Suicide Bombing – Crime against Humanity?

Not as linear as you might think…….

by Mary Rizzo

The presentation of the Parliamentary Motion in the Italian Senate which aims at classifying suicide bombing as a crime against humanity has followed an interesting bureaucratic course. It started as an observation by the Human Rights Watch, then had become the campaign of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, and now, is finding its way into the international forum by way of a European government proceeding. All of this, in the hopes of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, is just the prelude to the formal presentation of the motion by a European country to the United Nations itself. The Centre has been on the lookout for some State, any State, (preferably not the United States for questions of expediency), to assume the responsibility of this call to broaden the list of crimes against humanity. It is the belief of the Centre that the “tyranny of the majority” of the UN is actually the essence of the problem in promoting such an initiative. It would never pass if it looked like it was really about what it is about, undermining the image of Arab resistance to occupation while weakening the structure of Palestinian administration.

What would be the outcome of this shift in consideration of a terrible act of terrorism into a crime against humanity? In the first place, it would remove it from the sphere of conflict limited to a specific area and specific purpose and create the internationalisation of the affair. In international law, crimes, murder and acts of violence of various nature are ideally dealt with by undertaking criminal investigation. This means that the burden of assuring that justice prevails, and that exclusively those suspected of committing a crime stand trial and are punished if the evidence demonstrates that they are guilty, falls solely upon the injured party or the State which represents it. With crimes that fall into the category of crimes against humanity, this burden no longer exists. In fact, the victim of the crime is exempt from the obligation of investigation and merely assumes the role of accusation. The statute of limitations is removed as are elements of contingency and justification. The perspective in which this crime has developed is completely de-contextualised. It stands alone without any history behind it, or any meaning whatsoever. It is condemned to remain a mysterious division between “the culture of life” and “the culture of death”.

This sort of arrangement is very convenient for Israel, as it refuses to undertake criminal investigation, opting for the more rapid and less troublesome solution of immediate retaliation. Israel has consistently ignored the burden of creating a case providing evidence to bring those it suspects to trial. As far as I know, only Barghouti has had the courtesy of being charged and subsequently facing the courts of justice for terrorism. Others have not had such luck. Yassin, Rantissi and dozens of others have been assassinated, which, in any court of law is considered to be a serious criminal act. Notwithstanding the fact that accompanying them on their journey out of this world, were their families, neighbours and others who were guilty of the crime of living in the wrong open air prison. Retaliation itself is considered unlawful in international jurisdiction, and it is aggravated by that fact that it is virtually impossible to avoid harming innocent people in the process. Blowing oneself up in a crowded street is a horrible crime. Dropping a 10 tonne bomb on a sleeping city, a crowded intersection or a marketplace does nothing to spare the lives of civilians, and is in itself a ferocious action of systematic State terrorism against an entire population. Israel might be getting tired of this system and wants to lose the status of pariah state that such actions cause in the international public opinion. Thus, releasing any culpability for neglecting to fulfil the obligations of investigation and trial by shifting it to the international arena would make for astute political gain.

But more important of a gain would be that of eliminating the political symbolism of the act of suicide bombing. As it currently stands, the person who undertakes the mission of destroying himself while at the same time destroying other lives, is not acting out of hatred of a people, but of a system. The Shahidi is operating under the impression that he or she is committing an act that will rectify or at least in some way serve as a loudspeaker to an enormous injustice that is being endured. It is not the worship of some “death cult” as stated in the document of the Italian Senators, literally copied almost word for word from the press release of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, but rather, it is an act which seeks to in some way bring attention to and to cause a change in the system which is oppressing the fellow members of the community of the suicide bomber.

The question that arises from this would be, “Is there a moral or political justification for such acts?” The answer which immediately comes to the minds of those who are interested in the pacific resolution of the crisis which is at the core of these violent acts is, “No! They can’t be justified.” The loss of innocent life is always a tragedy. The utilisation of suicide bombing can be considered to be inhumane, as well as ineffective. But, the problem is not the nature of the crime, rather, is this crime capable of being justified by those who undertake it, or is it a resignation to the “death cult” which is mentioned in these documents, therefore removing it from a justifiable political arena ?

Not all suicide bombers are driven by religious motivation, although some are. Yet, all of them are driven by the certainty that their people are the victims of oppression. Many of the suicide bombers happen to be in nations that have been living under foreign occupation, and have seen the results of extremely violent military aggression against unarmed people in their communities. In their eyes, the loss of their own lives only gains context if it is considered as a weapon against others. They see it as a form of resistance. Are we entitled to judge whether or not it is more legitimate to devastate a village and destroy the homes and lives of innocent people in the search for suspects or to run towards a checkpoint with the intention of killing and at the same time take one’s own life? All of these acts are heinous, and it is a common trap to attempt to make those who oppose a repressive regime justify suicide bombing. The tragic nature of these acts is not in question. What is however, being transformed is the symbolic nature, and therefore, its political meaning.

Differing from acts of arbitrary violence, such as drive by killings and serial murder, the suicide bomber is equipped with an attitude. Most of those in his group may not approve of his methods, for whatever reasons, but it is difficult to imagine that they do not comprehend the ideological significance of his act. It is not targeted against people, but against a symbol. This may be hard to comprehend for those who do not recognise the community approval on a moral basis of the cause itself. To eliminate the crime, the cause has got to be addressed. Removing contingency and justification does not move towards viewing the situation from the eyes of the perpetrator and the group he intends upon representing and addressing the cause of these acts. And, that is the very goal of internationalising the problem and eliminating the statutes of limitations, and other guarantees. Persons living under occupation, who have no strong operative legal structures of their own should welcome such an opportunity to present their grievances in an international court of law. But, the development of this juridical situation would neither serve as deterrent nor would it provide true justice. It presents the oppressor as the sole victim.

It is natural that injured parties, the families and the States that represent them seek justice for the loss of their loved ones, for the loss of a sense of security that they need to live a healthy existence. Many of these parties do actually seek justice. They would want the criminal to stand trial. Others only are interested in revenge, vendetta, which is a perfectly human reaction. When tragedy strikes, people react in desperate ways and often want to take justice in their own hands. States should be beyond this law of the jungle, though, and Israel, the coalition nations in Iraq, the United States in Afghanistan, the Russians in Chechenya and many other examples, defy this basic code of international legality.

The Israeli government conducts massive operations of house demolitions in the aftermath of a strike. Regular praxis is curfew, raids and round-ups, arrest without charge, occupation of buildings in strategic position as lookout posts, withholding of foodstuffs, detention at checkpoints and firing on demonstrations. All of these are acts that are in violation of international law. None of this has had court follow up. The atrocities committed against the Palestinians are just “business as usual”.

Following the tragic events of 11 September, rather than undertake investigation and seek to bring justice through law, the use of force by the United States military was adopted. Thousands of innocent Afghani victims have been killed because they had the enormous misfortune of being born in Afghanistan. They had the enormous misfortune of being ruled by the tyrannical Talibans, and they paid for it with their lives. The Iraqi population has been paying for decades now for the misfortune of being Iraqis under Saddam. The United States is seeking justice there too, but not in the courts of law. Thousands of innocent victims are the result of an illegal “liberation” that has become an illegal occupation. It is not difficult to recognise that large segments of the population have suffered from this aggression and believe that they must resist. Resistance takes many forms, and all acts of resistance can not be classified as terrorism, just as all acts of terrorism can not be classified as resistance. Time will dictate what approach has been the wisest, but meanwhile, the violence only escalates, because resolution of the cause is being avoided.

There must be a widespread impression in the Arab world that the courts don’t exist. If they are starting to do so, they are only formed as a way to institutionalise the cultural clash (Western impression) and injustice (Arab impression), and not as an instrument used to achieve justice. And, what kind of justice can the families of the victims of the suicide bomber hope for? If justice means that the perpetrator of the crime is punished, it seems clearly obvious that this person has already paid the highest price imaginable, and can no longer stand trial and face the death sentence. The sentence has been meted out. Yet, in order to achieve some political gain from this event, while avoiding the necessity of resolution of the cause, the groups who claim responsibility are attacked militarily while those who legally assume responsibility for the crime are the government or those in authority who are held accountable. It is not necessary to demonstrate that they even played an active part. As a matter of fact, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, while endorsing the principle of suicide bombing being changed to a crime against humanity, in the case of Palestine failed to find evidence that the government was either accomplice to these acts or able to exercise effective control over the groups. Yet, those in authority would be held accountable for failing to take preventive action for failing to punish the perpetrators. Even if they condemned the acts of violence, they would have to stand trial as the defendant.

In the case of Palestine, the ultimate irony would be created: the State of Israel, whose policies of oppression are the cause of these acts, would be viewed in this court as the victim of this system, and the Palestinian government as the aggressor.



The idea that the Californian centre is undertaking was begun at the end of last year by a group of American academics: Berlusconi could be the right leader to present it within a few days at the General Assembly of the UN in a short resolution consisting of three paragraphs to declare that suicide bombs are a crime against humanity.

The desire of Rabbi Abraham Cooper, for almost thirty years right arm of Simon Wiesenthal at the Simon Wiesenthal Centre of Los Angeles is very simple. Berlusconi, he explains, could be the right leader to present within a few days at the General Assembly of the UN a short resolution of three paragraphs to declare that suicide bombs are a crime against humanity. “We are in need of” he says, “a country that takes the initiative in order to set the process in motion”.

The idea that the Californian centre has undertaken was begun at the end of last year by a group of American academics. Since December, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, a Jewish organisation established to assure justice to the Nazi criminals, has made it officially one of its battles.

“Our reason is double,” explains Rabbi Cooper, “the first is an act of solidarity on behalf of all countries with the affirmation that this sort of behaviour is unacceptable and criminal. The second is to give to the victims, to their families and even to States a legal mechanism to prosecute whoever promotes these actions”.

“International law, as it is now”, stresses the Rabbi, “is directed against those groups who can be legally linked to governments that sponsor them. But this, in the current situation, is no longer the case. It is not the way Al Qaeda operates, nor of those sheiks who send their message throughout the world from Qatar via internet or Al Jazeera. Yet it is they who are creating the culture of hate”, he says.

To promote the initiative, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, has been actively moving now for months, its representatives have met the Pope in Vatican, the representative of the European Union, Xavier Solana, the Foreign Affairs ministers of 18 different nations.

“The Pope acted very quickly and he has been very useful”, says Abraham Cooper, “we met him, I believe, at the beginning of December and that same day he received in Vatican a group of Christians and Muslims and told them in very simple terms that this type of action could not be justified invoking the name of God”.

In almost a year, however, the road towards a UN resolution has run into a series of obstacles that are as ambiguous and evasive as they are difficult to overcome.

“That which we need is a State. We tried in Latin America, we are in contact with Turkey, the Prime Minister has just written us, we have written even to Bush and Kerry, even if we don’t believe that the United States are the right nation, Turkey or a European nation would be better. We hoped, considering also that numerous victims are Muslims, that something would have moved, but so far it hasn’t happened”, the Rabbi admits. “There has to be political will, the determination to trace a line. On the other hand, after that which has happened in Russia, if the international community doesn’t find an agreement when it meets in several days in the UN, that means that we are headed at great speed to a new obscurantism”.

Keeping the hands of the international community tied, in the opinion of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, is especially that which Cooper defines as “the tyranny of the majority” within the United Nations Building. The perception, in other words, that the block of the Islamic nations will end up blocking the idea. “I don’t think that’s the right perception,” asserts the Rabbi, “only that in the past few days a significant part of the Arab public opinion has made a stance against that which has happened in the Russian school. And then this question has nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The crime had its beginning in Sri Lanka and now it is meting out even more Muslim victims in the world”. The solution, therefore, could come from an Italy indignant and courageous. “If Berlusconi or another important Italian politician could raise the question, even from behind the scenes, it could succeed in giving for the first time a legal arm to the victims of terrorism. Or it could take the word to the UN or to the EU. It would take only three minutes to present a resolution just three paragraphs long.” That is the hope of Abraham Cooper.



Observed that:

the horror of a terrorist violence without precedent in history has imposed, correctly or incorrectly, the expression, “Kamikaze Terrorism”;

in the opinion of Elie Wiesel, Nobel Peace Prize winner of 1986, founder of the “Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity”, differently from the Japanese soldiers who, at the end of the second World War, choosing to sacrifice themselves attacking strictly military objectives, the suicide terrorist of our times prefers to attack helpless civilians, unarmed children, defenceless women, with the goal of feeding in the individual conscience and that of the masses, an absolute counter-position, in many ways more than racist, regarding the “enemy-infidel” and to determine the dishumanisation of the entirety of the world’s conflicts;

its goal, therefore, is to kill and to massacre, to die while killing is better, to practice the cult of death, to live one’s own desperation or even one’s own hopes only in death, adored as one’s own God, the God of death;

some figures at the summit of the terrorist aggregations (Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Army of Iraq and so forth) approve, promote and exalt the realisation of such mass homicides, not hesitating to accredit to them the value also and above all to the standard of an interpretation which is hateful and distorted of some sacred texts;

in particular – notwithstanding that the Muslim community, in its generality, as has emerged in a document recently complimented by the President of the Republic, has always shown itself to refuse every form of violence and fanaticism – a growing number of persons, often very young, are induced to rethink the Koranic commandments in the light of the mystique of suicide terrorism, in such extraneous to the Koran and to Islam;

added without a doubt in this disquieting prospective are the most sanguinary terrorist attacks perpetrated in the world in the recent past years: from the enormous tragedy of New York and Washington of 11 September 2001, up until the very serious strikes accomplished in various localities of the State of Israel, Russia, the Philippines, India, Pakistan, Iraq, and the strikes of Bali, Casablanca, Istanbul, Jakarta;

even our nation has been tremendously hit by this vile practice of death, in such that last 12 November, four suicide bombers aboard two vehicles packed with explosives devastated the buildings which housed the Italian military contingent present at Nassiriya, in Iraq, killing 19 of our fellow countrymen: fifteen State Police, two soldiers of the Army and two civilians working in humanitarian activities;

the incessant series of terrorist strikes which have been undertaken, even in Europe, by cells which are traceable to the Al Qaeda signature confirms – such as is stressed in the last “Report on informational politics and on security”, regarding the first semester of 2004, presented in Parliament by our Intelligence apparatus last 30 July – “realisation and actuality of the threat related to the activity of International Jihadism” (page 13);

considered that:

authoritative institutional subjects have for a long time addressed a strong call to the international organisms and to the single governments so that, in the respect of human rights, more incisive instruments are adopted for the immediate contrast to international terrorism and, specifically, so that the international community works towards interrupting the sanguinary series of suicide strikes of a terrorist matrix;

the situation of political paralysis which has been registered, during the Iraq crisis, within the UN Security Council has fed into the sensation of a credibility gap in the UN;

the divisions which have been produced at that time in Europe have on the other hand contributed to reinforce that American unilateralism, which is denounced as unfit;

a firm warning against terrorism was significantly pronounced by His Holy Father Pope John Paul II who, on several occasions, has affirmed that “whoever kills with terrorist acts cultivates sentiments of contempt towards humanity, manifests desperation regarding life and the future” (Message of Pope John Paul II for the celebration of the World Day of Peace, 1 January 2002);

in this same prospective, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, for decades committed to the promotion of religious tolerance and for the struggle against anti-Semitism, has become the explicit promoter of a campaign of mobilisation so that the international community recognises suicide strikes of a terrorist matrix as configuring as a true “crime against humanity”;

adhering to this appeal, in our nation at this time, by initiative of the newspaper “Il Riformista” exponents of culture and journalism of various political collocations, as well as diverse secular and religious associations and organisations (Union of the Italian Jewish Communities, ACLI, Legambiente, Movimento dei Focolarini, Comunità di Sant’Egidio, Focsiv);

as such, it is not comprehensible how the Parliament and the Italian government can remain indifferent to such a solicitation of public opinion that is so vast and significant;

considered that:

The suicide strikes of a terrorist matrix integrate criminal conduct which offends the international community in the patrimony of values which are universally shared, upon which it is founded and which it cannot be consented to abdicate;

Such practice of death presupposes an evident lesion of the most elementary human rights and of international juridical order, bringing about intolerable violations of the “general principles of rights recognised by civilised nations” (art. 38, paragraph I, lett. C, of the Statute of the International Court of Justice of the UN) under which human life finds universal tutelage;

the Statute of the International Penal Court (approved with the Treaty of Rome on 17 July 1998) has signalled an important aim in the historical process of juridical determination of the concept of crimes against humanity as a category separate from others, affirmed by more than half a century as part of consuetudinary international law, such crimes that are comprised of the so-called jus cogens;

these constitute a thus intransgressible norm, subject to universal jurisdiction, so that all States have the duty to make the guilty stand trial or to extradite them, independently of the nationality of the guilty or the place where the crime was committed;

the norms of guarantee are not in vigour for political crimes nor those norms on prescription, on immunity or justifications;

such a Statute has nevertheless not expressly pronounced the inclusion in such a category as acts such as those of terrorism, for contingent contractual reasons of political-diplomatic nature;

such contractual reasons, although respectable, are however, contingent;

even by the same standards of that which was solemnly sanctioned by the Statute of the International Penal Court, it must be convened that the suicide strikes of terrorist matrix constitute “crimes against humanity” in so far as they are knowingly committed “as part of an extended or systematic attack directed against civilian populations” (art. 7, paragraph I, Statute of the International Penal Court) which takes place through the reiterated killing of helpless civilians, “in execution or in ulterior actuation of the political design of (.) an organisation having as its objective such an attack” (art. 7, Constitutional Elements of the Crimes Adopted, ex art. 9, paragraph I, of the Statute of Rome, from the Assembly of the Partner States at New York on 8 September 2002);

further, the “norms of closure” contained in letter k of the mentioned article 7 of the Statute of the International Penal Court include, among crimes against humanity, “other inhuman acts of analogous character directed at intentionally provoking great suffering or great damages to the physical integrity or physical or mental health”.

commitment of the Government

to research new agreements, in European spheres and among all the interested States, suitable to reinforce the initiatives of battle against terrorist violence, favouring in particular the perfection of operative instruments and of the apparatus of contrast as well as the homogenisation of the national and international norms which in this very delicate material reveal themselves to be, still today in many senses, lacunose and ineffective;

to work through the General Assembly of the United Nations so that as soon as possible, in a clear and unequivocal form, it is recognised that even terrorist action perpetrated through suicide strikes constitutes, to all effects of international dispositions in force, a very serious and imprescriptible “crime against humanity”, of which the leaders of the States and the aggregations who have promoted or favoured the enactment must respond before the international judicial organisms to which is entrusted the repression of universal crimes.

Sen. Luigi Compagna

Sen. Giorgio Tonini

Rome, 13 September 2004.


15 responses to “Suicide Bombing – Crime against Humanity?

  1. You know, all these arguments could be applied to the famous Biblical story of Samson in Gaza. And if we abstract away from the fact that the purpose is to take some Zionists with one, then the ‘death cult’ aspect applies to the Masada myth too, and to many many stories of ‘Chilul ha Shem’. (Jewish religious martyrdom). However, double standards are what Zionist rhetoric is all about, really, so we shouldn’t be surprised to find another case in point being developed here.

    The essential Zionist propaganda technique may in my opinion be described as Pavlovian (though it avails itself of many Freudian hypotheses about personality structure). Its purpose is to substitute a conditioned reflex of aversion, triggered by certain words, for reasoned moral argument. This has always been true of scientific propaganda, and it is the converse of advertisers’ psychology, which aims to create a conditioned reflex of sexual titillation around some given brand-name.

    The term ‘crime against humanity’ is linked by conditioned reflex to the crimes of the Holocaust, which is the primary Pavlovian trigger for the giant conditioned reflex of aversion on which modern Jewish identity in both its left and its right wing form is based, alas. This has been commented upon by many perfectly respectable and totally non-political Rabbis and Jewish educators, and is no longer a taboo view.

  2. argh, silly me – “chillul ha-Shem” is blasphemy, “kiddush ha-Shem” is martyrdom – see this ingenious piece of dialectics for kids, here in html

  3. Reverend Heretic

    I totally agree with you. It is a shame that the U.S. & Israeli Illegal & Unjustified aggressesorss can Kill and Maim with impunity, all in the name of Greed & Domination.

    Keep up the good work…..


  4. Reverend Heretic


  5. Rowan I know you have no life other than trolling the net all day but at least learn a few facts before spewing your hate filled lies. Samson and Massada were not examples of the mass murder of as many innocent civilians from another nation as possible. Furthermore the fact that you have to go back over 2000 years go in your insane moral equivalency exercise shows how pathetic your mind really is – anything to justify Islamic war crimes, there’s always a good reason to spill Jewish blood, right? Sick MF.

  6. well, what makes you think your blood is redder than theirs?

  7. … anyway,I explicitly said that Masada was not relevant unless you, as I put it, abstract away from the desire (of the political suicide) to take as many of the enemy with you as possible. Samson in Gaza however is indeed a precise moral equivalent, providing you agree that all Palestinians are already captives of Israel’s occupation forces, whether they are in prison or in the Bantustan-like open prisons of the occupation.

    As matter of fact none of this is of primary concern to me. My primary concern is the fact that Jewish survival in any form, Zionist or Diasporist, exacts an increasing price from all other peoples, for irreversible historical reasons.

  8. “My primary concern is the fact that Jewish survival in any form, Zionist or Diasporist, exacts an increasing price from all other peoples, for irreversible historical reasons.”

    A nice Hitlerian premise – you sick anti-Semitic pig.

  9. It isn’t a premise, it’s an empirical observation. You’re quite welcome to explain to us a way in which the Jewish People, on the one hand, and the rest of the world, on the other, can be of benefit to one another. A happy outcome and the avoidance of a generalised conflict across the world on a multitude of planes and fronts, which seems to be what is happening now, would be welcome.

    Of course, there are those, like the Straussians, who think that as Heraclitus put it “War is the health of nations”. Jabotinsky thought that. Some have called him Hitlerian, though it would be more accurate to call him Mussolinian.

    Ben Gurion I can’t place on this scale at all. What can one say about a man who tells schoolchildren that they are part of a “revolution against Destiny”? It’s gibberish …

  10. You are a demented little nazi turd. Did the Joooooz fuck your spine up too? Part of the Zionist conspiracy right?

  11. I’m glad you’ve found my blog, I hope it amuses you, Mr Anon.

    I want to respond to Mary Rizzo’s lies about Israel.

    The way the left thinks. When Israelis are murdered, grievously injured, or bereaved by PLO terrorists, that does not count as an offense against human rights. When Arabs living under PLO rule are lynched or otherwise maltreated, that does not count as an offense against human rights. Defense of human rights consists of a search for occasions to accuse Israel of violating the human rights of Arabs.

    The Palestinians continually initiate the violence, the Israelis have not fired the first shots. Do the Palestinians expect not to be fired back on? Its ok for them to blow up school children and civilians intentionally?

    Someone please explain to me, how the Israelis could possibly live next to such a murderous people. I personally don’t see how it can be done at this point. All I see is the Palestinians provoking war and using any method they can to get all of Israel.
    How can there be peace among a people, that have no value for men women and children?

    Suicide bombers target anybody, they target people with nothing to do with anything.
    Israelis target those who fund and carry out suicide bombers.

    There is a difference between terrorism and defense of innocents.
    Israel targets terrorists, Israeli civilian deaths are the Palestinians goal. Big difference.

    Hamas and Arafat derive their legitimacy by killing Israeli secretaries and high schoolers.

    Palestinian terrorists intentionally target civilians, especially children.
    Bombs laden with nails and shrapnel, are intentionally detonated in crowds and public places to massacre hundreds of innocent Israeli civilians. By contrast, Israeli counter-terrorist operations have targeted specific installations and individuals, directly involved in the terrorist massacres. To imply a moral equivalence between the two, is an insult to the intelligence.

    The routine mass-murders and crimes committed by the Palestinians only decreased significantly when Israel reocuupies the cities and started destroying the houses of suicide bombers and of terrorists operatives, and killing the terrorist leaders.. Proving that these are effective steps.

    If Palestinian terrorists take cover among civilians, there will be civilian casualties. It’s that simple


    Mary then says this.
    In the case of Palestine, the ultimate irony would be created: the State of Israel, whose policies of oppression are the cause of these acts, would be viewed in this court as the victim of this system, and the Palestinian government as the aggressor.

    You are wrong about the motivation of the suicide murderers. It is not depression. It is the idea that this will bring the end to the Jewish state.
    The obstacle to peace remains Arab terrorism perpetrated by Arabs to annihilate an Israel of any size. And the inability of Arabs to live side by side with Jews, or anyone else.

    The Arabs and Iran want every last Jew gone from Israel. They say it quite openly.
    Can Mary Read!

    On Fateh’s site, it says this about there constitution.

    Article (12) Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence.

    Article (19) Armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic, and the Palestinian Arab People’s armed revolution is a decisive factor in the liberation fight and in uprooting the Zionist existence, and this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated.
    The principles of the Hamas are stated in their Covenant. On Hamas charter, it says.
    Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it.
    Dec 12, 03
    Islamic Jihad leader Shaik Nafez Azzam on making peace

    “You the Jews are invited to live in safety in Palestine, the whole” “But until then the terror attacks will continue. The Jihad will agree to 1967 border, and will continue to resistance from there to liberate all 1948 lands.”

    Hamas on making peace. Dec. 8, 2003

    We are not ready to give them (the Palestinian Authority) authorization to sign a new agreement,” said senior Hamas official Mohammed Nazzal. Nazzal also made
    clear his group’s stance towards the Jewish state. “”Every centimeter of the land of Palestine from 1948 onwards is occupied land and we will continue our resistance against Israeli targets in every place.
    Arafat’s speech in front of 40 Arab diplomats in the Grand Hotel in Stockholm, Sweden, on January 30, 1996. Was called “The Impending Collapse of Israel”.
    Arafat said, you understand that we plan to eliminate the State of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian State. I have no use for Jews; they are and remain Jews. We now need all the help we can get from you in our battle for a united Palestine under total Arab-Muslim domination!”
    FATEH Statement on Geneva Accord, 1 December 2003

    We remind those who play with the future of our people that an independent Palestinian State on the 1967 occupied land is not part of the strategic consensus, but only a transition program adopted by the PLO at the 1974 meeting of the Palestinian National Council (PNC).

    1974 Phased Plan
    Arafat said, since we cannot defeat Israel in war we do this in stages. We take any and every territory that we can of Palestine, and establish a sovereignty there, and we use it as a springboard to take more. When the time comes, we can get the Arab nations to join us for the final blow against Israel.”
    April 24, 2004
    Mahmoud Zahar, the top Hamas leader said this.
    Hamas would continue to struggle for the elimination of the State of Israel. “We are not willing to accept Israel as a legitimate state in this area. This is not our political attitude. This is a standing contradiction with Islam,” he said.
    TEHRAN 14 Dec. (IPS) One of Iran’s most influential ruling cleric called Friday on the Muslim states to use nuclear weapon against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them “damages only”.
    Existence of Israel contrary to Iranian interests: top official Monday, 10-Nov-2003
    TEHRAN, Nov 10 (AFP) – The mere existence of Israel is contrary to Tehran’s national interests, press reports said Monday, quoting former Iranian foreign minister Ali Akbar Velayati, now a top advisor to Iran’s supreme leader.

    “One of the elements of progress in a country is regional cooperation. Israel was created to prevent unity and cooperation between Islamic countries, that is why the existence of Israel is in contradiction with the national interests of Iran,” Velayati was quoted as saying by the conservative Ressalat newspaper.
    The Late Faisal Husseini: Oslo Is A Trojan Horse

    In Husseini’s last interview with the the popular Egyptian newspaper el Arav in 2001.
    Husseini said, it is the obligation of all the Palestinian forces and factions to see the Oslo Accords as “temporary” steps or “gradual” goals, because in this way, “We are setting an ambush for the Israelis and cheating them.”

    He also differentiated between, “strategic,” long term, “higher” goals, and “political,” short term goals dependent on “the current international establishment, balance of power, capabilities, and variable considerations that change from time to time.” Nevertheless, the Palestinians have been forced to temporarily concentrate on “gradual diplomatic goals.” However, the main goal is the “liberation of all Palestine from the river (Jordan) to the sea (Mediterranean),” even if this requires a struggle that will continue “1,000 years, or generations upon generations.”
    Monday, November 25, 2002
    The Hamas advocates Killing Jews, simply for being Jews
    24 November 2002

    The Iz-Adin Al Qassam Brigades, the military wing of the Hamas, published
    (23 November 2002) a bulletin on their official website, advocating the murder of Jews simply for the fact of that they are Jews.

    The bulletin was published to commemerate the anniversary of the death of Imad Akal, a senior Hamas official, killed in the Gaza Strip on November 24, 1993. The bulletin quotes Akal as saying: “We will knock on the doors of Heaven with the skulls of the Jews”. The bulletin depicts an axe shattering the word “Al-Yahud” (Jews) and splintering the skulls of Jews. The words Al-Qassam are engraved on the axe. French reporters came out with a video called The “Israel and the War of Images” is a French-produced video documentary that demonstrates, through exclusive footage of Palestinian leaders themselves — including Yasser Arafat — that their goal remains the eradication of the Jewish state.
    Palestinians consider Oslo ‘Trojan horse’
    Leaders consistently speak of process as means to destroy Israel

  14. anon, This article attempts to address a legal aspect of the question. No one was claiming that suicide bombing is legitimate in an intrinsic way, but whether or not it had the criteria to be classified as a Crime Against Humanity. It is a crime, of course, but we must be very specific when we are removing the statute of limitations and shifting the process of due law into international courts, as well as changing the culpability factor. You must also know that some areas are considered “areas of operation of resistance” by international law. Whether bombing is resistance or not is of course another question, but there are doubtless those who do believe that it is so and believe that acting against Military subjects or in a milieu of occupied territory, that these actions are indeed legitimate, just as a soldier thinks it is indeed legitimate to fire on an unarmed child. These matters should be brought to court in the local environment, with all of the mitigating factors considered.

    Do you believe in legal jurisdiction? That the perpetrator of a crime or one who is suspected of committing one stands trial after investigation and that only that criminal is judged and punished? I think that this is the basis of communal living, and all penal law in the West is based on that. Every time that this principle is violated, the problem is nowhere nearer to resolution.

    House demolitions punish people who did not commit the crime. Dropping Hellfire bombs onto a crowded street do the same. It is obvious that innocents are killed, just as innocents are killed when someone blows himself up at a checkpoint. If we want to stop this cycle of violence, there has to be space made for law to take precedence over the law of the jungle. Removing the responsibility of investigation and trial from Israel does not move in the right direction. And permitting the airing of grievances that are behind such acts, which are not like drive by shootings or random violence, but are precise political and symbolic acts, could very possibly lessen the (already minimal, if we must be honest) frequency of such acts.

    It is not a matter of left or right politics. It is about adopting law rather than often random retaliation. There has yet to be a calendar created that states Attack-Retaliation in a logical way that can be agreed to by both parties. It seems that they are operating on different timetables. The provocations are not seen in a uniform way, but of course are cluttered by ideology.

    The Cutter let me respond to what you said.

    First, Palestinian suicide bombers do not target soldiers. The majority of homicide bombers target Israeli civilians in buses, shopping centers, disco’s, pizzeria’s, hotels, train stations etc.

    Let them target soldiers. But Palestinians are to cowardly to fight soldiers.

    2nd, you say, House demolitions punish people who did not commit the crime.
    Israel is demolishing the houses of homicide bombers.
    Its called a deterent.
    Its message is clear. If Palestinian massacre Israeli civilians. There houses will be destroyed.
    I dont see anything wrong with that.
    Are you saying, there should be no consequences to homicide bombers or the people that send the homicide bombers.

    Mary also criticizes Israel for killing Yassin.
    According to Yassin, there was no such thing as Israeli civilians. Yassin was the head of Hamas.
    If Hamas murdered 500 Israeli civilians and Yassin is the commander and gives the orders to Hamas.
    You dont have to be a rocket scientist to realize, he’s guilty.

    Then you say, Dropping Hellfire bombs onto a crowded street do the same. It is obvious that innocents are killed, just as innocents are killed when someone blows himself up at a checkpoint.

    Again, you miss the point.
    Israel specifically targets terrorists, while the Palestinians deliberately target civilians.

    I’ll put it to you in simple Terms.
    The Cutter I want you to answer this question.

    If a Palestinian terrorist sends a homicide bomber that murders 10 Israelis.
    Then that Palestinian is hiding among dozens of Palestinian civilians. What should Israel do?
    This is what the Palestinians do all the time.
    Case in point. Please check out this pic.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s