Trying to get by...
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Thursday, April 02, 2009
Changing the rules of war
Changing the rules of war
George Bisharat
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
The extent of Israel's brutality against Palestinian civilians in its 22-day pounding of the Gaza Strip is gradually surfacing. Israeli soldiers are testifying to lax rules of engagement tantamount to a license to kill. One soldier commented: "That's what is so nice, supposedly, about Gaza: You see a person on a road, walking along a path. He doesn't have to be with a weapon, you don't have to identify him with anything and you can just shoot him."
What is less appreciated is how Israel is also brutalizing international law, in ways that may long outlast the demolition of Gaza.
Since 2001, Israeli military lawyers have pushed to re-classify military operations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip from the law enforcement model mandated by the law of occupation to one of armed conflict. Under the former, soldiers of an occupying army must arrest, rather than kill, opponents, and generally must use the minimum force necessary to quell disturbances.
While in armed conflict, a military is still constrained by the laws of war - including the duty to distinguish between combatants and civilians, and the duty to avoid attacks causing disproportionate harm to civilian persons or objects - the standard permits far greater uses of force.
Israel pressed the shift to justify its assassinations of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, which clearly violated settled international law. Israel had practiced "targeted killings" since the 1970s - always denying that it did so - but had recently stepped up their frequency, by spectacular means (such as air strikes) that rendered denial futile.
President Bill Clinton charged the 2001 Mitchell Committee with investigating the causes of the second Palestinian uprising and recommending how to restore calm in the region. Israeli lawyers pleaded their case to the committee for armed conflict. The committee responded by criticizing the blanket application of the model to the uprising, but did not repudiate it altogether.
Today, most observers - including Amnesty International - tacitly accept Israel's framing of the conflict in Gaza as an armed conflict, as their criticism of Israel's actions in terms of the duties of distinction and the principle of proportionality betrays. This shift, if accepted, would encourage occupiers to follow Israel's lead, externalizing military control while shedding all responsibilities to occupied populations.
Israel's campaign to rewrite international law to its advantage is deliberate and knowing. As the former head of Israel's 20-lawyer International Law Division in the Military Advocate General's office, Daniel Reisner, recently stated: "If you do something for long enough, the world will accept it. The whole of international law is now based on the notion that an act that is forbidden today becomes permissible if executed by enough countries ... International law progresses through violations. We invented the targeted assassination thesis and we had to push it. At first there were protrusions that made it hard to insert easily into the legal molds. Eight years later, it is in the center of the bounds of legitimacy."
In the Gaza fighting, Israel has again tried to transform international law through violations. For example, its military lawyers authorized the bombing of a police cadet graduation ceremony, killing at least 63 young Palestinian men. Under international law, such deliberate killings of civilian police are war crimes. Yet Israel treats all employees of the Hamas-led government in the Gaza Strip as terrorists, and thus combatants. Secretaries, court clerks, housing officials, judges - all were, in Israeli eyes, legitimate targets for liquidation.
Israeli jurists also instructed military commanders that any Palestinian who failed to evacuate a building or area after warnings of an impending bombardment was a "voluntary human shield" and thus a participant in combat, subject to lawful attack. One method of warning employed by Israeli gunners, dubbed "knocking on the roof," was to fire first at a building's corner, then, a few minutes later, to strike more structurally vulnerable points. To imagine that Gazan civilians - penned into the tiny Gaza Strip by Israeli troops, and surrounded by the chaos of battle - understood this signal is fanciful at best.
Israel has a lengthy history of unpunished abuses of international law - among the most flagrant its decades-long colonization of the West Bank. To its credit, much of the world has refused to ratify Israel's violations. Unfortunately, our government is an exception, having frequently provided diplomatic cover for Israel's abuses. Our diplomats have vetoed 42 U.N. Security Council resolutions to shelter Israel from the consequences of its often illegal behavior.
We must break that habit now, or see international law perverted in ways that can harm us all. Our government has already been seduced to follow, in Afghanistan and elsewhere, Israel's example of targeted killings. This policy alienates civilians, innocently killed and wounded in these crude strikes, and deepens the determination of enemies to harm us by any means possible.
We do not want civilian police in the United States to be bombed, nor to have anyone "knock on our roofs." For our own sakes and for the world's, Israel's impunity must end.
George Bisharat is a professor of law at Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco, and writes frequently on law and politics in the Middle East.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/
This article appeared on page A - 15 of the San Francisco Chronicle
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Looking for a personal trainer
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Thank CBS for 'Powerful' Report on Mistreatment of Palestinians
Segment shows expanding settlements, evictions, humiliating checkpoints, 'Apartheid' roads and wall, families imprisoned in their own homes
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Holocaust in Gaza!


Friday, January 16, 2009
Monday, January 12, 2009
الحمار
قصه من الواقع المرير تنطبق على الوضع الحالي بحذافيره
بس الناس مش راضيه تفهم
دخل حمار مزرعة رجل وبدأ يأكل من زرعه الذي تعب في حرثه وبذر وسقيه؟ كيف يُـخرج الحمار؟؟ سؤال محير ؟؟؟ أسرع الرجل إلى البيت جاء بعدَّةِ الشغل القضية لا تحتمل التأخي أحضر عصا طويلة ومطرقة ومساميروقطعة كبيرة من الكرتون المقوى كتب على الكرتون يا حمار أخرج من مزرعتي ثبت الكرتون بالعصا الطويلة بالمطرقة والمسمار ذهب إلى حيث الحمار يرعى في المزرعة رفع اللوحة عالياً وقف رافعًا اللوحة منذ الصباح الباكرحتى غروب الشمس ولكن الحمار لم يخرج حار الرجل 'ربما لم يفهم الحمار ما كتبتُ على اللوحة' رجع إلى البيت ونام في الصباح التالي صنع عددًا كبيرًا من اللوحات ونادي أولاده وجيرانه واستنفر أهل القرية 'يعنى عمل مؤتمر قمة' صف الناس في طوابير يحملون لوحات كثيرة أخرج يا حمار من المزرعة الموت للحمير يا ويلك يا حمار من راعي الداروتحلقوا حول الحقل الذي فيه الحمار وبدءوا يهتفون اخرج يا حمار. اخرج أحسن لك والحمار حمار يأكل ولا يهتم بما يحدث حوله غربت شمس اليوم الثاني وقد تعب الناس من الصراخ والهتاف وبحت أصواتهم فلما رأوا الحمار غير مبالٍ بهم رجعوا إلى بيوتهم يفكرون في طريقة أخرىفي صباح اليوم الثالث جلس الرجل في بيته يصنع شيئاً آخرخطة جديدة لإخراج الحمار فالزرع أوشك على النهاية خرج الرجل باختراعه الجديد نموذج مجسم لحماريشبه إلى حد بعيد الحمار الأصلي ولما جاء إلى حيث الحمار يأكل في المزرعة وأمام نظر الحمار وحشود القرية المنادية بخروج الحمار سكب البنزين على النموذج وأحرقه فكبّر الحشد نظر الحمار إلى حيث النار ثم رجع يأكل في المزرعة بلا مبالاة يا له من حمار عنيد لا يفهم أرسلوا وفدًا ليتفاوض مع الحمار قالوا له: صاحب المزرعة يريدك أن تخرج وهو صاحب الحق وعليك أن تخرج الحمار ينظر إليهم ثم يعود للأكل لا يكترث بهم بعد عدة محاولات أرسل الرجل وسيطاً آخر قال للحمار صاحب المزرعة مستعد للتنازل لك عن بعض من مساحته الحمار يأكل ولا يرد ثلثه الحمار لا يرد نصفه الحمار لا يرد طيب حدد المساحة التي تريدها ولكن لا تتجاوزه رفع الحمار رأسه وقد شبع من الأكل ومشى قليلاً إلى طرف الحقل وهو ينظر إلى الجمع ويفكر فرح الناس لقد وافق الحمار أخيراً أحضر صاحب المزرعة الأخشاب وسيَّج المزرعة وقسمها نصفين وترك للحمار النصف الذي هو واقف فيه في صباح اليوم التالي كانت المفاجأة لصاحب المزرعة لقد ترك الحمار نصيبه ودخل في نصيب صاحب المزرعة وأخذ يأكل رجع أخونا مرة أخرى إلى اللوحات والمظاهرات يبدو أنه لا فائدة هذا الحمار لا يفهم إنه ليس من حمير المنطقة لقد جاء من قرية أخرى بدأ الرجل يفكر في ترك المزرعة بكاملها للحمار والذهاب إلى قرية أخرى لتأسيس مزرعة أخرى وأمام دهشة جميع الحاضرين وفي مشهد من الحشد العظيم حيث لم يبقَ أحد من القرية إلا وقد حضر ليشارك في المحاولات اليائسة لإخراج الحمار المحتل العنيد المتكبر المتسلط المؤذي جاء غلام صغير خرج من بين الصفوف دخل إلى الحقل تقدم إلى الحمار وضرب الحمار بعصا صغيرة على قفاه فإذا به يركض خارج الحقل .. 'يا الله' صاح الجميع .... لقد فضحَنا هذا الصغير وسيجعل منا أضحوكة القرى التي حولنا
فما كان منهم إلا أن قـَـتلوا الغلام وأعادوا الحمار إلى المزرعة
ثم أذاعوا أن الطفل شهيد !!
Thursday, January 08, 2009
For Gaza
Israel gets their bombing in before the January 20th hope and change deadline.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Thursday, December 11, 2008
WHATTAAAA??!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thursday, December 04, 2008
Sunday, November 30, 2008
"The Future Has Always Been Crazier Than We Thought " Nassim Nicholas Taleb
The Future Has Always Been Crazier Than We Thought By Nassim Nicholas Taleb
Nassim Nicholas Taleb talks about the challenge or failure of predictions and Black Swans. Recorded before the current global economic turmoil
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Black swan theory
- For Taleb's book on the subject, see The Black Swan.
The Black Swan theory (in Nassim Nicholas Taleb 's version) refers to a large-impact, hard-to-predict, and rare event beyond the realm of normal expectations. Unlike the philosophical "black swan problem", the "Black Swan" theory (capitalized) refers only to events of large consequence and their dominant role in history.
Background
The theory was described by Nassim Nicholas Taleb in his 2007 book The Black Swan. Taleb regards many scientific discoveries as black swans—"undirected" and unpredicted. He gives the rise of the Internet, the personal computer, World War I, as well as the September 11, 2001 attacks as examples of Black Swan events.[1]
The term black swan comes from the commonplace Western cultural assumption that 'All swans are white'. In that context, a black swan was a metaphor for something that could not exist. The 17th Century discovery of black swans in Australia metamorphosed the term to connote that the perceived impossibility actually came to pass. Taleb notes that John Stuart Mill first used the black swan narrative to discuss falsification.
Non-philosophical epistemological approach
Taleb's black swan is different from the earlier (philosophical) versions of the problem as it concerns a phenomenon with specific empirical/statistical properties which he calls "the fourth quadrant".[2] Before Taleb, those who dealt with the notion of improbable, like Hume, Mill and Popper, focused on the problem of induction in logic, specifically that of drawing general conclusions from specific observations. Taleb's Black Swan has a central and unique attribute: the high impact. His claim is that almost all consequential events in history come from the unexpected—while humans convince themselves that these events are explainable in hindsight (bias).
One problem, labeled the Ludic fallacy by Taleb, is the belief that the unstructured randomness found in life resembles the structured randomness found in games. This stems from the assumption that the unexpected can be predicted by extrapolating from variations in statistics based on past observations, especially when these statistics are assumed to represent samples from a bell curve. These concerns are often highly relevant to financial markets, where major players use value at risk models (which imply normal distributions) but market movements have fat tails.
Taleb notes that other functions are often more descriptive, such as the fractal, power law, or scalable distributions; awareness of these might help to temper expectations.[3] Beyond this, he emphasizes that many events are simply without precedent, undercutting the basis of this sort of reasoning altogether. Taleb also argues for the use of counterfactual reasoning when considering risk.[4][5]












