Message
Anonymous wrote:Actually, international law, Hamas has to have a reasonable expectation to hitting a target:
A December 24 report by Human Rights Watch, “Gaza: Palestinian Rockets Unlawfully Targeted Israeli Civilians” sharply criticizes Palestinian resistance groups that fired rockets at Israeli population centers:
Under international humanitarian law, or the laws of war, civilians and civilian structures may not be subject to deliberate attacks or attacks that do not discriminate between civilians and military targets. Anyone who commits serious laws-of-war violations intentionally or recklessly is responsible for war crimes. . .
Actually that came out at a Ruling where the International Court Rejected Israel's right of Self-defense but the court also affirmed “the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples under colonial and alien domination recognized as being entitled to the right of self-determination to restore to themselves that right by any means at their disposal.” ( This clearly means that Palestinians have the right to fight to restore their right of self-determination and end the occupation) Resolution 2649 also “considers that the acquisition and retention of territory in contravention of the right of the people of that territory to self-determination is inadmissible and a gross violation of the Charter;”
International Court of Justice rejects Israeli self-defense
Rejecting the Israeli government arguments, the Court first found that the Article 51 right to self-defense “has no relevance” when the attacks on Israel, the occupying power, are from people living under Israeli rule rather than coming from a foreign state. The Court found:
Article 51 of the Charter thus recognizes the existence of an inherent right of self-defense in the case of armed attack by one State against another State. However, Israel does not claim that the attacks against it are imputable to a foreign State. The Court also notes that Israel exercises control in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and that, as Israel itself states, the threat which it regards as justifying the construction of the wall originates within, and not outside, that territory. . . Consequently, the Court concludes that Article 51 of the Charter has no relevance in this case.
The Court thus concluded that self-defense under Article 51 does not apply to an occupying power with respect to those living under occupation. Although Israel withdrew its illegal settlers from Gaza in 2005, Israel still controls all aspects of life in Gaza, including air, land and sea borders, and therefore Israel continues to be regarded as an occupying power over Gaza.
The decision that an occupying power cannot invoke Article 51 self-defense is complementary to provisions of the UN Charter, UN General Assembly Resolution 2625, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights under which self-determination is a principle of international law.
More specifically, the decision is complementary to UN General Assembly Resolution 2649, adopted November 30, 1970, that “affirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples under colonial and alien domination recognized as being entitled to the right of self-determination to restore to themselves that right by any means at their disposal.” Resolution 2649 also “considers that the acquisition and retention of territory in contravention of the right of the people of that territory to self-determination is inadmissible and a gross violation of the Charter;” and “condemns those Governments that deny the right to self-determination of peoples recognized as being entitled to it, especially of the peoples of southern Africa and Palestine.”
The rejection of Israel’s Article 51 argument leaves Israeli forces and their US sponsors at risk of prosecution for the crime of aggression, the subject of another article.
Court Rejects Israeli argument that self-defense trumps international law
The Court also concluded that construction of the wall on occupied Palestinian land was not in conformance with applicable international law because the route of the wall across Palestinian territory was illegal. “The Court considers that Israel cannot rely on a right of self-defense or on a state of necessity in order to preclude the wrongfulness of the construction of the wall.” Thus, the Court established that defending its citizens does not relieve Israeli government officials of their responsibility to observe international law.
International law for an occupying power includes the responsibility to protect civilians living under occupation and their property and to provide for the humanitarian needs of the population living under the occupation. International humanitarian law requires all combatants to protect civilians and civilian property during any armed conflict.
Source: More can be read here : http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/12/27/why-the-sel...imize-israels-assault-on-gaza/
Anonymous wrote:Mislima, Under international law, Israel has the right to defend itself. How is what is debatable. Israel can go after militants/militia, but not the general population.
Where it gets tricky is with civilian casualties because the weapon missed. If Israel targeted the shelter, then it is a war crime. If Israel targeted the militant that launched the missile, but the response missed...that is very unfortunate, but not necessarily a war crime.
The law doesn't say that. The law states that an occupying power has the right to police but not to self-defense. To fulfill its duties, the occupying power is afforded the right to use police powers, or the force permissible for law enforcement purposes. The extent and breadth of force constitutes the distinction between the right to self-defense and the right to police. Police authority is restricted to the least amount of force necessary to restore order and subdue violence. In such a context, the use of lethal force is legitimate only as a measure of last resort. Even where military force is considered necessary to maintain law and order, such force is circumscribed by concern for the civilian non-combatant population. The law of self-defense, invoked by states against other states, however, affords a broader spectrum of military force.
From Moshe Feiglin, the deputy speaker of the Knesset, Israel’s parliament. He has published a plan for the total destruction of the Palestinian people in Gaza.
Source: http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/concentrate-and-exterminate-israel-parliament-deputy-speakers-gaza-genocide-plan
Full translation of Feiglin’s statement
Feiglin’s Facebook page is verifiable as his because it is linked from his official page on the Knesset website.
Here is Feiglin’s 1 August statement on Facebook, translated in full by Dena Shunra:
With God’s Help
Attention
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
Mr. Prime Minister,
We have just heard that Hamas has used the ceasefire to abduct an officer. It turns out that this operation is not about to be over any too soon.
The failures of this operation were inherent to it from the outset, because:
a) It has no proper and clear goal;
b) there is no appropriate moral framework to support our soldiers.
What is required now is that we internalize the fact that Oslo is finished, that this is our country – our country exclusively, including Gaza.
There are no two states, and there are no two peoples. There is only one state for one people.
Having internalized this, what is needed is a deep and thorough strategic review, in terms of the definition of the enemy, of the operational tasks, of the strategic goals, and of course, of appropriate necessary war ethics.
(1) Defining the enemy:
The strategic enemy is extremist Arab Islam in all its varieties, from Iran to Gaza, which seeks to annihilate Israel in its entirety. The immediate enemy is Hamas. (Not the tunnels, not the rockets, but Hamas.)
(2) Defining the tasks
Conquest of the entire Gaza Strip, and annihilation of all fighting forces and their supporters.
(3) Defining the strategic goal:
To turn Gaza into Jaffa, a flourishing Israeli city with a minimum number of hostile civilians.
(4) Defining war ethics: “Woe to the evildoer, and woe to his neighbor”
In light of these four points, Israel must do the following:
a) The IDF [Israeli army] shall designate certain open areas on the Sinai border, adjacent to the sea, in which the civilian population will be concentrated, far from the built-up areas that are used for launches and tunneling. In these areas, tent encampments will be established, until relevant emigration destinations are determined.
The supply of electricity and water to the formerly populated areas will be disconnected.
b) The formerly populated areas will be shelled with maximum fire power. The entire civilian and military infrastructure of Hamas, its means of communication and of logistics, will be destroyed entirely, down to their foundations.
c) The IDF will divide the Gaza Strip laterally and crosswise, significantly expand the corridors, occupy commanding positions, and exterminate nests of resistance, in the event that any should remain.
d) Israel will start searching for emigration destinations and quotas for the refugees from Gaza. Those who wish to emigrate will be given a generous economic support package, and will arrive at the receiving countries with considerable economic capabilities.
e) Those who insist on staying, if they can be proven to have no affiliation with Hamas, will be required to publicly sign a declaration of loyalty to Israel, and receive a blue ID card similar to that of the Arabs of East Jerusalem.
f) When the fighting will end, Israeli law will be extended to cover the entire Gaza Strip, the people evicted from the Gush Katif will be invited to return to their settlements, and the city of Gaza and its suburbs will be rebuilt as true Israeli touristic and commercial cities.
Mr. Prime Minister,
This is the a fateful hour of decision in the history of the State of Israel.
All metastases of our enemy, from Iran and Hizballah through ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood, are rubbing their hands gleefully and preparing themselves for the next round.
I am warning that any outcome that is less than what I defined here means encouraging the continued offensive against Israel. Only when Hizballah will understand how we have dealt with Hamas in the south, it will refrain from launching its 100,000 missiles from the north.
I call on you to adopt the strategy proposed here.
I have no doubt that the entire Israeli people will stand to your right with its overwhelming majority, like myself – if only you will adopt it.
With high regards, respectfully,
Moshe Feiglin
Source: http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/concentrate-and-exterminate-israel-parliament-deputy-speakers-gaza-genocide-plan
Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:Anonymous wrote:Muslima, I think you are over interpreting international law. Israel has the right to defend herself. Period.
That wasn't my interpretation but that of the International Court of Justice, not only that, the International Court of Justice said that Palestine had the right to resist occupation, you can take your arguments to them
International Court of Justice rejects Israeli self-defense
Rejecting the Israeli government arguments, the Court first found that the Article 51 right to self-defense “has no relevance” when the attacks on Israel, the occupying power, are from people living under Israeli rule rather than coming from a foreign state. The Court found:
Article 51 of the Charter thus recognizes the existence of an inherent right of self-defense in the case of armed attack by one State against another State. However, Israel does not claim that the attacks against it are imputable to a foreign State. The Court also notes that Israel exercises control in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and that, as Israel itself states, the threat which it regards as justifying the construction of the wall originates within, and not outside, that territory. . . Consequently, the Court concludes that Article 51 of the Charter has no relevance in this case.
The Court thus concluded that self-defense under Article 51 does not apply to an occupying power with respect to those living under occupation. Although Israel withdrew its illegal settlers from Gaza in 2005, Israel still controls all aspects of life in Gaza, including air, land and sea borders, and therefore Israel continues to be regarded as an occupying power over Gaza.
The decision that an occupying power cannot invoke Article 51 self-defense is complementary to provisions of the UN Charter, UN General Assembly Resolution 2625, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights under which self-determination is a principle of international law.
More specifically, the decision is complementary to UN General Assembly Resolution 2649, adopted November 30, 1970, that “affirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples under colonial and alien domination recognized as being entitled to the right of self-determination to restore to themselves that right by any means at their disposal.” Resolution 2649 also “considers that the acquisition and retention of territory in contravention of the right of the people of that territory to self-determination is inadmissible and a gross violation of the Charter;” and “condemns those Governments that deny the right to self-determination of peoples recognized as being entitled to it, especially of the peoples of southern Africa and Palestine.”
The rejection of Israel’s Article 51 argument leaves Israeli forces and their US sponsors at risk of prosecution for the crime of aggression, the subject of another article.
Court Rejects Israeli argument that self-defense trumps international law
The Court also concluded that construction of the wall on occupied Palestinian land was not in conformance with applicable international law because the route of the wall across Palestinian territory was illegal. “The Court considers that Israel cannot rely on a right of self-defense or on a state of necessity in order to preclude the wrongfulness of the construction of the wall.” Thus, the Court established that defending its citizens does not relieve Israeli government officials of their responsibility to observe international law.
International law for an occupying power includes the responsibility to protect civilians living under occupation and their property and to provide for the humanitarian needs of the population living under the occupation. International humanitarian law requires all combatants to protect civilians and civilian property during any armed conflict.
Source: More can be read here : http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/12/27/why-the-self-defense-doctrine-doesnt-legitimize-israels-assault-on-gaza/
Yet you neglect the section:
A December 24 report by Human Rights Watch, “Gaza: Palestinian Rockets Unlawfully Targeted Israeli Civilians” sharply criticizes Palestinian resistance groups that fired rockets at Israeli population centers:
Under international humanitarian law, or the laws of war, civilians and civilian structures may not be subject to deliberate attacks or attacks that do not discriminate between civilians and military targets. Anyone who commits serious laws-of-war violations intentionally or recklessly is responsible for war crimes. . .
So, while Israel should not be attacking, Hamas should not be firing towards Israel. That is saying that both sides are wrong....
Nobody ever said firing rockets to civilian populations was right. The comment made by many posters was that Israel is defending itself and the International Court of Justice said Israel can't invoke the right to self-defense as an Occupying Power......
Anonymous wrote:MarleySkye840 wrote:Muslima wrote:Well we don't live in the jungle, and you don't have the right to kill 848+ people, injure 9370+ & demolish 10080+ houses because you're "scared"! One thing is sure, Palestinian children will not forget
+1
Then Hamas should stop acting like, and treating the people they govern, like animals. The IDF found - and set free- a mentally ill Palestinian man they found in Gaza. He was in chains.
And Hamas was the one who put him in chains? Wow, thank you IDF!!!!!!!
Last week there was a six-year-old boy wandering in the street, with either autism or post-traumatic stress disorder, and he was screaming. It sounds awful, but somebody had tied him to a tree.
The International Committee of the Red Cross talked to the combatants, and it was arranged for an ambulance crew from the Palestinian Red Crescent Society to go to rescue him.
But when they went to save the child the crew was attacked and the driver shot dead."
- NHS Surgeon David Nott, yesterday in Gaza
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2714424/It-s-like-Apocalypse-says-British-doctor-Gaza-In-harrowing-dispatch-heroic-NHS-surgeon-describes-horror-treating-child-bomb-victims-ceasefire.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490
Anonymous wrote:I am trying to find an unbiased interpretation of these issues. I can find arguments to counter those arguments, but they are clearly biased by Israel. Similarly, this is biased against Israel.
Common sense tells me, no matter what, I can defend myself against an attack. Otherwise, Israel would be required to accept the repeated shelling of her cities and do nothing. I think the international law interpretation was dealing with action only within the occupied territories.
Citizens, and countries abide by laws. If you live in a civil society and commit a crime, you will be arrested and if whatever crime you're arrested for doesn't make sense to you will be irrelevant because that's the law. But besides that, this law actually makes a lot of sense, because it applies to Occupation , you can't occupy a territory and claim self-defense, the same way I can't walk in your house, shoot you and claim self-defense. International law for an occupying power includes the responsibility to protect civilians living under occupation and their property and to provide for the humanitarian needs of the population living under the occupation. International humanitarian law requires all combatants to protect civilians and civilian property during any armed conflict. If Israel doesn't like this law, then they shouldn't occupy the territory. These are the laws you have to abide by if you choose to occupy a territory....
Anonymous wrote:Muslima, I think you are over interpreting international law. Israel has the right to defend herself. Period.
That wasn't my interpretation but that of the International Court of Justice, not only that, the International Court of Justice said that Palestine had the right to resist occupation, you can take your arguments to them
International Court of Justice rejects Israeli self-defense
Rejecting the Israeli government arguments, the Court first found that the Article 51 right to self-defense “has no relevance” when the attacks on Israel, the occupying power, are from people living under Israeli rule rather than coming from a foreign state. The Court found:
Article 51 of the Charter thus recognizes the existence of an inherent right of self-defense in the case of armed attack by one State against another State. However, Israel does not claim that the attacks against it are imputable to a foreign State. The Court also notes that Israel exercises control in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and that, as Israel itself states, the threat which it regards as justifying the construction of the wall originates within, and not outside, that territory. . . Consequently, the Court concludes that Article 51 of the Charter has no relevance in this case.
The Court thus concluded that self-defense under Article 51 does not apply to an occupying power with respect to those living under occupation. Although Israel withdrew its illegal settlers from Gaza in 2005, Israel still controls all aspects of life in Gaza, including air, land and sea borders, and therefore Israel continues to be regarded as an occupying power over Gaza.
The decision that an occupying power cannot invoke Article 51 self-defense is complementary to provisions of the UN Charter, UN General Assembly Resolution 2625, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights under which self-determination is a principle of international law.
More specifically, the decision is complementary to UN General Assembly Resolution 2649, adopted November 30, 1970, that “affirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples under colonial and alien domination recognized as being entitled to the right of self-determination to restore to themselves that right by any means at their disposal.” Resolution 2649 also “considers that the acquisition and retention of territory in contravention of the right of the people of that territory to self-determination is inadmissible and a gross violation of the Charter;” and “condemns those Governments that deny the right to self-determination of peoples recognized as being entitled to it, especially of the peoples of southern Africa and Palestine.”
The rejection of Israel’s Article 51 argument leaves Israeli forces and their US sponsors at risk of prosecution for the crime of aggression, the subject of another article.
Court Rejects Israeli argument that self-defense trumps international law
The Court also concluded that construction of the wall on occupied Palestinian land was not in conformance with applicable international law because the route of the wall across Palestinian territory was illegal. “The Court considers that Israel cannot rely on a right of self-defense or on a state of necessity in order to preclude the wrongfulness of the construction of the wall.” Thus, the Court established that defending its citizens does not relieve Israeli government officials of their responsibility to observe international law.
International law for an occupying power includes the responsibility to protect civilians living under occupation and their property and to provide for the humanitarian needs of the population living under the occupation. International humanitarian law requires all combatants to protect civilians and civilian property during any armed conflict.
Source: More can be read here : http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/12/27/why-the-self-defense-doctrine-doesnt-legitimize-israels-assault-on-gaza/
Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:Well we don't live in the jungle, and you don't have the right to kill 848+ people, injure 9370+ & demolish 10080+ houses because you're "scared"! One thing is sure, Palestinian children will not forget
Israel responds harshly because of the fears. Israel would not have attacked Gaza if Gaza had not launched rockets into Gaza.
How Israel attacked is up to debate...but the legality of the response is clear. Israel was allowed to respond. Unfortunately there was collateral damage. That happens in war. However, Israel has a legal right to go after those that attack.
Furthermore, Hamas, using schools, shelters, etc. as tactical spot to store and launch weapons is as guilty of war crimes as anyone.
False, you should research Occupation Law before you start commenting on self-defense . Under international occupation law Israel doesn't have the right of self-defense. I have said it before and I will repeat it. A state cannot simultaneously exercise control over territory it occupies and militarily attack that territory on the claim that it is “foreign” and poses an exogenous national security threat.
Occupation Law prohibits an occupying power from initiating armed force against its occupied territory. By mere virtue of the existence of military occupation, an armed attack, including one consistent with the UN Charter, has already occurred and been concluded. Therefore the right of self-defense in international law is, by definition since 1967, not available to Israel with respect to its dealings with real or perceived threats emanating from the West Bank and Gaza Strip population. To achieve its security goals, Israel can resort to no more than the police powers, or the exceptional use of militarized force, vested in it by IHL. This is not to say that Israel cannot defend itself, but those defensive measures can neither take the form of warfare nor be justified as self-defense in international law. As explained by Ian Scobbie:
To equate the two is simply to confuse the legal with the linguistic denotation of the term ”defense.“ Just as ”negligence,“ in law, does not mean ”carelessness” but, rather, refers to an elaborate doctrinal structure, so ”self-defense” refers to a complex doctrine that has a much more restricted scope than ordinary notions of ”defense.“
To argue that Israel is employing legitimate “self-defense” when it militarily attacks Gaza affords the occupying power the right to use both police and military force in occupied territory. An occupying power cannot justify military force as self-defense in territory for which it is responsible as the occupant.
Well we don't live in the jungle, and you don't have the right to kill 848+ people, injure 9370+ & demolish 10080+ houses because you're "scared"! One thing is sure, Palestinian children will not forget
Anonymous wrote:Palestinans should move to Jordan. The fact is that Israel gives more opportunity for Israeli Arabs that any nation in the Middle East. Why have no other Arab countries spoken out against Israel during this entire war? Because they know that Hamas is a terrorist organization and that the Palestinan people all support Hamas, whose sole mission is the destruction of Israel and the death of every Jew. The IDF should not stop destroying the entire Gaza territory.
One Gazan friend told me a few days ago "I always thought that Israel controls Gaza. But today, I have realized that Israel controls all Arab countries except Gaza" The reason Arab governments are not saying a word right now is because they are afraid that people will rise and overthrow them from power; thus, they are taking every step that is needed to prevent an uprising in their countries, just a scenario even if it means aligning with Israel.The Middle East is divided and weak. Everyone is protecting his/her interest.Today Iran is the protagonist while Turkey is fighting for regional influence. Saudi Arabia (Sunni)& Iran (Shia)are against each other on sectarian balance of power game. This is played out in Syria where Saudis supports Sunnis insurgency and Iranians support Assads govt. Wait, but how come Hamas a Sunni group was/is supported by Iranians ( Shia)? The Saudis are against Muslim brotherhoods and Hamas (both Sunnis)because Islamist politics is unsettling to them.You can see why they have to keep this so called Islamic leaders on a noose! Iraq is dead today after the US invasion. Iran has more influence over Iraq today! And now we have the new kids on the block-ISIS In Iraq who want to compete with Iran on regional influence.This is the same group the US is opposing and wants to stop! Then how come the US is letting their Saudis allies support ISIS, a group the US considers a Terrorist group? The US could care less, but it want to limit Iranian influence, but at the same time supports Iranian backed government in Iraq against Sunni insurgents .Also the US wants to negotiate with Iran on the nuclear weapon issue, but wait will this not let Iran get away with some concession that will be detrimental to the US allies like Saudi and Israel? Hmmm.See how all this is all politics and who get to keep the cheese. Can give you a headache for days, just thinking about it!!
Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:Right now, they are putting kids bodies in ice cream coolers because they ran our of room .Some people call Hamas Terrorists and some call them Heroes. Some call Israel a terrorist state and some call it a legitimate state. Children are children, if you kill them intentionally and try to justify the reasons behind doing that, then everybody will call you a terrorist. Period.
I agree with every you say except for the implication of what is in bold. I am 100% certain that Israel is not killing kids intentionally. That kids are dying is a tragedy. But they are not being killed intentionally.
If the militants did not use the area near the shelters as launch sites, if the militants did not use the shelters to store weapons (a war crime, by the way), then shelters would not be hit.
I am not on the ground, so I do not know what is actually happening, but consider the possibility that Hamas militants are firing from the vicinity of shelters...say 20m - 30 m away. Israel responds with artillery or mortars to the launch site. Unfortunately, there is something called Circular Error of probability (CEP). The CEP for the artillery is typically on the order of 10 m, according to http://aviationweek.com/awin/new-israeli-artillery-concepts-technology-combine-0 . With a CEP of 10, that means that there is a 50% chance that the munition will land within 10 m of the target. That is pretty good.
Now, if you launch 100 attacks, 1/2 will miss by more that 10 m, 1/4 or so by more than 20m. So of the 100 rounds, 25 will miss by more that 20 m, but in any direction. A shelter is 20 m from the target....assume the shelter is 20x20 m, and 20m is the closest point. In such a scenario, simulations I did indicate they would have about a 3.5% chance of hitting the shelter. In this scenario, they were not targeting the shelter. The problem is the children are caught in the crossfire, not that they are being intentionally targeted.
I respectfully disagree. With the use of drones, F-16s and an arsenal of modern weapon technology, Israel has the ability to target single individuals and therefore to avoid civilian casualties. But rather than avoid them, Israel has repeatedly targeted civilians as part of its military operations. Israel itself said it, they used the the Dahiya Doctrine which is central to these operations and refers to Israel's indiscriminate attacks on civilians. After they did it it in Lebanon in 2006. Maj. Gen. Gadi Eizenkot said that this would be applied elsewhere:
stuff deleted for brevity
You can disagree, but what I stated is not an opinion. You drop a bomb from an f16, you have a target, but it does not nessisarily land on the target. There are uncertainties in everything....Including dropping bombs from an F16. Or from artillery. Smart munitions reduces the uncertainties, but does not eliminate them. This is not a matter for debate. This is how things work.
What you can argue is the overall targeting of something that has a reasonable chance of hitting something you don't want to hit (the shelter). But, then, if we blame Israel, we must also blame Hamas for firing within the buffer (assuming that is what happened).
What I said is also a fact, not an opinion. Israel as an occupier doesn't have the right to bomb civilian areas, that has been deemed a crime by the International court. I cited you the law in the part of my post you deleted but you can research International Law of warfare for occupiers on your own. Bottom line, there is no justification no matter how you want to slice it, it is a crime and the Law says so.
Dear anonymous,
I would have been happy even if there was only 100 people at that march, or 50 people, you can believe it was "only" 10k people at that march if it helps you sleep better at night~
I would have been happy even if there was only 100 people at that march, or 50 people, you can believe it was "only" 10k people at that march if it helps you sleep better at night~
Anonymous wrote:and that would be a reputable source! Every organizer of any protest has an incentive to inflate the number of protesters in attendance.
You said I made up the numbers, I give you a source and according to you they have an incentive to inflate the numbers lol. uhm... Okay!
Anonymous wrote:Where do you get your 50,000 protesters number? The reports I have read all said "thousands" of protesters. Typical Muslima false reporting.
From the people who organized the march, here ya go :
Source : http://www.answercoalition.org
50,000 protested in Washington, D.C., in solidarity with Gaza in the face of the ongoing U.S.-backed Israeli massacre
I was there the whole time and did not see any Violence. I saw about 10 Israeli supporters total and I think the police put them behind barricades on the opposite side. They were shouting at the Palestinian protesters and waiving the Israeli flag and the march leader said on the megaphone : " Do not answer to their provocations, they are not worth your time". To be honest, I didn't pay attention to them but saw police cars taking them off the scene a few minutes later. I didn't see fights or anything, just people marching and chanting. And whoever wrote that article is blatantly lying saying " chants turned more condemning and threatening, which include “Death to Jews!” and “Death to Israel!" . How can they chant that when there were Jews marching with us? Here is another Video I shot where the protestors are saying Yes to judaism and no to zionism along with Jews:
[youtube] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWfAYhGKFhU&list=UU4aoD0oLxtXIoysfrjQCxYg[/youtube]
And on this one , the leader of the march is clearly stating how this is not against Jews but zionism and he is applauding all the Jews who have been at all the Palestinian rallies and everyone is cheering them:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZorqNyvX-fk&list=UU4aoD0oLxtXIoysfrjQCxYg&index=2
So that is a lie!
[youtube] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWfAYhGKFhU&list=UU4aoD0oLxtXIoysfrjQCxYg[/youtube]
And on this one , the leader of the march is clearly stating how this is not against Jews but zionism and he is applauding all the Jews who have been at all the Palestinian rallies and everyone is cheering them:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZorqNyvX-fk&list=UU4aoD0oLxtXIoysfrjQCxYg&index=2
So that is a lie!