Did Israel Commit Genocide in Gaza?

9 Oct

[Prefatory Note: the post below is a somewhat revised version of a text published by The Nation, and to be found at the following link. I should also point out that in these proceedings in Brussels under the auspices of the Russell Tribunal I served as a member of the jury]

 

 

In a special session of the Russell Tribunal held in Brussels on September 24th, Israel’s military operation Protective Edge was critically scrutinized from the perspective of international law, including the core allegation of genocide. The process featured a series of testimonies by legal and weapons experts, health workers, journalists and others most of whom had experienced the 50 days of military assault.

 

A jury composed of prominent individuals from around the world, known for their moral engagement with issues of the day that concerned their societies, and also the wellbeing of humanity, assessed the evidence with the help of an expert legal team of volunteers that helped with the preparation of the findings and analysis for consideration by the jury, which deliberated and debated all relevant issues of fact and law, above all the question of how to respond to the charge of genocide.

 

 

It should be acknowledged that this undertaking was never intended to be a neutral inquiry without any predispositions. It was brought into being because of the enormity of the devastation caused by Protective Edge and the spectacle of horror associated with deploying a high technology weaponry to attack a vulnerable civilian population of Gaza locked into the combat zone that left no place to hide. It also responded to the failures of the international community to do more to stop the carnage, and condemn Israel’s disproportionate uses of force against this essentially helpless and beleaguered civilian population. Israel’s contested military operations targeted many legally forbidden targets, including UN buildings used as shelters, residential neighborhoods, hospitals and clinics, and mosques. In defense of these tactics, Israel claimed that rockets and ammunition were stored in these buildings and that Hamas rocket launchers were deliberately placed in the structures that had been singled out for attack. The evidence presented did not confirm these Israeli claims.

 

Although the Russell Tribunal proceeded from the presumed sense that Israel was responsible for severe wrongdoing, it made every effort to be scrupulous in the presentation of evidence and the interpretation of applicable international law, and relied on testimony from individuals with established reputations as persons of integrity and conscience. Among the highlights of the testimony were a report on damage to hospitals and clinics given by Dr. Mads Gilbert, a Norwegian doctor serving in a Gaza hospital during the attacks, Mohammed Omer, a widely respected  journalist who daily reported from the combat zone, Max Blumenthal, the prize winning journalist who was in Gaza throughout Protective Edge and analyzed for the jury the overall political design that appeared to explain the civilian targeting patterns, and David Sheen, who reported in agonizing detail on the racist hatred exhibited by prominent Israelis during the period of combat, widely echoed by Israelis in the social media, and never repudiated by the leadership or public in Tel Aviv.

 

The jury had little difficulty concluding that the pattern of attack, as well as the targeting, amounted to a series of war crimes that were aggravated by the commission of crimes against humanity, most centrally the imposition of a multi-faceted regime of collective punishment upon the entire civilian population of Gaza in flagrant and sustained violation of Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. A further notable legal finding was the rejection of the central Israel claim of acting in self-defense against rocket attacks directed at Israel.

 

There were several reasons given for reaching this conclusion: the claim of self-defense does not exist in relation to resistance mounted by an occupied people, and Gaza from the perspective of international law remains occupied due to Israeli persisting effective control despite Israel’s purported disengagement in 2005 (more properly characterized as a military redployment); the rockets fired from Gaza were partly at least in response to prior Israeli unlawful provocations, including the mass detention of several hundred persons loosely associated with Hamas in the West Bank and incitement to violence against Palestinians as revenge for the murder of the three kidnapped Israeli settler children; and finally, the minimal damage done by the rockets, seven civilian deaths over the entire period, is too small a security threat to qualify as “an armed attack” as is required by the UN Charter to uphold a claim of self-defense. At the same time, despite these mitigating factors, the jury did not doubt the unlawfulness of firing of numerous rockets into Israel that were incapable of distinguishing between military and civilian targets. This form of unlawful resistance was attributed to both Hamas and independent Palestinian militias operating within the Gaza Strip.

 

A focus of concern in the jury deliberations before and after the proceedings themselves was how to address the allegation of ‘genocide,’ which has been described as ‘the crimes of crimes.’ The jury was sensitive to the differences between the journalistic and political uses of the word ‘genocide’ to describe various forms of collective violence directed at ethnic and religious minorities, and the more demanding legal definition of genocide that requires compelling and unambiguous evidence of a specific ‘intent to destroy’.

 

The testimony made this issue complex and sensitive. It produced a consensus on the jury that the evidence of genocide was sufficient to make it appropriate and responsible to give careful consideration as to whether the crime of genocide had actually been committed by Israel in the course of carrying out Protective Edge. This was itself an acknowledgement that there was a genocidal atmosphere in Israel in which high officials made statements supporting the destruction, elimination, and subjugation of Gazans as a people, and such inflammatory assertions were at no time repudiated by the Netanyahu leadership or subject to criminal investigation, let alone any legal proceedings. Furthermore, the sustained bombardment of Gaza under circumstances where the population had no opportunity to leave or to seek sanctuary within the Gaza Strip lent further credibility to the charge of genocide. The fact that Protective Edge was the third large-scale, sustained military assault on this unlawfully blockaded, impoverished, and endangered population, also formed part of the larger genocidal context.

 

Further in the background, yet perhaps most relevant consideration of all, Israel failed to exhaust diplomatic remedies before its recourse to force, as required by international law and the UN Charter. Israel had the option of lifting the blockade and exploring the prospects for long-term arrangements for peaceful co-existence that Hamas had proposed numerous times in recent years. Such initiatives were spurned by Israel on the ground that it would not

deal with a terrorist organization.

 

Despite the incriminating weight of these factors, there were legal doubts as to the crime of genocide. The political and military leaders of Israel never explicitly endorsed the pursuit of genocidal goals, and purported to seek a ceasefire during the military campaign. There was absent a clear official expression of intent to commit genocide as distinct from the intensification of the regime of collective punishment that was convincingly documented. The presence of genocidal behavior and language even if used in government circles is not by itself sufficient to conclude that Protective Edge, despite its scale and fury, amounted to the commission of the crime of genocide.

 

What the jury did agree upon, however, was that Israeli citizens, including officials, appear to have been guilty in several instances of the separate crime of Incitement to Genocide that is specified in Article 3(c) of the Genocide Convention. It also agreed that the additional duty of Israel and others, especially the United States and Europe, to act to prevent genocide was definitely engaged by Israeli behavior. In this regard the Tribunal is sending an urgent message of warning to Israel and an appeal to the UN and the international community to uphold the Genocide Convention, and act to prevent any further behavior by Israel that would cross the line, and satisfy the difficult burden of proof that must be met if the conclusion is to be reached that the crime of genocide is being committed. At some point, the accumulation of genocidal acts will be reasonably understood as satisfying the high evidentiary bar that must be reached so as to conclude that Israel had committed genocide.

 

Many will react to this assessment of Protective Edge as lacking legal authority and dismiss the finding of the jury as merely recording the predictable views of a biased ‘kangaroo court.’ Such allegations have been directed at the Russell Tribunal ever since its establishment in the mid-1960s by the great English philosopher, Bertrand Russell, in the midst of the Vietnam War. These first sessions of the Russell Tribunal similarly assessed charges of war crimes associated with U.S. tactics in Vietnam, and in Russell’s words, represented a stand of citizens of conscience ‘against the crime of silence.’ This latest venture of the tribunal has a similar mission in relation to Israel’s actions in Gaza, although less against silence than the crime of indifference.

 

It is my view that such tribunals, created almost always in exceptional circumstances of defiance of the most elemental constraints of international law, make crucial contributions to public awareness in situations of moral and legal outrage where geopolitical realities preclude established institutional procedures such as recourse to the International Criminal Court and the UN Security Council and General Assembly. That is, these kind of self-constituted tribunals only come into being when two conditions exist: first, a circumstance of extreme and sustained violation of fundamental norms of morality and international law and secondly, a political setting in which governmental procedures and UN procedures are inoperative.

 

When the interests of the West are at stake, as in the Ukraine, there is no need to activate unofficial international law initiatives through the agency of civil society. However in circumstances involving Israel and Palestine, with the United States Government and most of Western Europe standing fully behind whatever Israel chooses to do, the need for a legal and moral accounting is particularly compelling even if the prospects for accountability are virtually nil. The long suffering people of Gaza have endured three criminal assaults in the past six years, and it has left virtually the whole of the population, especially young children, traumatized by the experience of such sustained military operations.

 

It should be acknowledged that the UN Human Rights Council has appointed a Commission of Inquiry to investigate allegations of war crimes associated with Protective Edge, but its report is not due for several months, Israel has indicated its unwillingness to cooperate with this official UN initiative, and it is almost certain that any findings of criminality and related recommendations will not be implemented due to the exercise of a geopolitical veto by the United States, and perhaps, other members of the Security Council. In view of these circumstances, the argument for convening the Russell Tribunal remains strong, especially if one recalls the fate of the Goldstone Report prepared in analogous conditions after the 2008-09 Israeli attacks on Gaza known as Operation Cast Lead.

 

The Russell Tribunal is filling a normative vacuum in the world. It does not pretend to be a court. In fact, among its recommendations is a call on the Palestinian Authority to join the International Criminal Court, and present Palestinian grievances to the authorities in The Hague for their investigation and possible indictments. Even then the realities of the world are such that prosecution will be impossible as Israel is not a party to the treaty establishing the ICC and would certainly refuse to honor any arrest warrants issued in The Hague, and no trial could be held without the physical presence of those accused. The value of an ICC proceeding would be symbolic and psychological, which in a legitimacy war would amount to a major ‘battlefield’ victory. It is notable that Hamas has joined in urging recourse to the ICC despite facing the distinct possibility that allegations against its launch of rockets would also be investigated and its officials indicted for its alleged war crimes.

 

As with the Nuremberg Judgment that documented the criminality of the Nazi experience, the process was flawed, especially by the exclusion of any consideration of the crimes committed by the victors in World War II, the Russell Tribunal can be criticized as one-sided in its undertaking. At the same time it seems virtually certain that on balance this assessment of Israel’s behavior toward the people of Gaza will be viewed as supportive of the long struggle to make the rule of law applicable to the strong as well as the weak. It is also reflective in the disparity of responsibility for the harm done by the two sides.

 

I recall some illuminating words of Edward Said uttered in the course of an interview with Bruce Robbins, published in Social Text (1998): “The major task of the American or the Palestinian or the Israeli intellectual of the left is to reveal the disparity between the so-called two sides, which appear to be rhetorically and ideologically to be in perfect balance, but are not in fact. To reveal that there is an oppressed and an oppressor, a victim and a victimizer, and unless we recognize that, we’re nowhere.”

 

47 Responses to “Did Israel Commit Genocide in Gaza?”

  1. Winslie Gomez October 9, 2014 at 2:25 am #

    Reblogged this on HAPLOGROUP – bit that makes us human..

  2. Gene Schulman October 9, 2014 at 2:31 am #

    Richard,
    Just by chance I was actually reading Jonathon Cook’s article reporting on the Russell Tribunal as your post popped up. A significant coincidence.

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article39905.htm

  3. ans jansen October 9, 2014 at 2:39 am #

    BREAKING NEWS: DUTCH MP GEERT WILDERS WILL BE PROSECUTED FOR DISCRIMINATION!!!! GREAT NEWS!

    • Kata Fisher October 10, 2014 at 6:40 am #

      I have a reflection:

      UN/UN-members is a racist and is discriminating gathering, as well, and for that reason Africa is made bare by them for generations.

      Would it be also and generations to come?

      Is Europe and Middle East racist along with US, and Russia against Africa? How bad?

      In addition to that, a genetically modified food that is illegal for them as ‘nations’ is allowed for Africa’s food supply: rice.

      Why is that?

      Why cant water supply problems for Africa be solved?

      Why African governments in UN allow that for poor in Africa? Why other half-decent government members do not actively correct this? No funds? Why not?

      If the nations would destroy their racism and discrimination’s in their midst, there would be no Nuclear conflict in their midst. It would be possible to achieve a decent world order without nuclear waste in the world. It would be not a perfect world order, but it would be humanly decent one–a start of equilibrium.

      Church disorders (charismatic in nature) have brought on chaos in the world. Not to mention Blaspheming of God’s Spirit by Islamic people — there is no need to even go into details about that. I am not willing to say anything else about that.

  4. david singer October 9, 2014 at 4:35 am #

    Professor Falk

    Could you please advise whether there have been any hearings instituted by the Russell Tribunal in relation to the conflict that has been raging in Syria for the last three and a half years?

    • Gene Schulman October 9, 2014 at 4:47 am #

      David, the Syrian conflict doesn’t need a tribunal. That one should go directly to the ICC for a Nuremberg-type trial, with the US and Israel in the box of the accused.

      • david singer October 9, 2014 at 8:02 pm #

        Gene

        Thanks for clarifying the reasons Russell Tribunal has shown no interest in Syria for the last three and a half years.

        Care to explain why Israel should be in the box of the accused?

        Why have you omitted to mention and include Russia,Iran,Hezbollah and the other 10 countries making up the London 11 – not to mention the terrorist groups running free in Syria?

      • Gene Schulman October 10, 2014 at 12:57 am #

        David,

        Israel should be found in the box of the accused because it is complicit with the US in instigating the insurgence in Syria.

        Why should I have mentioned Russia, Iran, et al? They may be supporters of the Syrian government and Assad, but do not play a role in the insurgence under discussion.

      • Kata Fisher October 9, 2014 at 8:11 pm #

        David,

        I have another reflection:

        Middle East has to be sanctioned as nuclear waste has to be made secure, as soon as possible. Everything has to be gone. Asia has to be nuclear free zone, Simultaneous with US and Europe. US needs to do security-check-of their realities – go and tell the Rabbi this:
        “Who has allowed nuclear science into the world?”

    • Richard Falk October 9, 2014 at 5:34 am #

      Mr. Singer

      In addition to the availability of established procedures as Gene points out, there is an argument that diplomacy remains the best way to solve
      the Syrian civil war, and that it would be obstructed by seeking at this stage to institute criminal proceedings. The Russell Tribunal is only
      appropriate as I point out in the face of two circumstances both present in relation to protective edge: widespread sense of moral outrage linked
      to the perception of fundamental violations of international law causing major civilian suffering; a geopolitical veto blocking any use of inter-
      governmental procedures or effective recourse to the UN. The experience of the Goldstone Report is instructive, suggesting that the geopolitical veto
      is not effective in relation to fact-finding, but is available to prevent implementation of policy recommendations.

      • david singer October 9, 2014 at 8:16 pm #

        Professor Falk

        Re the failure of the Russell Tribunal to hold sittings on Syria:

        1. Isn’t there a widespread sense of moral outrage linked to the perception of fundamental violations of international law causing major civilian suffering – as eloquently stated by the UN Security Council in Resolution 1270:
        ” Expressing its gravest concern that territory in parts of Iraq and Syria is under the control of Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and Al Nusrah Front (ANF) and about the negative impact of their presence, violent extremist ideology and actions on stability in Iraq, Syria and the region, including the devastating humanitarian impact on the civilian populations which has led to the displacement
        of millions of people, and about their acts of violence that foment sectarian tensions,”?

        2. Isn’t there a geopolitical veto being exercised by Russia blocking any use of inter-governmental procedures or effective recourse to the UN?

        The Russell Tribunal stands condemned for its lack of action on Syria.

      • Richard Falk October 10, 2014 at 1:08 am #

        Mr. Singer:

        I find your reasoning strained to the point of absurdity. Surely to argue that allegations of Syrian war crimes should be
        investigated is not an argument of any merit in relation to an assessment of Israel’s attack on Gaza. You seem to forget
        that Israel is supposed to be protecting the civilian population of Gaza as it continues to be viewed internationally as
        the occupying power. Russia has a SC veto, but not the sort of geopolitical veto that the US uses on behalf of Israel. To
        second-guess the Russell Tribunal as to its choice of issues is your prerogative, of course, but it seems designed to deflect
        attention from the carefully considered questions of Israel’s criminality in launching such an attack that caused such devastation
        and suffering, and probably has left the realities of security unchanged.

  5. wingsprd October 9, 2014 at 5:00 am #

    I have before me a report of the Goldstone report 21st September, 2009. We know how Goldstone backed off, and much has happened since, yet reading this shows similar destruction, carnage in this latest ‘protective edge’. ‘The bombardments of infrastructure and appalling massacres inflicted on Palestinians were deliberate, on a scale amounting to crimes against humanity. It concluded that they were grave violations of international law’.
    Until non aligned people constitute some sort of justice council in the United Nations, Israel will not be held accountable. Looking back at Edward Said’s historical analysis in “orientalism”, it has been clear since Herzl that the aim has been land. Herzl’s diary: ‘the mass of poor natives must be expropriated discreetly,…even greater plans for displacing the native population than those for taking over Africa”. Why does the world ignore such a travesty of justice, surely in 21C. we can forge a United Nations that is nonpartisan? For a comprehensive account of Israel’s behaviour since 1948 and before, see ‘If Hamas did not exist’ by Jennifer Lowenstein. Counter Currents 2 January 2009. amadea311@earthlink.net. Also will a philosopher please tell me what is the difference between ethnic cleansing and genocide?

    • Gene Schulman October 9, 2014 at 5:25 am #

      wingsprd, I’m not a philosopher, but it doesn’t take one to explain the difference between ethnic cleansing and genocide. Cleansing is merely the removal of an ethnicity to another location, as the Zionists did to the Palestinians in 1948. Genocide is the deliberate wiping out of a people via murder, as the Nazis did to Jews (and others – gays, Gypsies, et al.) during the Holocaust, or the the Spanish conquistadors did to the Incas (and others) during the conquest of the Americas.

      • Richard Falk October 9, 2014 at 5:28 am #

        Gene: I agree with your analysis of the difference although I would substitute ‘the coercive removal’ for ‘merely the removal’

      • Gene Schulman October 9, 2014 at 5:33 am #

        Substitution noted and agreed, Richard. Thnx

  6. Albert October 9, 2014 at 7:31 am #

    I agree with wingsprd`s idea to get the UN involved, because that was one of the very reasons, why the UN came into being, but as I see it, the integrity of the UN has long been compromised. On top of that, it started out by being very undemocratic by virtue of giving certain rights to some and denying same to others without recourse for the other nations. Proof to this are the countless vetoes used by the US. A very interesting piece of history can be read here: http://www.globalresearch.ca/israels-unwritten-veto-power-immunity-to-international-law/5359259
    The UN has become a rogue entity because of this blatant abuse it was forced to allow through its faulty constitution. Without a complete truly democratizing overhaul of the UN, nothing will or can change. It seems, that another worldwar, worse and far more more cruel than the first two has to happen. And the forces that stand to lose the supreme power they enjoy now, may very well elect to cut off their nose to spite their face and that will be the end of all life on this planet. Such is the price for the insanity of greed, the rootcause of the world`s problems.
    We conceitedly consider ourselves to possess the highest attainable level of intelligence of all species in the animal kingdom, but what good is it, if we use it in such a criminal and barbaric way? The abuse of that intelligence puts us below the lowliest of all and may very well end a possibly unique evolutionary process, that had its origin in the big bang.

    • wingsprd October 10, 2014 at 3:45 am #

      Albert, I read this link. It is all too depressingly true. When will US wake up to Israel’s manipulation.

    • Kata Fisher October 10, 2014 at 6:45 am #

      Dear Albert,

      I have a reflection: “a run-away pontificate”

      How are you doing?

  7. rehmat1 October 9, 2014 at 10:04 am #

    Dr. Falk, it’s not the first time the Zionist regime has been accused of committing “Genocide” in Gaza.

    On November 25, 2013, the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal (KLWCT) after listening to the testimonies of eleven prosecution witnesses and voluminous documentary evidence and extensive submissions by the prosecution and amicus curiae delivered its judgement on the two charges against the Zionist entity and its retired Gen. Amos Yaron. The Tribunal president Tan Sri Lamin found the Zionist entity and Yaron guilty of crimes against humanity and genocide.

    Tan Sri Lamin, former Malay High Court judge, who headed a seven-member panel, said the tribunal was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that both the defendants were guilty as charged. The other judges were Tunku Sofiah Jewa, Prof Salleh Buang, Prof Emeritus Datuk Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi, Datuk Saari Yusof, John Philpot and Tunku Intan Mainura.

    “While it’s constantly mindful of its stature as merely a tribunal of conscience with no real power or enforcement, this tribunal finds that witnesses in this case are entitled ex justitia to the payment or reparations by the two convicted parties,” said Lamin.

    Members of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal Commission are: Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, Chairman and former prime minister of Malaysia, Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, a Canadian Jewish scholar and anti-war activist, Dr. Denis Halliday, former UN Assistant secretary-general, Musa Ismail, Dr. Zulaiha Ismail, Yaacob Merican Ph.D, a Malaysian academic and lawyer and Dr. Hans von Sponeck, former UN assistant secretary-general.

    http://rehmat1.com/2013/12/02/war-crimes-court-finds-israel-guilty-of-genocide/

  8. Kata Fisher October 9, 2014 at 7:51 pm #

    I have a reflection:
    Prisoner abuse in Israeli prisons (in nature), as it is important to test some believes. “I want to see” (natural revelation in special terms).

    Church in Rome has to do this: “I want to see”.

    • Kata Fisher October 9, 2014 at 7:54 pm #

      I have another reflecting:

      Syria and Iraq: what are reports about local population that is held captive/prisoners?

      • Kata Fisher October 9, 2014 at 8:03 pm #

        I have another reflecting: Why is Africa not selling their Oil / minerals in timely manners and price?

  9. Kata Fisher October 9, 2014 at 8:19 pm #

    I have another reflection: What happens to lost and the corroded nuclear booms on the bottom of the ocean and the sea floors. Do evacuate? I am sure that their scientific estimates are “No worries.”

    • Kata Fisher October 9, 2014 at 8:25 pm #

      I have another reflection:

      The Gulf Oil spill was a terrible thing.

  10. Laurie Knightly October 10, 2014 at 11:26 am #

    Article II Defining Genocide
    In the present Convention genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, racial or religious group, as such.
    a Killing members of the group
    b Causing serious mental or bodily harm to the group
    c Deliberately conflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
    d Imposing measures to prevent births within the group
    e Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

    There is no shortage of documentation concerning the zionist plans, since 1897 or earlier, to conquer Palestine. A sample:
    The Jewish Agency had established Population Transfer Committees by 1937 and Plan Dalet, March 1948, describes the plan to make that happen to all ‘enemies’ in an undefined area called the Hebrew State.. A sample sentence reads “Destruction of villages [setting fire to, blowing up, and planting mines in the debris] especially those population centers which are difficult to control continuously.” This document alone and its subsequent enactment is enough to pass judgment. There is no Palestine nor Palestinian people – all signs of such a population have been removed and more to come. They are just called Arabs. Except there are honest people who can easily prove otherwise. Would that a series of tribunals would help bring justice to the despicable fraud imposed on that clearly defined population.

  11. wingsprd October 11, 2014 at 7:45 pm #

    Thanks Laurie Knightly for your intelligent response. Such a contrast to the ranting of KFisher, I did not understand the makeup or role of the Russell Tribunal when first I posted. Maybe it is a start, to have a genuine UN justice council, non-aligned, people of integrity and intelligence looking at the facts, as I feel Richard is, a worthy member of the Russell Tribunal. To me the adherence to religion has done and continues to do huge damage to humanity. Forget the 2 state solution, Palestine will be reduced to uneconomic bantustans. Surely in this day and age we can dispense with racism and forge true societies that treat all with dignity.

    • Kata Fisher October 11, 2014 at 8:00 pm #

      wingsprd,

      You are confused – it must be Theological Psychology that did you wrong. tickler system

      • Kata Fisher October 11, 2014 at 8:11 pm #

        I have a reflection:

        How many suicides take please due to conduct of Theological Psychology and illicit main altering medications. I do wonder

      • Kata Fisher October 11, 2014 at 8:24 pm #

        I have another reflection:

        This is what I told to my friend–close to it…not in quote: ”Put away all the books that you are reading; it is theology; that is, and it is lay-people work of witchcraft — that which is confusing your spirit and your mind — but go straight to the originals: word by word interpretation of the Scripture ( letters to Timothy and to Corinth.”)

        Also, I said this: “If the Scripture judges you – you let it be.”

        And I told my friend this: “Do not confuse condemnation that is coming against you with the power of the Scripture to judge you – to judge your spiritual condition and for one reason that is: to make you perfected.”

        My friend was accepting things of un-decrement and things that are under condemnation…and had no idea what is the point of the personal start out of that.

        The Scripture will condemn the sin but not the person who comes to seek the answers in the Scripture; and Scripture will judge the person’s spiritual condition in order to perfect it – to move a person from elementary things of Faith into the excellent things of the Faith — from Faith to Faith.”

        Unless, we decide in our will-power (when the will of the pride) to judge the Word of God /Scripture by the pride and fall under condemnation of that.

        Lose Science of Psychology is witchcraft that abuses the Scripture, and it is as same as Theology-unethical.

        Faith Ethics is else what, and it is not “religion and ethics of it: lawlessness.” As Lose Science Psychology is.

  12. Beau Oolayforos October 13, 2014 at 10:41 pm #

    David Sheen’s speech about radical rabbis rousing the rabble should maybe remind us of the Saint Bartholomew’s Day massacres, when it was Catholic priests who were using their pulpits to incite mob violence – pre-emptive attacks, with the Pope’s blessing…all kinds of parallels.

    • Kata Fisher October 14, 2014 at 10:45 am #

      This is what I understand:

      The Massacre of St. Bartholomew’s days was part of 30-years of civil war of the Western Rite. Prior to discovery and move to the New World, the West Rite was broiling in the evil spirit; that is, before and after Crusades.

      Prior to that the Church / Western rite had issues with the false-gospels because of the charismatic disorders that also gave them Gnostic gospels / heretical writings, so that Gnostic writings were so heretical then just as protestant theology was heretical throughout reformation time, and even now it is heretical theology.

      Theology was birthed from heretical movements such as Ebionism and Gnosticism– early Church had no such thing as adherence to Theology and/or heretical writings.

      By the time that Tertullian wrote to the Church on issues of concern / apologetics – Western Christianity was given over to Satan.

      Early Church writings were apologetics in nature and no Theology; even Apostolic writings were apologetics in nature.

      Further, we can note that by the time of the Nicaea Council (AD 325) Church started to have Anti-Spirit heretics. For instance, when they had to deal with Arius, who was a heretic and was perverting teaching of the Church about God’s Spirit and was teaching against Church doctrine about Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Arius was Anti-Spirit person. He was condemned by world-wide body of bishops who then gave Nicene Creed due to Arius and his heretical interpretation of the Gospel and Apostolic writings.

      Still, Arius was not the first and was not the last one heretical theologian that was in Anti-Spirit of God.

      Entire Western Rite Churches have to be re-evangelized as they are spiritually excommunicated. Eastern rite is confused about role of God’s Spirit and is more Church under the Law and works of men then Church Order and Church teaching according to the Apostles and works of God’s Spirit.

      Contemporary Christianity, in general, is Anti-Semitic and is Anti-Spirit of God unless they are in authentic Faith and or authentic Charismatic Church order.

      We know that before and after heretical Christianity (evil tribes) was killing each other they were also killing Jews and then also Muslims.

      http://jewishfactsfromportland.blogspot.com/2011/06/englands-murder-of-jews-in-1100s-1200s.html

      There is nothing new under the Sun.

      Holocaust did not pop up just from anywhere — there were many other prior to that killing, and the killing has its origin in evils of charismatic disorders –lay people created chaos.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gold

      Now days charismatic disorder are severe — severe destruction in all levels of society, as well.

      We can only believe that there will much more evil power in the world and works of it then we can even imagine possible, so to stamp it out and cut it in all places possible.

      Strongholds of evil due to irrevocable sins in blood lines is hellish full of destructive force.

  13. zerojr April 5, 2015 at 10:31 am #

    look up the definition of genocide in a law dictionary eg. blacks legal dictionary available at all law scool libraries,perferably the early edition because they usally have clearer precise definitions

  14. Brett July 1, 2015 at 1:41 pm #

    The United Nations did find weapons stored in UN schools and shelters which does confirm Israel’s claim. Here are the sources: http://blog.unwatch.org/index.php/2015/04/27/confirmed-un-admits-palestinians-stored-rockets-in-unrwa-schools-and-highly-likely-used-school-premises-to-launch-attacks/ and http://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/press-releases/unrwa-condemns-placement-rockets-second-time-one-its-schools. Always know the facts.

    • Richard Falk July 1, 2015 at 9:57 pm #

      These are not reliable sources, and in any event, attacking such targets when disproportionate
      civilian casualties can be anticipated is not lawful.

      • David Singer July 1, 2015 at 10:57 pm #

        A United Nations Report and a United Nations Press Release are not reliable sources?

        As a former Special Rapporteur I find your peremptory dismissal of these two UN documents before you have even considered or discussed their contents to be very puzzling.

      • Richard Falk July 1, 2015 at 11:09 pm #

        You have a point, but I know something of the background that led to the issuance
        of these reports, and as well, their presentation by UN Watch, which played its usual
        polemical role as unconditional defender of Israel, no matter what. However these issues of weaponry are resolved, Israel used disproportionate force
        with foreseeable civilian damage far in excess of any contribution to its security, and
        further in the background broke the ceasefire, maintained an unlawful blockade, and rejected
        peaceful alternatives (ceasefire offers) to recourse to force.

      • David Singer July 2, 2015 at 12:20 am #

        Professor Falk

        Are the issues of weaponry resolved?

        The UN Report states:
        “76. On 29 July, a 120 MM mortal” tube, a 120 MM mortar bipod and three 120 MM mortar containers were found, covered by a blanket, behind a locked internal gate leading to a stairwell. The weapons were photographed.
        77. That same day, UNRWA officials informed the Israeli authorities and the local authorities in Gaza. In accordance with guidance provided by United Nations Headquarters, a mission was arranged for later that day to verify the weapons and render them safe. However, it was later called off because of the security situation in the vicinity of the school. In the evening, UNRWA issued a press release reporting that rockets (sic) had been found in an UNRWA school, that all parties had been informed and that United Nations munitions experts had been unable to access the school because of the security situation, but would do so once it improved.
        78. On 30 July, UNRWA officials went to the school, ahead of a visit by United Nations munitions experts. They found no school attendants or JCP guards at the
        premises and that the lock of the gate to the stairwell had been broken and the weapons had disappeared.
        79. The Board was informed that, between 30 July and 17 August, security at the school may have been compromised at least on one occasion by the presence of unidentified individuals and, possibly, of mortar weapom’y.
        80. On 17 August, a 120 MM mortar tube, a 120 MM mortar bipod and twenty 120 MM mortar containers were found in a small room under a stairwell. Water,
        lubricant-oil bottles and boards apparently used as beds were also found, as well as writing in Arabic on a blackboard, seemingly depicting military operations. At the rear of the school, a mortar base plate was found, embedded in the sand. These items were photographed. The mortar cases, mortar tube, bipod and base plate were removed from the school and rendered safe.”

        Isn’t the storage of weapons in schools(or mosques and hospitals as also occurred) a war crime? How can you possibly condone such behaviour?

        Your claim that Israel broke any ceasefire is false.

        Here are the list of ceasefire violations by Hamas:

        15 July

        The IDF suspended strikes for a period of 6 hours. During this time, Hamas fired 47 rockets into Israel.

        17 July

        Despite an agreement by Israel to observe a humanitarian ceasefire with Gaza at the request of the UN, Hamas fired three mortar shells and wounded an IDF soldier following the detonation of an explosive device on Israel’s border with Gaza. The IDF responded.

        20 July

        The IDF agreed to observe a humanitarian ceasefire in Shuja’iya at the request of the Red Cross. Hamas violated the ceasefire by continuing to fire at Israel from a rocket launching site located near the Wafa hospital in Shuja’yia.

        26 July

        For the fourth time, the IDF accepted a humanitarian ceasefire with Gaza. Hamas violated the ceasefire by firing more than six rockets into Israel.

        1 August

        The IDF agreed to a 72 hour ceasefire. Hamas used this opportunity to fire rockets into Israel and attack IDF forces in Gaza. During these clashes, a soldier may have been kidnapped by the terrorist organization.
        https://www.idfblog.com/blog/2014/08/01/israel-accepts-ceasefires-hamas-rejects/

        I hope you don’t dismiss the source as unreliable.

        Please detail what ceasefire offers were made by Hamas and rejected or broken by Israel.

      • Richard Falk July 2, 2015 at 3:08 am #

        I was referring to the offers of ceasefires prior to the start of Protective Edge, not during the combat
        period. Also, all rockets from Gaza attributed to Hamas when often they were by breakaway groups that Hamas
        unable to control. The condition of resistance under this type of occupation, given the disparity of capabilities,
        should also be taken into account. I agree that IHL is inadequately contextualized in relation to the kind of
        conflict patterns that have become so prominent in recents decades.

      • david singer July 2, 2015 at 4:11 am #

        Professor Falk

        You state:
        “I was referring to the offers of ceasefires prior to the start of Protective Edge, not during the combat period.”

        Could you please be more specific? You previously alleged Israel “broke the ceasefire”. which I am sure you will agree is entirely different from rejecting “offers of ceasefires”.
        Which is it and when did such offers or breaches occur? You admit this happened not during the combat period so how is your comment even relevant to what happened during Operation Protective Edge?

        Hamas is the government in Gaza and must take responsibility for all hostile acts by breakaway groups emanating from its territory. Trying to absolve Hamas is one of your worst judgement calls.

        No mention by you of your opinion on the storing of weapons in schools, mosques and hospitals constituting war crimes. Do you believe any population anywhere in the world should have to be subjected to this kind of despicable and criminal conduct?

        “Disparity of capabilities” is an interesting concept. What do you mean and how is the principle applied in relation to hostilities between a State and a terrorist entity?

  15. david singer July 11, 2015 at 2:55 am #

    Professor Falk

    You appear to have overlooked responding to my post dated 2 July – to which I would appreciate receiving a reply.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. TRANSCEND MEDIA SERVICE » Did Israel Commit Genocide in Gaza? - October 13, 2014

    […] Go to Original – richardfalk.wordpress.com […]

  2. Rabbi Wolpe: King David committed ‘genocide’ | Rehmat's World - October 13, 2014

    […] Jewish leaders who signed a statement in August 2014, denouncing charges against Israel for committing genocide in Gaza. The racist Zionist Jews claimed that Israeli army had to kill over 2,500 civilians in retaliation […]

  3. Did Israel Commit Genocide in Gaza? | MasterAdrian's Weblog - October 13, 2014

    […] Did Israel Commit Genocide in Gaza? […]

  4. Rabbi Wolpe: King David committed ‘genocide’ | Uprootedpalestinians's Blog - October 15, 2014

    […] Jewish leaders who signed a statement in August 2014, denouncing charges against Israel for committing genocide in Gaza. The racist Zionist Jews claimed that Israeli army had to kill over 2,500 civilians in retaliation […]

  5. Bibi: Investigating Israel for war crimes is ‘preposterous’ | Rehmat's World - January 18, 2015

    […] Both Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal Commission and Russell Tribunal have found Israel committed war-crimes in Gaza. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: