of international humanitarian law, and should be condemned as such, but even this condemnation is not without its problematic aspects. The Goldstone Report did condemn the reliance of these rockets in a typically decontextualized manner, that is, without reference to the unlawfulness of the occupation, including its pronounced reliance on collective punishment in the form of the blockade as well as arbitrary violent incursions, frequent military overflights, and a terrifying regime of subjugation that imparts on Palestinians a sense of total vulnerability and helplessness. The Goldstone Report also was silent as to the nature and extent of a Palestinian right of resistance. Such unconditional condemnations of Hamas as ‘a terrorist organization’ are unreasonably one-sided to the extent that Palestinian moral, political, and legal rights of resistance are ignored and Israel’s unlawful policies are not considered. This issue also reveals a serious deficiency in international humanitarian law, especially, as here, in the context of a prolonged occupation that includes many violations of the most fundamental and inalienable rights of an occupied people. The prerogatives of states are upheld, while those of peoples are overlooked or treated as non-existent.

It is also relevant to take note of the absence of alternative means available to the Palestinians to uphold their rights under international law and to challenge the abuses embedded in Israeli occupation policies. Israel with its drones, Apache helicopters, F-16 fighter aircraft, Iron Dome, and so forth enjoys the luxury of choosing its targets at will, but Palestinians have no such option. For them it is either using the primitive and indiscriminate weaponry at their disposal or essentially giving in to an intolerable status quo. To repeat, this does not make Hamas rockets lawful, but does it make such reliance wrong, given the overall context of violence that includes absolute impunity for Israeli violations of international criminal law? What are we to do with international law when it is invoked only to control the behavior of the weaker party?

It gives perspective to imagine the situation being reversed as it was during the Nazi occupation of France or the Netherlands during World War II. Resistance fighters were uniformly perceived in the liberal West as unconditional heroes, and no critical attention was given as to whether the tactics used unduly imperiled innocent civilian lives. Those who lost their lives in such a resistance were honored as martyrs. Mashaal and other Hamas leaders have made similar arguments on several occasions, in effect asking what Palestinians are supposed to do in the exercise of resistance given their circumstances, which have persisted for so long, given the failures of traditional diplomacy and the UN to secure their rights under international law.

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/12/13/hamas-khaled-mashaal-and-prospects-for-a-sustainable-israel-palestine-peace/0/

In other words, what Hamas does is illegal under International Law, but not illegitimate or wrong - but commendable.

It appears from your comment above, you agree.

Yes?

[Jefferson23]

10. Falk does not say that...YOUR interpretation is inflammatory.

No one has to be supportive of Hamas to be able to comprehend the context in which he is saying that Hamas
has asked these questions:

Those who lost their lives in such a resistance were honored as martyrs. Mashaal and other Hamas leaders have made similar arguments on several occasions, in effect asking what Palestinians are supposed to do in the exercise of resistance given their circumstances, which have persisted for so long, given the failures of traditional diplomacy and the UN to secure their rights under international law.

[shira]

11. Falk argued clearly that what Hamas does is illegal, but not necessarily wrong.

He compares Hamas attempts to kill Jews to French resistance attempts against the Nazis. So Jewish civilian targets of Hamas are Nazis and Hamas is doing all they can do as "freedom fighters".

He is certainly NOT condemning Hamas terror. He is giving justification for it.

Seems you agree with Falk, correct?

[Jefferson23]

13. Bullshit, but do carry on. n/t

[shira]

16. What Falk wrote is reprehensible, agreed? n/t

[Jefferson23]

18. Carry on, shira. n/t

[shira]

20. So you condone what he wrote. Is that correct? n/t

[Jefferson23]

21. I already gave you my answer, you can read it again if you like or you can continue to

conspire/conflate to meet your own ends. I don't much care.

[shira]

22. Falk justified Hamas terror b/c that's presumably all they're capable....

...of doing, given the circumstances (the context Falk writes about). They have no other real options.

How am I wrong?

[Jefferson23]

23. Because it is what you want to believe. Justification and understanding of positions and actions

are two different things.

I will remind you that Israel's government rejects every group, every nation who is critical of their policies
toward the Palestinians..which have included the Obama administration.

They don't want to hear it from anyone.

[shira]

24. Oh, he just "understands" why they terrorize civilians. But he wrote....

To repeat, this does not make Hamas rockets lawful, but does it make such reliance wrong, given the overall context of violence that includes absolute impunity for Israeli violations of international criminal law?

Are the rockets "wrong"?

Falk says they're illegal, but argues they're not necessarily wrong. Why else would he ask if he thought they were wrong? He could have said they're not only illegal but wrong, indefensible... He didn't do that b/c they're not "wrong" to him.

He believes in the Palestinian right to resist and that's why he brought up French resistance vs. Nazis.

And here you are defending this shit.

[Jefferson23]

25. What did I say earlier, conflate/conspire to what I said...carry on, shira.

Enjoy!

[shira]

26. IOW, you realize Falk's words are indefensible....

...but rather than condemn his vile views you'd rather condone what he said and deflect attention away from his despicable views by attacking the messenger.

Yeah, I get it. It's your M.O.

You should realize when you cry foul against Israel for violating International Law & human rights...that you have no leg to stand on given that you support the substance of what Falk wrote.

And it's clear Falk justifies illegal & morally indefensible human rights violations and war crimes against innocents, just as Silverstein admitted. I asked you to explain the difference b/w Silverstein's support of Hamas rockets vs. Falk & it's quite obvious by your non-reply that there isn't a damned bit of difference.

[shira]

12. #2. Do u agree with Richard Silverstein, quoted in #8 above? Yes or No? n/t

[Jefferson23]

14. And you care what Silverstein says because why? He has any degree of power on ending

the occupation? He sounds like an asshole..your point being, I'm still waiting for one.

[shira]

15. I ask b/c he's basically saying the same thing as Falk.

So you disagree with Silverstein's statement?

[Jefferson23]

17. No, he is not..Silverstein is a non player. Why you waste time on assholes like this is beyond me.

[shira]

19. What's the difference b/w Silverstein & Falk's statements?

And you still haven't answered whether you agree or disagree with Silverstein's statement.

What's difficult about a yes or no?

[shira]

32. Forget Silverstein then. Do u agree with Larry Derfner?

Here's Derfner:

I wrote that because of the occupation, Palestinians are “justified” in attacking, even killing Israelis, that they have the “right” to do so.

http://mondoweiss.net/2011/08/read-the-post-for-which-derfner-was-fired-the-awful-necessary-truth-about-palestinian-terror.html

Agree or Not?

[King_David]

27. Falk is truly a proven Jew Hating Bigot

Absolutely NOTHING the man says could be taken seriously by anyone except extremists and Jew Hating bigots.

[Jefferson23]

28. It would not matter, Israel's leadership listens to NO ONE, regardless.

And I do mean no one.

[shira]

29. It should matter to human rights supporters & anti-racists. n/t

[Jefferson23]

30. You feel he is a bigot, you also do not accept HRW and a host of others that

report Israel's crimes against the Palestinians...same as Netanyahu's opinion.

[shira]

31. No, Falk is a bigot. Full stop. That's not an opinion, it's fact. n/t

[shira]

33. Larry Derfner of +972 argued Hamas is justified & has a right…..

…to shoot rockets at Israeli civilians. Richard Silverstein just argued the same thing. Mondoweiss and ElectronicIntifada agree, along with Omar Barghouti of BDS. The list of antizionists who agree that Hamas has a right to shoot rockets at civilians is long.

Do you agree or disagree?