Time and again, year after year, terrorist leaders, political leaders, and hand-wringers around the world would insist that there was no way to rein in terrorist groups. They’re uncontrollable. Hamas can only control Hamas terrorists. Yasser Arafat could only control PA-related terrorists. Mahmoud Abbas has no control over terrorists outside of Fatah. Palestinian Islamic Jihad, responsible for most of the rockets heading towards Israel? Uncontrollable. They won’t listen to Hamas. They won’t listen to the PA. And those little-known terrorist groups that pop up to claim major attacks? Well, they were “offshoots” or completely unknown and unafilliated.
So how is it that now, more than 13 hours after the truce went into effect, the rockets of every single terrorist group has ceased?
This is a lie that has been perpetrated on the public, a lie that the UN, the EU, and the U.S. have accepted and referred to in every single case of every single truce, cease fire, lull, or “calm” that has been broken. The owners of the truce, they say, have no control over the rogue terrorists, whose actions murdered or harmed more Israelis.
And yet, there have been no rockets fired at southern Israel today.
This excuse that needs to be exposed for what it is: A lie. Hamas can control the rockets. Today is proof of that. For how long? Well, that depends on how long Hamas figures they have to clamp down on their fellow terrorists before the lie can take hold again. Because of course, the first time a rocket is launched and Israel responds, the world will, of course, agree with Hamas that they simply can’t control their brother terrorists. No honor among thieves, and all that.
Yeah. Because they all lie.
If I was in charge, I’d believe that lie as well.
Of course, I’d also follow through with “since they’re completely beyond anybody’s control, we have no choice but to kill them all, in order to stop them from murdering civilians.”
The just have to stop firing for long enough that the news media can announce that the truce is “fragile but holding.” Then they can resume rocket fire a slow rate, ratcheting up to previous levels over 3-4 weeks. The fragile truce will continue to hold no matter how many rockets or other attacks on Israel occur.
The truce will then be broken by “Israeli aggression” once Israel begins to defend herself again. (Or publicly discuss defending herself.)
Eric is right. That’s what will happen–the attacks will slowly resume and when the Israelis make a fuss about it, the reaction of the Arabs, with the tacit condonation of the rest of the world, will be that these are rogue elements they can’t control.Israel’s retaliation will, according to this line, only play into the hands of the extremists. Of course, “non-extremist” in an Arab context i a matter of definition.
If you don’t control “rogue elements” in a territory you claim to control, you are responsible for the attacks they make. Either you stop them or the victims of the attacks can attempt to stop them. And in such a case the breakage is the responsibility of the state that failed to exert its authority over territory it claimed to rule, as HAMAS claims to rule Gaza. That is actual international law, as opposed to the fake stuff dreamed up by Ivy-clad professors, Tranzis, or the UN. It comes under the heading of self defense, for which the UN Charter allows the use of violence.
If they want war give them what they want, more than they can stomach.
Alex wrote: Of course, “non-extremist†in an Arab context i a matter of definition.
Yes, it is. I define it as the null set.
Sadly, “international law” (which typically means the Geneva Convention) was rewritten in 1977, with the help of then-President Jimmy Carter, turning it into a mockery of everything the UN once stood for. It’s possibly the most permanent damage he succeeded in inflicting upon the world during his time as President of the US.
“While I recommend that the Senate grant advice and consent to this agreement, I have at the same time concluded that the United States cannot ratify a second agreement on the law of armed conflict negotiated during the same period. I am referring to Protocol I additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which would revise the rules applicable to international armed conflicts. Like all other efforts associated with the International Committee of the Red Cross, this agreement has certain meritorious elements. But Protocol I is fundamentally and irreconcilably flawed. It contains provisions that would undermine humanitarian law and endanger civilians in war. One of its provisions, for example, would automatically treat as an international conflict any so-called “war of national liberation.” Whether such wars are international or non-international should turn exclusively on objective reality, not on one’s view of the moral qualities of each conflict. To rest on such subjective distinctions based on a war’s alleged purposes would politicize humanitarian law and eliminate the distinction between international and non-international conflicts. It would give special status to “wars of national liberation,” an ill-defined concept expressed in vague, subjective, politicized terminology. Another provision would grant combatant status to irregular forces even if they do not satisfy the traditional requirements to distinguish themselves from the civilian population and otherwise comply with the laws of war. This would endanger civilians among whom terrorists and other irregulars attempt to conceal themselves. These problems are so fundamental in character that they cannot be remedied through reservations, and I therefore have decided not to submit the Protocol to the Senate in any form, and I would invite an expression of the sense of the Senate that it shares this view. Finally, the Joint Chiefs of Staff have also concluded that a number of the provisions of the Protocol are militarily unacceptable.”
– Ronald Reagan, Message to the Senate, 1987
Well Tatterdemalion, neither the USA nor Israel ratified Protocol I, no matter what the stupid, patsy Euros did, so it does not apply to us. International Law is a matter of custom and contract (treaties), not legislation by a supranational legislative body. As far as the USA and Israel are concerned, Protocol I is neither.