Francis Chartrand for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles

The Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) is wrong to support a boycott of Israeli academics.

It might have been more appropriate for the resolution of CUPE Ontario is written in German.

The resolution of CUPE Ontario proposes to prohibit Israeli scholars to give speeches, teach or do research at Ontario universities, in protest against the bombing of the Islamic University of Gaza on 29 December. In response to the call of the Palestinian Federation of Unions of Teachers and staff of universities, we are willing to say that Israeli academics should not be present on our campuses unless they explicitly condemn bombing the university and the attack against Gaza in general.

Protest peacefully and legally against Israel or another nation is quite acceptable and even useful in a free and democratic society, even when the challenge is misinformed and predictable. But the initiative CUPE is fundamentally different. We are dealing with fanatics and fundamentalists that require ordinary people and apolitical who are to be born in the Jewish state pronounce an oath of loyalty.

It is unlikely that these extremists have considered their actions for more than a few seconds hysterical, but ask some fundamental questions.

Is this "conviction" will also be required of Israeli Arabs, or just Israeli Jews? There are, of course, more than 1.5 million Israeli Arabs, as Israelis enjoy full civil rights and democratic. Thousands of them are studying in Israeli universities, and many of them teach at Israeli universities, unlike most Arab countries where Jews were deported and where they can not study or teach, or even live.

Are we require, for example, that Iranians who teach in universities "condemn" the public hanging of homosexuals by their government, the stoning of women and implementation of university students protesting peacefully? Being asked to many Egyptian universities in the country to "condemn" the persecution of Christians in Egypt, ban various independent newspapers or the construction of the wall on the Egyptian side of the border with Gaza?

Being asked to scholars from Zimbabwe, China or Communist dictatorships of Syria or Libya to "condemn" the despicable policies of their government? Being asked the same scholars from Sudan, where hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, raped, enslaved and forcibly converted to Islam? Or Palestinian scholars: just last week, the government of Hamas has killed 35 members of Fatah and shot in the legs of 75 others, paralyzing. They forced women to wear the hijab and threatened to throw acid in the faces of girls who refuse to do so.

Damn, such a "conviction" was not even applied to university of Rwanda while the country's government was trying to commit genocide!

But we asked the university to Israel, where the armed forces returned fire after eight years of terror, rocket attacks and deadly provocations.

The result of this little bit crass, painfully immature and angry is not the uniqueness of a single identifiable group of people we expose to hatred when they do their work: the Jews. Most of them, incidentally, were born in Israel because their families were forced to leave their old country and live in Israel because of the pogroms, the Holocaust and the expulsion Arabic.

In short, it is targeting Jews. And it goes beyond what is acceptable speech and civilized behavior. That is to operate a complex issue involving two people who deserve justice and to reduce it to abuse, blacklisted and discrimination worthy of the excesses of the 1930s in Europe.

The black shirts who hide under the colors red and green. They should cover their heads in shame and ask forgiveness.

Link

Labels: Canada, Human mistake, Israel, Palestine, Religion and fanaticism, Secularism

# posted by Francis Chartrand @ 7:32 PM 0 Comments

Several years ago, I was interested in a public meeting in Paris suburbs, by the League of Human Rights. The theme was peace in the Middle East, what works? Hoping to learn things, I was in the audience, surrounded by 500 people. At the forum, among others, sat the host of this debate, Daniel Mermet, the then President of the LDH, Michel Tubiana, Leila Shahid, Palestinian Authority representative in France, Bernard Ravenel representing the Committee on Palestine and a representative of the French Jewish Union for Peace (UJFP), speaking with a strong English accent.

The forum took the floor for two and a half hours. I was amazed at the oneness of all speeches. Israel was the evil aggressor, and Palestinians innocent victims. Daniel Mermet adding to each transition in this Manichean vision. He apologized after the last speech from the hall and explained that very little time for debate, therefore asked the potential stakeholders to be very brief. I pounce on the microphone, and asked for five minutes.

Irritated, Mermet gave me three. A little upset, I begin by saying that the conflict was fueled by two extremes, the far-right Jewish religious and right-wing religious Islamist. I explained that people wanted a greater Israel, freed of the Palestinians, and that others wanted to remove the State of Israel from the map. So I did express my surprise at the fact we have not yet decided once the name of Hamas. I say what really quickly Hamas and the political line he defended. At the forum, it started to jiggle nervously, and tried to interrupt me Mermet. I him a minute to conclude.

I added that I appreciated in France, Jews and Arabs have been able to work together against the National Front, in SOS Racism, and that the solution to the Middle East, could see the day when each side isolate religious extremists and his defending a secular society. I conclude by saying that I wanted more balanced meetings, from the LDH, for greater credibility of the goal: peace. A great silence accompanied my intervention and was succeeded by a few long seconds where we could hear a fly fly.

Apparently angered by my words, Mermet passed the floor to Tubiana. It began to say that the rise of Islamophobia and racism in France was serious. I interrupted the room telling him that I had not uttered the word Islamophobia, and I prayed to respond to what I said. While Mermet had announced that the meeting was to end in the minutes that followed, various speakers took the floor again an hour to meet me, often painstakingly, and justify their silence on Hamas.

Why start this first editorial of the year by that old story? Because it illustrates the drift of a section of the Left, political, associative and association, on the Palestinian question. To be published in Issue 69, the charter of Hamas, and have described as racist, sexist and of totalitarian and for not having married compassionate politically correct speech, our newspaper (see abundant letters ) has been extremely strong reactions, and sometimes abuse, from some opponents.

According to some, we would monsters indifferent to the suffering of the people of Gaza, and would be tolerant of the massacres of the State of Israel, colonialist, racist, fascist, who wants to exterminate the Palestinians as Hitler wanted to do away with Jews (for short).

As would be comfortable if the world were so simple. We would like to say that the fascists who killed the communists. Unfortunately, the facts are stubborn, Stalin killed more communists and Hitler, for example, there is evidence that 8000 Polish officers were executed in Katyn forest, with a bullet in the head, not by the Nazis as has long claimed the official version, but by the Red Army, which does not detract from the horror of the Nazi regime.

Since it would be comfortable today, in the same spirit, for many activists, to explain the woes of the Arab peoples by the sole fault of the Hebrew state. Of course, Palestinians killed in Israeli assaults which, remember, the politico-military targets Hamas. Any civilian casualties, even a child, is still a victim too. But can we hide the fact that the Hamas claim of using women and children as human shields? Has it existed historically, war clean, even for just causes and progressive?

Need I remind the other hand, thousands of Palestinians killed during Operation "Black September" in the 1970s by the Jordanians, the dead by the thousands, Shiites or Sunnis in Iraq and elsewhere, response to suicide bombings, also espoused by Hamas, killing several hundred activists of the Palestinian Authority, lynched without trial at the putch Hamas in Gaza, are not the result of the Zionist state? The tragedy of Darfur is not the fact of U.S. imperialism and its ally Israel, but the Islamist militias. Write it in no way detracts from the criminal attitude of the United States against Iraq, but requires a vision of the history a little less biased and compassionate.

Furthermore, a reading of the geo-political world, as written in 2005 by General Gallois is also useful for understanding the global context in which this conflict takes place.

Of course, the secular can not be found in certain positions in the State of Israel, and the pressure exercised what some religious circles. How can a democratic country can accept the need to marry abroad to see a civil marriage recognized? But if secularism is the freedom of conscience, there is no comparison between the democratic system in place in Israel, and the totalitarian logic of Hamas. Remember that for him the only solution in Palestine is the submission to Allah, the destruction of Israel, the extermination of the Jews and the imposition of sharia law, women in particular. For a woman, a homosexual, to a layman, for a progressive, is it better to live according to the principles applied in Israel, or the rules in force today in Gaza?

The fascination of a part of the left to totalitarian models yesterday Stalinism today Islamism, rebellion still those of us who believe that the social struggle can not hide a vision of society where, in addition to freedom of conscience and democratic rights, equality between men and women is a value with which we can not compromise.

However, in the name of a Marxist who is among the colonized peoples and colonizers, who yesterday showed complacency with criminal bureaucrats Stalinists, Trotskyites or many orphans who seem wall, repeated today, Today this appalling mistake, some even in light of Hamas, Hezbollah in the past, representatives of the poor and oppressed, as the novelist Thierry Jonquet in a magnificent published two years ago.

It is also curious that this blindness that led to the left fringe to have fought, sometimes with virulence, the campaign for a law against religious symbols in schools. They are also the ones who close their eyes, every day, before the offensive of Islam in France and Europe, against secularism, the Republic and the rights of women. What can they respond to Sarkozy when he defends secularism positive, they defend this thesis with Islam for 20 years! Have you noticed that we hear very little about the provocations Dieudonné giving the floor to Faurisson?

Some believe that the essential divide in a democratic society, would be the social and wealth distribution. They believe that the claim of religion of the poor and oppressed the right to take any liberties with our Republican principles. Well, no!

We can not have a society with people who accompany the offensive Islamist fascists, even if the activists say things just on the distribution of wealth and scandalous social inequality.

We do not want to live in a country where Muslim enclaves are becoming more and develop on our territory propaganda of Hamas, and its draft fascist society.

We do not want to see mosques invade more and more public space, much less when they are paid with our sub!

We do not want to hear religious Jews claim arrangements for the Saturday school, or other churches claim reasonable accommodations with secular principles and the law of 1905.

We note that those who now accuse Israel of war crimes and demonstrate against this (without worrying about the windfall that it is crazy for Allah), are not in the street when suicide bombings cause thousands of deaths, the United States, Britain, France, Spain, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Iraq, Indonesia, and throughout the world where the culture of rampant death, on behalf of the prophet. Too bad for Muslims and Arab peoples, first victims of religious fascism, we should not distract the masses of the one true battle: the one against U.S. imperialism and its Zionist ally. Hence the events where the flags of Hamas alongside those of the PCF (ie: French Communist Party) or the LCR! (Ed.: Revolutionary Communist League)

Yesterday, he had shut the realities of Stalinist regimes, not to despair Billancourt, and not divert the masses of the struggle against the bourgeois state. At another time, on behalf of revolutionary defeatism, it should not fight against Nazi Germany, when it was France, because it was promoting its own imperialism!

When a little common sense and the recognition that the defense of secular values, feminist, humanistic, democratic have more importance than ideological visions of the world where we end up defending religious fascists because they represent the oppressed (they also have nothing to do, their only prospect is to impose the jihad in the world).

As recently wrote Henri Guaino decidedly sometimes prevent labels of thinking.

Link

Labels: Gaza, Israel, Palestine, Terrorism

# posted by Francis Chartrand @ 6:59 PM 0 Comments

Israeli population centers in southern Israel have been the target of over 4,000 rockets, as well as thousands of mortar shells, fired by Hamas and other organizations since 2001. Rocket attacks increased by 500 percent after Israel withdrew completely from the Gaza Strip in August 2005. During an informal six-month lull, some 215 rockets were launched at Israel.

The charge that Israel uses disproportionate force keeps resurfacing whenever it has to defend its citizens from non-state terrorist organizations and the rocket attacks they perpetrate. From a purely legal perspective, Israel's current military actions in Gaza are on solid ground.

According to international law, Israel is not required to calibrate its use of force precisely according to the size and range of the weaponry used against it.

Ibrahim Barzak and Amy Teibel wrote for the Associated Press on December 28 that most of the 230 Palestinians who were reportedly killed were "security forces," and Palestinian officials said "at least 15 civilians were among the dead." The numbers reported indicate that there was no clear intent to inflict disproportionate collateral civilian casualties. What is critical from the standpoint of international law is that if the attempt has been made "to minimize civilian damage, then even a strike that causes large amounts of damage - but is directed at a target with very large military value - would be lawful."

Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, explained that international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court "permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives, even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur." The attack becomes a war crime when it is directed against civilians (which is precisely what Hamas does).

After 9/11, when the Western alliance united to collectively topple the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, no one compared Afghan casualties in 2001 to the actual numbers that died from al-Qaeda's attack. There clearly is no international expectation that military losses in war should be on a one-to-one basis. To expect Israel to hold back in its use of decisive force against legitimate military targets in Gaza is to condemn it to a long war of attrition with Hamas.

Israel is currently benefiting from a limited degree of understanding in international diplomatic and media circles for launching a major military operation against Hamas on December 27. Yet there are significant international voices that are prepared to argue that Israel is using disproportionate force in its struggle against Hamas.

Israeli Population Centers Under Rocket Attack

There are good reasons why initial criticism of Israel has been muted. After all, Israeli population centers in southern Israel have been the target of over 4,000 rockets, as well as thousands of mortar shells, fired by Hamas and other organizations since 2001. The majority of those attacks were launched after Israel withdrew completely from the Gaza Strip in August 2005. Indeed, rocket attacks increased by 500 percent (from 179 to 946) from 2005 to 2006.

Moreover, lately Hamas has been extending the range of its striking capability even further with new rockets supplied by Iran. Hamas used a 20.4-kilometer-range Grad/Katyusha for the first time on March 28, 2006, bringing the Israeli city of Ashkelon into range of its rockets for the first time. That change increased the number of Israelis under threat from 200,000 to half a million. Moreover, on December 21, 2008, Yuval Diskin, Head of the Israel Security Agency, informed the Israeli government that Hamas had acquired rockets that could reach Ashdod, Kiryat Gat, and even the outskirts of Beersheba. The first Grad/Katyusha strike on Ashdod, in fact, took place on December 28. There had been no formal cease-fire between Israel and Hamas, but only an informal six-month tahadiya (lull), during which 215 rockets were launched at Israel. On December 21, Hamas unilaterally announced that the tahadiya had ended.

Critical Voices

On December 27, 2008, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesmen issued a statement saying that while the Secretary-General recognized "Israel's security concerns regarding the continued firing of rockets from Gaza," he reiterated "Israel's obligation to uphold international humanitarian and human rights law." The statement specifically noted that he "condemns excessive use of force leading to the killing and injuring of civilians [emphasis added]."

A day later, Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights "strongly condemned Israel's disproportionate use of force." French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who holds the rotating presidency of the European Union, also condemned Israel's "disproportionate use of force," while demanding an end to rocket attacks on Israel. Brazil also joined this chorus, criticizing Israel's "disproportionate response." Undoubtedly, a powerful impression has been created by large Western newspaper headlines that describe massive Israeli airstrikes in Gaza, without any up-front explanation for their cause.

Proportionality and International Law: The Protection of Innocent Civilians

The charge that Israel uses disproportionate force keeps resurfacing whenever it has to defend its citizens from non-state terrorist organizations and the rocket attacks they perpetrate. From a purely legal perspective, Israel's current military actions in Gaza are on solid ground. According to international law, Israel is not required to calibrate its use of force precisely according to the size and range of the weaponry used against it (Israel is not expected to make Kassam rockets and lob them back into Gaza).

When international legal experts use the term "disproportionate use of force," they have a very precise meaning in mind. As the President of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, Rosalyn Higgins, has noted, proportionality "cannot be in relation to any specific prior injury - it has to be in relation to the overall legitimate objective of ending the aggression." In other words, if a state, like Israel, is facing aggression, then proportionality addresses whether force was specifically used by Israel to bring an end to the armed attack against it. By implication, force becomes excessive if it is employed for another purpose, like causing unnecessary harm to civilians. The pivotal factor determining whether force is excessive is the intent of the military commander. In particular, one has to assess what was the commander's intent regarding collateral civilian damage.

What about reports concerning civilian casualties? Some international news agencies have stressed that the vast majority of those killed in the first phase of the current Gaza operation were Hamas operatives. Ibrahim Barzak and Amy Teibel wrote for the Associated Press on December 28 that most of the 230 Palestinians who were reportedly killed were "security forces," and Palestinian officials said "at least 15 civilians were among the dead." It is far too early to definitely assess Palestinian casualties, but even if they increase, the numbers reported indicate that there was no clear intent to inflict disproportionate collateral civilian casualties.

During the Second Lebanon War, Professor Michael Newton of Vanderbilt University was in email communication with William Safire of the New York Times about the issue of proportionality and international law. Newton had been quoted by the Council on Foreign Relations as explaining proportionality by proposing a test: "If someone punches you in the nose, you don't burn down their house." He was serving as an international criminal law expert in Baghdad and sought to correct the impression given by his quote. According to Newton, no responsible military commander intentionally targets civilians, and he accepted that this was Israeli practice.

What was critical from the standpoint of international law was that if the attempt had been made "to minimize civilian damage, then even a strike that causes large amounts of damage - but is directed at a target with very large military value - would be lawful." Numbers matter less than the purpose of the use of force. Israel has argued that it is specifically targeting facilities serving the Hamas regime and its determined effort to continue its rocket assault on Israel: headquarters, training bases, weapons depots, command and control networks, and weapons-smuggling tunnels. This way Israel is respecting the international legal concept of proportionality.

Alternatively, disproportionality would occur if the military sought to attack even if the value of a target selected was minimal in comparison with the enormous risk of civilian collateral damage. This point was made by Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, on February 9, 2006, in analyzing the Iraq War. He explained that international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court "permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks [emphasis added] against military objectives, even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur." The attack becomes a war crime when it is directed against civilians (which is precisely what Hamas does) or when "the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage." In fact, Israeli legal experts right up the chain of command within the IDF make this calculation before all military operations of this sort.

Proportionality as a Strategic Issue

Moving beyond the question of international law, the charge that Israel is using a disproportionate amount of force in the Gaza Strip because of reports of Palestinian casualties has to be looked at critically. Israelis have often said among themselves over the last seven years that when a Hamas rocket makes a direct strike on a crowded school, killing many children, then Israel will finally act.

This scenario raises the question of whether the doctrine of proportionality requires that Israel wait for this horror to occur, or whether Israel could act on the basis of the destructive capability of the arsenal Hamas already possesses, the hostile declarations of intent of its leaders, and its readiness to use its rocket forces already. Alan Dershowitz noted two years ago: "Proportion must be defined by reference to the threat proposed by an enemy and not by the harm it has produced." Waiting for a Hamas rocket to fall on an Israeli school, he rightly notes, would put Israel in the position of allowing "its enemies to play Russian Roulette with its children."

The fundamental fact is that in fighting terrorism, no state is willing to play Russian Roulette. After the U.S. was attacked on 9/11, the Western alliance united to collectively topple the Taliban regime in Afghanistan; no one compared Afghan casualties in 2001 to the actual numbers that died from al-Qaeda's attack. Given that al-Qaeda was seeking non-conventional capabilities, it was essential to wage a campaign to deny it the sanctuary it had enjoyed in Afghanistan, even though that struggle continues right up to the present.

Is There Proportionality Against Military Forces?

And in fighting counterinsurgency wars, most armies seek to achieve military victory by defeating the military capacity of an adversary, as efficiently as possible. There clearly is no international expectation that military losses in war should be on a one-to-one basis; most armies seek to decisively eliminate as many enemy forces as possible while minimizing their own losses of troops. There are NATO members who have been critical of "Israel's disproportionate use of force," while NATO armies take pride in their "kill ratios" against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Moreover, decisive military action against an aggressor has another effect: it increases deterrence. To expect Israel to hold back in its use of decisive force against legitimate military targets in Gaza is to condemn it to a long war of attrition with Hamas.

The loss of any civilian lives is truly regrettable. Israel has cancelled many military operations because of its concern with civilian casualties. But should civilian losses occur despite the best efforts of Israel to avoid them, it is ultimately not Israel's responsibility. As political philosopher Michael Walzer noted in 2006: "When Palestinian militants launch rocket attacks from civilian areas, they are themselves responsible - and no one else is - for the civilian deaths caused by Israeli counterfire."

International critics of Israel may be looking to craft balanced statements that spread the blame for the present conflict to both sides. But they would be better served if they did not engage in this artificial exercise, and clearly distinguish the side that is the aggressor in this conflict - Hamas - and the side that is trying to defeat the aggression - Israel.

Link

Labels: Gaza, Israel, Palestine

# posted by Francis Chartrand @ 11:17 PM 0 Comments

Israel and Hamas both must respect the prohibition under the laws of war against deliberate and indiscriminate attacks on civilians, Human Rights Watch said today. Human Rights Watch expressed grave concern about Israeli bombings in Gaza that caused civilian deaths and Palestinian rocket attacks on Israeli civilian areas in violation of international law.

Rocket attacks on Israeli towns by Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups that do not discriminate between civilians and military targets violate the laws of war, while a rising number of the hundreds of Israeli bombings in Gaza since December 27, 2008, appear to be unlawful attacks causing civilian casualties. Additionally, Israel's severe limitations on the movement of non-military goods and people into and out of Gaza, including fuel and medical supplies, constitutes collective punishment, also in violation of the laws of war.

"Firing rockets into civilian areas with the intent to harm and terrorize Israelis has no justification whatsoever, regardless of Israel's actions in Gaza," said Joe Stork, deputy director of Human Rights Watch's Middle East and North Africa division. "At the same time, Israel should not target individuals and institutions in Gaza solely because they are part of the Hamas-run political authority, including ordinary police. Only attacks on military targets are permissible, and only in a manner that minimizes civilian casualties."

Human Rights Watch investigated three Israeli attacks that raise particular concern about Israel's targeting decisions and require independent and impartial inquiries to determine whether the attacks violated the laws of war. In three incidents detailed below, 18 civilians died, among them at least seven children.

On Saturday, December 27, the first day of Israel's aerial attacks, witnesses told Human Rights Watch that shortly after 1 p.m. an Israeli air-to-ground missile struck a group of students leaving the Gaza Training College, adjacent to the headquarters of the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) in downtown Gaza City. The students were waiting to board buses to transport them to their homes in Khan Yunis and Rafah, in the southern Gaza Strip. The strike killed eight students, ages 18 to 20, and wounded 19 others.

A UNRWA security guard stationed at the college entrance told Human Rights Watch that he used his UN radio to call for medical help. He said the attack also killed two other civilians, Hisham al-Rayes, 28, and his brother Alam, 26, whose family ran a small shop opposite the college entrance. The guard said that the only potential target nearby was the Gaza governorate building, which deals with civil matters, about 150 meters away from where the missile struck. Another UNRWA security guard who also witnessed the attack told Human Rights Watch: "There wasn't anybody else around - no police, army, or Hamas."

The second incident occurred shortly before midnight on Sunday, December 28, when Israeli warplanes fired one or more missiles at the Imad Aqil mosque in Jabalya, a densely populated refugee camp in the northern Gaza Strip. The attack killed five of Anwar Balousha's daughters who were sleeping in a bedroom of their nearby house: Jawaher, 4; Dina, 8; Samar, 12; Ikram, 14; and Tahrir, 18. "We were asleep and we woke to the sound of bombing and the rubble falling on the house and on our heads," Anwar Balousha told Human Rights Watch. The Balousha's three-room house is just across a small street from the mosque.

The two-story Imad Aqil mosque, named after a deceased Hamas member, is regarded by Palestinians in the area as a "Hamas mosque" - that is, a place where the group's supporters gather for political meetings or to assemble for demonstrations, and where death notices of Hamas members are posted. Mosques are presumptively civilian objects and their use for political activities does not change that. Human Rights Watch said that the attack on Imad Aql mosque would be lawful only if Israel could demonstrate that it was being used to store weapons and ammunition or served some other military purpose. Even if that were the case, Israel still had an obligation to take all feasible precautions to minimize harm to civilians and ensure that any likely civilian harm was not disproportionate to the expected military gain.

In the third incident, at around 1 a.m. on Monday, December 29, an Israeli helicopter fired two missiles into the Rafah refugee camp. One struck the home of a senior Hamas commander; the other struck the home of the al-Absi family, about 150 meters away, killing three brothers - Sedqi, 3, Ahmad, 12, and Muhammad, 13 - and wounding two sisters and the children's mother. Ziad al-Absi, 46, the children's father, told Human Rights Watch that at around 10:30 p.m. on Sunday, armed Palestinians had gathered near their home, firing machine guns at Israeli helicopters. "I and the neighbors argued with the militants, told them this is a populated area and this will put us into peril," he said. According to al-Absi's nephew, Iyad al-Absi, 27, the fighters refused to leave. When their commander arrived at about 11 p.m. and ordered them to leave, they again refused. The fighters finally left at around 11:15, but only after an exchange of gunfire between the fighters and their commander. Al-Absi said that he and his family then went to sleep. He told his nephew and other relatives that there was no further armed activity in the area prior to the missile strike on his house, almost two hours later. Ziad al-Absi said the blast had thrown one daughter onto a neighbor's balcony. The children's mother is in hospital intensive care; the two daughters are also in the hospital.

Human Rights Watch noted that many of Israel's airstrikes, especially during the first day, targeted police stations as well as security and militia installations controlled by Hamas. According to the Jerusalem Post, an attack on the police academy in Gaza City on December 27 killed at least 40, including dozens of cadets at their graduation ceremony as well as the chief of police, making it the single deadliest air attack of the campaign to date. Another attack, on a traffic police station in the central Gaza town of Deir al-Balah, killed a by-stander, 12-year-old Camilia Ra`fat al-Burdini. Under the laws of war, police and police stations are presumptively civilian unless the police are Hamas fighters or taking a direct part in the hostilities, or police stations are being used for military purposes.

"Israel must not make a blanket decision that all police and police stations are by definition legitimate military targets," Stork said. "It depends upon whether those police play a role in fighting against Israel, or whether a particular police station is used to store weapons or for some other military purpose."

Some other Israeli targets may have also been unlawful under the laws of war. Three teenagers were killed in southern Gaza City on December 27, when Israeli aircraft struck a building rented by Wa`ed (Promise), a Hamas-affiliated organization that defends prisoners held by Israel. Israel justified its attack on Gaza City's Islamic University on grounds that laboratories were used to manufacture explosives, but this did not address why a second strike demolished the women's quarters there. Israel also attacked the Hamas-affiliated Al-Aqsa TV, but did not provide a reason. Television and radio stations are legitimate military targets only if used for military purposes, not if they are simply being used for pro-Hamas or anti-Israel propaganda.

Human Rights Watch expressed grave concern about the seriously deteriorating humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip, which was already dire prior to the latest attacks. A health expert with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Gaza said on December 28 that hospitals were "overwhelmed and unable to cope with the scale and type of injuries that keep coming in." The ICRC noted that medical supplies and medicines were already badly depleted as a result of Israel's prohibition of most imports into Gaza since Hamas took full internal control of the territory in June 2007. In a statement on December 29, the ICRC said that some neighborhoods were running short of water, owing to damage from attacks or fuel and power shortages. The statement also said that prices for food and basic commodities were reportedly rising fast. UNRWA had reported several days prior to the latest escalation of fighting that its stocks of essential commodities were extremely low.

According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), which also monitors security matters in Gaza, Palestinian armed groups fired more than 100 rockets towards Israel on December 27-28; Haaretz, the Israeli daily, reported that on December 29 Palestinian armed groups fired at least 60 rockets into Israel. One of them killed a Bedouin construction worker, 27-year-old Hani al-Mahdi, and wounded 14 others in the coastal city of Ashkelon, north of Gaza; another fatally wounded 39-year-old Irit Sheetrit while she was driving home in the city of Ashdod, 35 kilometers from Gaza. The previous day, December 28, a rocket attack killed another Israeli civilian and wounded four in Netivot, some 20 kilometers east of Gaza City.

Human Rights Watch has long criticized Palestinian rocket attacks against Israeli civilians - most recently, in a public letter to Hamas on November 20 (http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/11/20/letter-hamas-stop-rocket-attacks ). The rockets are highly inaccurate, and those launching them cannot accurately target military objects. Deliberately firing indiscriminate weapons into civilian populated areas, as a matter of policy, constitutes a war crime. Rocket attacks have killed 19 civilians in Israel since 2005, including those killed to date during the current clashes.

Human Rights Watch has also criticized Israel's policy of severely restricting the flow of people and goods into Gaza, including fuel and other civilian necessities, saying that those restrictions amount to collective punishment against the civilian population, a serious violation of the laws of war (http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/11/20/letter-olmert-stop-blockade-gaza ). Israel continues to exercise effective control over Gaza's borders and airspace as well as its population registry, and remains the occupying power there under international law. The laws of war prohibit the occupying power from attacking, destroying, or withholding objects essential to the survival of the civilian population. Israel is also obliged to protect the right of Palestinians in Gaza to freedom of movement, to secure access to health care and education, and to lead normal lives.

Link

Labels: Anne Humphreys, Human Rights Watch, Israel, Palestine

# posted by Francis Chartrand @ 7:56 PM 0 Comments

The Ombudsman Julie Miville-Dechêne (pictured right against) concluded that because of flaws in editorial control, the presentation of the film Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land Issue Major reports violated journalistic standards and practices Radio-Canada. Ce film avance, sans en faire la preuve, que le gouvernement israélien contrôle les médias américains. The film advance without making the evidence that the Israeli government controls the American media. It contains anachronisms and inaccuracies groups and pro-Palestinian activists were involved in the research.

The decision of December 8 2008 Julie Miville-Dechêne bearing on the film Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land released on October 23 2008 on the airwaves Network Information Radio-Canada (RDI), follows a request Reviewed by the Quebec-Israel Committee.

The Committee asked the Ombudsman to determine if the film and the guidance offered by RDI meet the journalistic standards and practices of Radio-Canada. The request for review concluded:

'By failing to identify the film as a documentary type of opinion committed and almost literally repeating the description of the perpetrator, RDI has violated journalistic standards and practices of Radio-Canada, which says that production should be clearly identified at the beginning and the end as a documentary author. " Ironically, while the facilitator asked Simon Durivage introduction if the American media does not distorted the trial of his public, RDI has contributed to the deformation of his own trial on the Arab-Israeli conflict. "

The decision of Mrs. Miville-Dechêne, reproduced below, meets each of the objections raised by the Quebec-Israel Committee.

But first, beyond the issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict being the decision of the Ombudsman, the whole media coverage of political Islam that we put in question at tipping point, on which we will return in depth.

When a report on ideology imperialist supremacy and hatred that has taken epidemic proportions among Muslims, as pointed out clearly the eminent Indian religious Wahiduddin Khan, who calls Muslims to work for introspection and deconditioning ideological ? This ideology to theological foundations that Khan calls to deconstruct, has led to countless massacres of innocent civilians around the world. It leads the Salafist Sunni Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia (11 / 9), the Deoband Pakistan (Mumbai), the Shiites of Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon. It explains jihadist violence in Morocco, Tunisia, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Chechnya, the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Gaza, London, Madrid, and elsewhere. What is the common pattern here? It is obvious, but the media is split into four so as not to appoint, under cover of a misplaced political correctness is part of the problem rather than the solution, or a sense of objectivity Godard 's is mocked by the phrase "five minutes for Jews, five minutes for the Nazis."

Returning to our subject, let's first see what the Ombudsman Radio-Canada.

OMBUDSMAN OF RADIO-CANADA

The ombudsman's office is presented as follows on the website of Radio-Canada:

Accuracy, integrity, fairness

"The ombudsman Julie Miville-Dechêne is listening to you. It represents you, you viewers, listeners and Internet Radio-Canada. It assesses the merits of your complaints, to the best of his trial, and quite independently. You believe that information to our office or on our website is biased or inaccurate? Contact us. "

Radio-Canada has established journalistic standards and practices that describe how this institution funded by taxpayers meets public expectations and fulfills its obligations. These standards are quite detailed, and serve as a guide to the decisions of the Ombudsman.

****

Office of the Ombudsman Services French
On December 8, 2008

REVIEW documentary Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land Released on 23 October 2008 to broadcast Major reports Network Information

Contents

More than 150 people have complained to my office dissemination of the documentary foreign pro-Palestinian Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land, the issuance Major reports, the Network of Public Information (RDI) on 23 October 2008. They accuse the CBC for having aired a work of propaganda with errors of fact.

Radio-Canada has admitted a mistake: its journalistic standards and practices have not been respected in the presentation of the documentary. There was no mention of the date of production (2003) and the fact that the situation on the ground had changed since then, particularly because of the dismantling of Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip.

Produced five years ago, the documentary contains inaccuracies and anachronisms, groups and pro-Palestinian activists were involved in the research.

Given the circumstances and vulnerabilities identified in editorial control, this documentary would not have been released.

COMPLAINTS

On 23 October 2008, issuing reports Major Network Information (RDI) presented a documentary entitled American Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land, which focused on the image of Arab-Israeli conflict that carry the American media.

I received 156 complaints about this issue. Most complainants from various countries have responded to the call of pro-Israeli group monitoring media HonestReporting Canada. The pressure group urged its supporters online to send complaints to my office. Other Canadian viewers who have seen the show have also complained spontaneously to my office. For them, this is not a balanced documentary but a work of propaganda for the Palestinians, which contains errors of fact. Here is an excerpt from the complaint of Quebec-Israel Committee:

"(...) By failing to identify the film as a documentary

opinion type committed and showing almost literally

description of the author, RDI has violated the standards and

journalistic practices of Radio-Canada, which stipulate that

production should be clearly identified at the beginning and the

end as a documentary author (...)

The exclusive participation of activists and groups of employees

pressure and organized interests, as well as thanks

of production to those groups not only do they undermine

seriously the responsibility of the RDI to ensure that groups

interest policies [...] or pressure do not seek to

assert their views through this kind of productions, but

should raise with the RDI questions about

the independence of the film of any group that could

have a direct interest in the issue.

In presenting an indictment against unilateral either party

a conflict, RDI has failed in its duty to ensure fairness and balance

by failing to present in this other issue

views on the item, as stipulated Standards

and journalistic practices of Radio-Canada, the audience can

note that can draw different conclusions from the same facts.

Tolerating the many snags to the realities of film history,

RDI a political and diplomatic settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian RDI has

failed in its responsibility for the accuracy of the facts - applicable

even in the case of a document of opinion - and has failed to enforce

film the criterion of exceptional quality and relevance before

to disseminate, as stipulated in its own standards and journalism. (...) ".

Director, Complaint Handling and General Affairs, sent this reply to all complainants:

"We've received your comments on

Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land, presented

at the major reports, RDI broadcast on October 23.

Let me first give you some explanations on

the context in which we broadcast documentaries. The

documentary focuses on personal point of view.

In the almost all cases, these documents are signed works

by directors from outside the CBC. We choose

to disseminate because we believe they contain

information of interest.

By airing documentaries opinion, Radio-Canada does

not promote the views contained therein. On

the contrary, it is part of our commitment to offering a

variety of perspectives on topics of public interest.

The documentary Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land

contained interesting information to the Canadian public on the

treatment of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the American media.

It was a U.S. production of a Media Education Foundation, distributed

by Mundovision.

However, this documentary is an updated version of a partial

document turned ago now four years before Israel

withdraw from Gaza. Therefore our presentation CW

should have put in context of four years ago rather

as a contemporary challenges posed the Middle East

on the eve of U.S. presidential elections of 2008.

It was indeed a very personalized the conflict.

We recognize that this view was clearly pro-Palestinian.

We wish to assure you that we have recently acquired

other documentaries offering glances different on the

situation in Israel and Gaza and we expect to circulate

in the coming months. (...) "

After receiving this response, several plaintiffs have asked me to review the issue because they believe this documentary simply would not have been broadcast, whatever may have been the presentation.

REVISION

The rules to follow

The information broadcast on Radio-Canada must respect the three principles at the heart of its journalistic standards and practices: the accuracy, integrity and fairness. However, there are exceptions for documentaries produced outside the house, including "documentaries of opinion within the meaning of documentaries engaged":

"The term documentary opinion is also used to describe a

work commenced or a thesis, an advocacy, based on facts,

calls for a solution or a point of view on a controversial subject.

Although the work is based on facts, it does not fairly the

variety of opinions that may exist on the subject or record.

The programmer must sometimes decide whether to disseminate

production significantly transgresses standards journalistic

Radio-Canada because this production openly takes sides on a

controversial issue, the point to exclude other relevant facts

and other items of view. (...) "

(NPJ A, 2.4)

The documentary Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land satisfies these criteria. The film advance without making the evidence that the Israeli government controls the American media, written and electronic. To illustrate this thesis, the documentary uses excerpts from television news reports that pass over in silence the fact that the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel. According to the film, this omission, the choice of words and the systematic lack of context reinforces false perceptions in the American public. There is no fairness, balance or nuance here: the pro-Palestinian documentary presents a single point of view, only one side of the coin. All those interviewed - academics, Israeli and Palestinian activists, media critics and journalists - are in agreement with this view. If Radio-Canada chooses to present a documentary such rules apply:

Radio-Canada (...) should ensure that interest groups political or

economic or pressure groups, not seek to enforce their views

through this kind of production. "

(NPJ A, 2.4)

"The production should be clearly identified at the beginning and

the end as a documentary author. "

(NPJ A, 2.4, b)

"The facts should be accurate even if it is a work of opinion, and

arguments should conform to facts. (...) "

(NPJ A, 2.4, d)

The production is clearly identified?

The direction of Radio-Canada has quickly admitted its mistake: the presentation of this report does not respect the political journalism of Radio-Canada. Here is the transcript from this Great reports:

"Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land.

The American media does

they see Israeli settlement in the occupied territories

a gesture of defense?

Welcome to Great reports. The signing of a peace agreement

in the Middle East before the end of 2008, as provided in the

Annapolis conference last year, is it still possible?

With the approach of the American election and the first two

Israeli and Palestinian ministers, both at their departure,

much in doubt. According to experts from the Middle East since

40 years, the settlement policy of the Jewish state has increased

inside the occupied Palestinian territories. Therefore:

Daily violence is both the Palestinian and Israeli sides.

So what message convey the American media on this

interminable conflict? They distort the trial of our neighbors

of South? "

At no time, nor in this presentation, or at the end of the show, it is said that it was a documentary view of a film commitment. No mention is made of its author or its production house American Media Education Foundation. In fact, the name of Montreal distributor who is at the beginning of the documentary and the generic. More troubling still, at any time or in the presentation or in the generic, it is said that the documentary was released in 2003, when I was confirmed by the producer.

Such omissions deprive viewers of vital information. However, the website of the production makes clear that this film in 2003. Five years in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a long time. At that time we were in the second wave of the intifada. Since then, the situation has changed: the Israelis have withdrawn from the Gaza Strip, Ariel Sharon created a new party in favor of dismantling settlements before being terraced by two strokes and falling into a coma, Yasser Arafat is dead; Palestinians from Gaza have elected the radical Hamas and the Israelis have built a fence around the West Bank, suicide bombings have ended in Israel's offensive the Israeli army against Hezbollah in Lebanon has killed 1 200 .

The presentation gives the impression that the documentary is recent. The first director responsible for the content of documentaries on Radio-Canada recognizes that the context is lacking. In his opinion, should have been saying that the settlers and the Israeli army left Gaza, and perhaps ask the question to launch the documentary: "One wonders whether the situation has changed since then."

When Radio-Canada buys a documentary, it adapts, translates to the need and shortens, in this case from 52 to 43 minutes. It is a director who is responsible for this work. The director in question tells me he has not managed to find the date of production of the documentary. It chose instead to identify video clips in the documentary, excerpts dating from 2000 to 2003.

The journalist in search charged with writing the show, admits his error. He was captured, he said, by another series of documentaries. Two hundred documentaries must be adapted to the major stories in every IRD year.

The director of Radio-Canada responsible for acquisitions said that, on paper and during the viewing, Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land seemed worthwhile because the documentary presented a new angle on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The director believed that the work was contemporary, since 2008 in the catalog of "international documentary programs," Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land was described as "production".

He said that the distributor has not warned that the movie was not recent. For its part, distributor remembers that Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land was released in room in early 2005. However, Radio-Canada has recognized the true date of production (2003) when complaints began to accumulate. The craftsmen who I spoke to me all said they will be more vigilant in the future.

The big difference between documentary and the 2003 version distributed in October 2008 to RDI is its duration. The original work is 80 minutes, the distributor asked the producer to reduce his film to 52 minutes to sell it to TV. The distributor has registered a narration to accompany the abbreviated version. It has removed some glaring anachronisms in the international version in English. In my opinion, this is not enough to talk about "updating". You can see the documentary and read the full transcript on the site of the production: http://www.mediaed.org/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi

A author Documentary pro-Palestinian or a work of propaganda?

Radio-Canada must ensure that it buys documentaries are not propaganda tools of lobbyists. If Radio-Canada had viewed the full 80 minutes of Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land, it would have realized that by the end of the film can be read thanks to several militant groups pro-Palestinian (Electronic Antifada, Al -Awda Right of Return Coalition, Islam Online). The producer and director assures me that these lobbyists have not funded his film, but only provided assistance for research.

This proximity between militant groups and documentary is disturbing. For example, a data-shocks of the documentary is that only 4 percent of the new state television that the West Bank and Gaza are "occupied". A small note at the bottom of the screen attributes this statistic in 2001 the group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting FAIR. This is a pro-Palestinian group monitoring the media for the pro-Israel group CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America) and HonestReporting, the source of many complaints to my office against this documentary. This is not independent research.

It would have taken at least that these facts are known to Radio-Canada so that it may be part of the evaluation of the editorial product.

The facts are they true?

Even if it is a documentary of opinion, the arguments must be based on facts, under the rules Radio-Canada. But the obvious anachronisms. Of anachronisms that are not believing the viewer warned that Gaza is still occupied by the army and Israeli settlers. The reality is quite different: the settlers left the Gaza Strip since 2005, the Israeli army evacuated the territory, although it still encircles and control the entry and exit of Palestinians and goods.

At 3 minutes and a half early, it can be read at the bottom of the screen: "The West Bank and Gaza Strip under military occupation."

At 9 minutes into "So we could say that in addition to the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, Israel (...)."

At 12 minutes into the narrator says: "... Four percent of the media network 2 on the occupied West Bank and the Gaza Strip indicate that they are occupied territories."

At 20 minutes 17 at the beginning, the narrator says: "The Palestinian territories are dotted with settlements that are established in strategic (...) settlements with the neighboring land they have appropriate control over 40% the West Bank and Gaza Strip. "On screen, we see a map of small white dots, illustrating the settlements dot the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

The first was erroneous overprint added by the director of Radio-Canada that adaptation. Neither him, nor anyone has noticed anachronisms before the CW. Even if the director who adapted the work tells me that he thought the documentary was "limited", it has not expressed its concerns to staff framework. Result: no connection charge has viewed the documentary before it is released.

The convener Simon Durivage is not responsible for these errors. He records the presentations that he prepares between two direct interventions RDI, where he is on the air four hours or more per day.

The failure to mention the withdrawal from Gaza is not trivial, because part of the argument of the film is based on the following statement: "The purpose of Israel is permanently annexing the occupied territories" . That may be true for part of the West Bank, but it has already proved false in the Gaza Strip.

Other inaccuracies:

The fighting in Jenin in 2002. "This event, although widely condemned as a war crime by organizations of human rights, was minimized by the American media who gave écartèrent involved and the possibility of a massacre." (Excerpt of the documentary). On the Palestinian side, there was talk at the time of 500 victims. An investigation by Human Rights Watch concluded that there was no evidence of the massacre. Fifty-seven Palestinians and twenty-four Israelis have died in these clashes.

"Israel's position is anything but defensive.": This is a dubious generalization.

The occupied territories, "a foreign country: the West Bank and Gaza Strip are not part of Israel. These territories are under no jurisdiction. The Palestinians want to make a country, but it is not yet a reality.

On several occasions, the documentary refers to the occupation "illegal" Palestinian territories by Israel. The legal reality is more complex: the Jewish settlements and the erection of a security fence in the West Bank are clearly illegal. But experts disagree about the "illegal" any Israeli military presence in the West Bank because of the ambiguity in the English version of resolution 242 United Nations (1967). The withdrawal must be "territories" (from territories). The Israeli withdrawal from all territories it is mandatory or not under resolution 242? The interpretation of this clause has never been clarified by the courts.

On this issue, the director of the grid RDI think that the CBC has no staff necessary to verify the facts contained in the 200 documentaries purchased each year. Hence the importance of a strong write to the warnings required for the viewers. The first director responsible for the content of documentary adds that the CBC trusted foreign producers known (eg., BBC), but the Company can not abandon its responsibility to seriously evaluate the content of broadcast works.

The two executives, who have several responsibilities, say it is unthinkable for them to watch all the documentaries before putting on the air, especially that to buy 200, one must view the double. When artisans have doubts about a documentary, they should seek advice from one of their superiors. This time, no alarm was triggered throughout the process. The director of the grid RDI believes this is an isolated event, which should not obscure the work done for 14 years. In light of this error, the first director of the documentary says it needs tighter control editorial Service acquisitions.

The documentary would it have been broadcast or not?

The fact that this documentary is favorable for the Palestinian cause is not in question here. Radio-Canada has the right to broadcast films opinion, provided they are clearly presented as such. Radio-Canada must also encourage a diversity of views in its programming. There is no strict accounting on the "views" disseminated about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but the first director ensures that the interests of diversity exists. Before this controversy erupted, he had bought the rights of Israeli interesting documentary to be broadcast in early 2009.

The first director think this documentary deserved to be released because of the fame of some of the participants. It is of the opinion that to preserve the integrity of the work, do not get to touch here and there so that the film has more air after five years. It is therefore not agree with the approach of the dealer who says he is an update of Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land in 2008.

Le producteur et réalisateur du documentaire est convaincu que son film est toujours pertinent. The producer and director of the documentary is convinced that his film is still relevant. He said: "This will not change that Gaza is no longer colonized by Israel, since that territory has become an open-air prison." The situation on the ground has not changed, and it is always also true in his opinion that the American media, written or electronic, routinely fail to mention the occupation of the West Bank and the reasons behind the Palestinian resistance. He is preparing a new movie on the cover made by the American media about the Gaza Strip and the Israeli offensive in Lebanon.

Conclusion

The error has already been recognized by the management of Radio-Canada. The Standards and journalistic practices have not been respected in the presentation of foreign documentary Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land, distributed to broadcast Major reports, on 23 October 2008. Radio-Canada should have specified that it was a documentary engaged, that the situation on the ground had changed since five years, date of production of the film, particularly since Israel withdrew from Gaza . Finally, it should be clear that a work was produced abroad.

Given the circumstances and vulnerabilities identified in editorial control, this documentary would not have been released.

Julie Miville-Dechêne Julie Miville-Dechêne
Ombudsman Services French
Société Radio-Canada Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
2008-12-08 2008-12-08

E-mail: ombudsman@radio-Canada.ca

Web: http://www.radio-canada.ca/ombudsman/index.shtml

Labels: Anne Humphreys, Canada, Islam, Palestine, Radio-Canada

# posted by Francis Chartrand @ 11:09 AM 0 Comments

The Palestinian elite in its educational works

Note the quality of uniforms, shoes and hats included, and accessories (weapons), the profusion of flags absolutely new, the size and length of the staging. Record also the fact that all children welcome the Koran by leaving scene. These children are indoctrinated cream of their society, their parents are wealthy. No doubt thanks to their allegiance to the movement. And this film is circulating in the Palestinian territories for over two years, where he undoubtedly served as an example and model for countless similar performances.

Worthy of note also the fact that the television channel CNN American left has presented this film without showing the area in which Palestinian children killed by surprise Israeli soldiers then dragged the bodies on the scene.

Labels: Arab World, Noémie Cournoyer, Palestine, Secularism, Youth

# posted by Francis Chartrand @ 9:47 PM 0 Comments