Israel Intentionally Shoots Children Outside the Temple Walls (Revelation 11)

UN council: Israel intentionally shot children and journalists in Gaza – Israel News – Haaretz.com

Noa Landau28.02.2019 | 14:01

Palestinians hurl stones during a protest at the Gaza Strip’s border with Israel October 5, 2018. Khalil Hamra/AP

UN Council: Israel Intentionally Shot Children and Journalists in Gaza

The UN Independent Commission of Inquiry on the 2018 Gaza protests presented its conclusions, according to which 183 Palestinians were killed by Israel, including 35 children. Netanyahu: ‘new records of hypocrisy and lies’

Noa Landau

28.02.2019 | 14:01

The investigative commission of the United Nations Human Rights Council that examined the most recent round of violence on the Israel-Gaza border presented its findings on Thursday, saying it found “reasonable grounds” that Israeli security forces violated international law. 

The commission determined that the majority of Gaza protesters who were killed by Israeli forces —154 out of 183 people — had been  unarmed. 

The panel also recommended that UN members consider imposing individual sanctions, such as a travel ban or an assets freeze, on those identified as responsible by the commission. 

The findings were rejected by several Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who said that Israel outright rejects the report: “The council has set new records of hypocrisy and lies out of an obsessive hatred for Israel.”

Netanyahu added that Israel will continue to “fiercely defend its sovereignty and citizens against Hamas attacks and Iran-backed terror organizations.”

Foreign Minister Yisrael Katz called the report “hostile, mendacious and biased.” 

The session opened with a series of video clips from demonstrations on the Gaza side of the border and a description of incidents involving fatalities and injuries on the Palestinian side. The commission’s chairman, Santiago Canton, said at the beginning of the session that his panel had found that the vast majority of the Palestinian protesters were unarmed.

Analysis 

He expressed regret that the Israeli government had not cooperated in the investigation and called on Israel to carry out a substantial investigation of its own.

The commiission found that 35 children had been killed, some from direct weapons fire. The commission also noted one case involving a disabled person in a wheelchair and direct fire at journalists who claimed that they were clearly identified as press. One commission member, Sara Hussein, responded that there was no justification for firing at children and the disabled, whom she claimed posed no danger. The commission also took note of injury to Israeli soldiers in the confrontations.

The commission also recommended that materials it collected be transferred to the International Criminal Court in The Hague and that UN members “consider imposing individual sanctions, such as a travel ban or an assets freeze, on those identified as responsible by the commission.”

The commission said it “recommends that states ([that are} parties to the Geneva Conventions and/or to the Rome Statute carry out their duty to exercise criminal jurisdiction and arrest persons alleged to have committed, or who ordered to have committed, the international crimes described in the present report, and either to try or to extradite them.”

Foreign Minister Yisrael Katz rejected the report outright, charging that “The Human Rights Council’s Theatre of the Absurd has once again produced a report that is hostile, mendacious and biased against Israel.

“The report is based on distorted data, with no attempt to check the facts. The whole purpose of the report is to malign the only democracy in the Middle East and to impair Israel’s right to defend itself against a murderous terror organization,” said Katz who blamed Hamas for bringing  Gaza residents, including women and children, to the security fence.”

In response to the report, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel called for the Israeli government to establish a commission of inquiry to examine the events that took place along the fence. “It is impossible to ignore the death and injury of dozens of civilians, among them, women and children, by claiming self-defense,” said ACRI, which petitioned the High Court against the open-fire orders of the Israel Defense Forces: “After the court refused to examine, as it should have, the army’s open-fire orders and use of force on the ground, and in light of the difficult findings of the UN, the government of Israel must establish a commission of inquiry.”

Adalah – the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, also lauded the UN report, calling it  “a harsh indictment of the Israeli government.”

“The commission adopted the stance of Adalah and other human rights organizations which rejected the High Court decision that allowed the continuation of fatal use of firepower against unarmed demonstrators in Gaza,” said Adalah director Hassan Jabareen.

Another member of the panel, Betty Murungi, said the healthcare system in the Gaza Strip was not capable of dealing with the scope and complexity of the injuries among residents of the Strip. She also called on Israel to lift its blockade of the Hamas-controlled coastal territory and to permit medical assistance to be provided to the wounded.

The panel — known as the UN Human Rights Council Independent Commission of Inquiry on the 2018 Gaza protests — was established in May of last year following an increase in the number of fatalities among Gazans in demonstrations along the Israeli border fence beginning in March of last year. Twenty-nine countries who are members of the Human Rights Council supported the investigation, including Spain and Belgium. The United States and Australian opposed launching the investigation, while Hungary, Britain, Germany, Slovakia and Croatia abstained.

Late last year Hamas activists began to send incendiary devices attached to balloons and kites from the Gaza Strip into Israel, starting numerous fires and leading to losses of cultivated fields and natural open spaces. Some of the balloons and kites landed in kindergartens near the Gaza Strip. In response to the balloons and kites and to criticism by Gaza border area residents, the Israeli army has begun to attack targets in the Strip.

In recent weeks, in addition to the daytime protests along the border, Hamas has organized increasing levels of nighttime rioting near the border, including the throwing of explosives and use of loudspeakers, frequently until midnight, to frighten Israelis living near the border.

Of the 183 killed by live fire, 35 were children. While 940 of the 6,106 injured were also children. The council also found that Israel directly shot at journalists who had clearly distinguished themselves as such. 

When asked whether Israel intentionally shoots children and journalists, Council member Sara Hussein confirmed saying the council believes Israel knew they were children and journalists and shot them nonetheless.

“There is no justification for shooting children and disabled people that pose no risk,” Hussein said. 

Anne Herzberg, NGO Monitor’s Legal Advisor and UN Liaison,  also rejected the report saying: “The UN Human Rights Council, dominated by dictators and rights abusers, has issued yet another absurd report whitewashing Hamas terrorism while condemning Israel for protecting its citizens. It is laughable that the UN treats cross-border violence as the same as a domestic policing situation.”

Education Minister Naftali Bennett said in response: “It’s hard to imagine the UN could sink any lower. Alternating between excusing terror to ignoring terror it is letting down democracies and backing dictators and tyrants.”

“The commission found reasonable grounds to believe that Israel violated those rights when its forces used lethal force against children who did not pose an imminent threat of death or serious injury to others at the time they were shot,” the report adds.

The commission recommended that the government investigate every protest-related killing. 

Emmanuel Nahshon, Foreign Ministry spokesperson, wrote on Twitter that “Israel utterly rejects the biased and distorted kangaroo court ‘report’.”

Israel utterly rejects the biased and distorted kangaroo court “report” published by the “Commission of Inquiry” of the @UN_HRC .

The HRC is a de facto accomplice of #Hamas ,supporting and encouraging aggression against Israel and the oppression of the people of Gaza.

פלאש90 pic.twitter.com/wMVQnvuqOH

— Emmanuel Nahshon (@EmmanuelNahshon) February 28, 2019

Strategic Affairs Minister Gilad Erdan took to Twitter as well, saying: “The @UNHumanRights report is not only absurd- it actively encourages #Hamas terror.” Erdan added that “the UN has become a partner in Hamas terror.”

The @UNHumanRights report is not only absurd- it actively encourages #Hamas terror, by ignoring Hamas’ use of #Gaza marches as cover for terror & its terror attacks against Israeli civilians

The UN has become a partner in Hamas terror. All democracies must reexamine UN funding

— גלעד ארדן (@giladerdan1) February 28, 2019

The investigative commission of the United Nations Human Rights Council that examined the most recent round of violence on the Israel-Gaza border presented its findings on Thursday, saying it found “reasonable grounds” that Israeli security forces violated international law. 

The commission determined that the majority of Gaza protesters who were killed by Israeli forces –154 out of 183 people — had been  unarmed. 

The panel also recommended that UN members consider imposing individual sanctions, such as a travel ban or an assets freeze, on those identified as responsible by the commission. 

The findings were rejected by several Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who said that Israel outright rejects the report: “The council has set new records of hypocrisy and lies out of an obsessive hatred for Israel.”

Netanyahu added that Israel will continue to “fiercely defend its sovereignty and citizens against Hamas attacks and Iran-backed terror organizations.”

A Closer Look At The Sixth Seal (Revelation 6:12)

A Look at the Tri-State’s Active Fault Line

Monday, March 14, 2011

By Bob Hennelly

The Ramapo Fault is the longest fault in the Northeast that occasionally makes local headlines when minor tremors cause rock the Tri-State region. It begins in Pennsylvania, crosses the Delaware River and continues through Hunterdon, Somerset, Morris, Passaic and Bergen counties before crossing the Hudson River near Indian Point nuclear facility.

In the past, it has generated occasional activity that generated a 2.6 magnitude quake in New Jersey’s Peakpack/Gladstone area and 3.0 magnitude quake in Mendham.

But the New Jersey-New York region is relatively seismically stable according to Dr. Dave Robinson, Professor of Geography at Rutgers. Although it does have activity.

“There is occasional seismic activity in New Jersey,” said Robinson. “There have been a few quakes locally that have been felt and done a little bit of damage over the time since colonial settlement — some chimneys knocked down in Manhattan with a quake back in the 18th century, but nothing of a significant magnitude.”

Robinson said the Ramapo has on occasion registered a measurable quake but has not caused damage: “The Ramapo fault is associated with geological activities back 200 million years ago, but it’s still a little creaky now and again,” he said.

“More recently, in the 1970s and early 1980s, earthquake risk along the Ramapo Fault received attention because of its proximity to Indian Point,” according to the New Jersey Geological Survey website.

Historically, critics of the Indian Point Nuclear facility in Westchester County, New York, did cite its proximity to the Ramapo fault line as a significant risk.

In 1884, according to the New Jersey Geological Survey website, the  Rampao Fault was blamed for a 5.5 quake that toppled chimneys in New York City and New Jersey that was felt from Maine to Virginia.

“Subsequent investigations have shown the 1884 Earthquake epicenter was actually located in Brooklyn, New York, at least 25 miles from the Ramapo Fault,” according to the New Jersey Geological Survey website.

The “Nationalists” are Finally Getting Their War On Iran

The Right May Finally Get Its War On Iran

Gareth Porter

John Bolton has never made a secret of his burning desire to stoke a war between the United States and Iran. But Bolton is not the only one on Donald Trump’s national security team who dreams of such a military confrontation. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has joined with Bolton in recent months to prepare a case for possible war with Iran.

The tactics used by Pompeo and Bolton bear a strong resemblance to those pursued by Dick Cheney when he pushed for an attack on Iran from 2004 to 2007. Like Cheney, Pompeo and Bolton have sought to generate a phony crisis over Iranian “proxies” in Iraq, and have created the equivalent of a myth of an Iranian covert nuclear weapons program by conjuring up a nonexistent Iranian intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) threat.

When the plan for unprecedented economic sanctions on Iran was unveiled in May 2018, along with Trump’s announcement that he was pulling out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action—commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal—the administration denied that its objective was regime change. As Pompeo put it, Trump was “ready, willing and able to negotiate a new deal.”

The Trump White House has taken advantage of Trump’s diplomacy with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to sell the idea that he’s willing to negotiate a new relationship with Iran. In July, Trump said of the Iranians, “[A]t some point, they’re going to say ‘let’s make a deal.’”

But the demands on Iran that accompany the administration’s pressure campaign belie the notion that its objective is to reach a new agreement. The key demands outlined by Pompeo on May 21, 2018, are clearly based on the policy agenda of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It’s an agenda for regime change and war, not a new deal with Iran.

At the top of Pompeo’s list are demands that Iran end its support for Hezbollah, including its supply of ballistic missiles to the Lebanese Shiite organization, and the “halt [to] further launching or development of nuclear-capable missile systems.”

Those demands reflect an extraordinary agreement in December 2017, reported in the Israeli press, between the Trump administration and the Netanyahu government on a joint strategic work plan that included precisely those points on Pompeo’s list—countering Iranian ballistic missile development, as well as the supply of more accurate missiles to Hezbollah through Syria.

The consequences of enforcing such demands would be a dangerous destabilization of the already tense military standoff between Israel and Iran. Iran now depends on a combination of its own ballistic missiles and Hezbollah’s ability to retaliate against Israel to deter an Israeli, Saudi or U.S. attack on its homeland. To agree to stop testing its own missiles to improve their accuracy and supplying Hezbollah with accurate weapons would allow Israel, which has long wanted to destroy Hezbollah’s military capability, to degrade Hezbollah’s deterrent over time through its own missile strikes. The net result would be to leave Iran with a seriously degraded deterrent, especially in light of Israel’s modern missile defense system.

No Iranian leader, regardless of ideology, could survive politically after agreeing to such demands, as any intelligence analyst worth his or her salt has pointed out in recent months. Those clearly nonnegotiable demands give away the real aim of the Trump administration to bring about regime change. Instead of relying entirely on internal Iranian dynamics to topple the regime, the administration’s Iran strategy has now begun to resemble the one pursued by Cheney and the neoconservatives, who sought an excuse to provoke war with Iran during the George W. Bush administration.

Threatening War Over Harmless Incidents

In September, the response of Bolton and Pompeo to incidents in Iraq involving a few rockets that reportedly fell in the vicinity of US diplomatic posts in Baghdad provides insight into their concept of regime change. Bolton requested retaliatory options from the Pentagon, which responded with a set of options that included a raid on an Iranian military facility, according to The New York Times.

But senior US military officials were alarmed at Bolton’s apparent promotion of such a retaliatory strike, which they feared could either start a war with Iran or result in the complete expulsion of US military personnel from Iraq. “People were shocked,” one former administration official said. “It was mind-boggling how cavalier they were about hitting Iran.”

But it wasn’t only Bolton who seized on the incident to lay the political basis for a possible strike against Iran. In a Sept. 21 interview with CNN, Pompeo said, “We will not let Iran get away with using a proxy force to attack American interests. If they are responsible for the arming and training of these militias, we will go to the source.”

And in a Foreign Affairs magazine article in October, Pompeo claimed that Iranian “proxies” had “launched [a] life-threatening rocket attack against the US embassy compound in Baghdad and the US consulate in Basra.” He declared that the administration would “respond swiftly and decisively in defense of American lives” if such an attack were to result in injury to US personnel or damage to US facilities.

But Pompeo’s description of the incidents bore little resemblance to the reality. Not only was there no danger to US diplomats, but no reason to believe that any such danger was intended. On Sept. 8 and 9, two rockets fired in Baghdad landed in an “abandoned lot” near the Egyptian Embassy, according to a Reuters report—more than one full kilometer away from the US Embassy.

That same night, in southern Iraq, two rockets fired in the general direction of the US Consulate, which is adjacent to the Basra International Airport, struck the airport’s outer security perimeter, well away from the consulate, according to Michael Knights of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. This indicates that they were not intended to harm the consulate, but were merely warning shots, Knights believes. On Sept. 28, three more rockets struck consulate property, but caused no damage or casualties.

The distortion of incidents that appear to have reflected a cautious political signaling by Shiite militias in order to justify a US retaliatory strike against Iran presents a striking parallel with Cheney’s effort to spark a war with Iran in 2007. Cheney’s ploy was to claim that Iran was supplying Iraqi Shiite militias with highly lethal charges that could penetrate US armored vehicles.

Other key policymakers in the Bush administration rejected Cheney’s assertion that Iran was supplying those weapons, so Cheney did an end run around them: He prevailed on Bush to choose Gen. David Petraeus as the new commander in Iraq in early 2007 on the condition that Petraeus support the Cheney charge against Iran.

That summer, Cheney proposed that if the US military found evidence of Iranian support for anti-U.S. forces in Iraq, it should carry out a limited strike against Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps camps in Iran used to train Shiite militia fighters in Iraq. But Pentagon officials stifled Cheney’s proposal by arguing that such a move would begin a tit-for-tat escalation with Iran, according to former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State J. Scott Carpenter.

Thus, both Cheney in 2007 and Bolton and Pompeo in 2018 discussed a US strike against Iran based on a fabricated Iranian threat to US personnel in Iraq through “proxy” forces.

The Mythical Iranian ICBM Program

Bolton and Pompeo are pursuing another angle on Iran that parallels Cheney’s. As Cheney’s policymaker on Iran from 2003 to 2007, Bolton argued that Iran was threatening to get nuclear weapons. Now, Bolton and Pompeo have adopted Netanyahu’s longtime argument that Iran is developing an intercontinental ballistic missile that will allow it to target the United States with nuclear weapons.

On Jan. 3, Pompeo condemned Iran for planning to launch three rockets called Space Launch Vehicles (SLV) that he said incorporate technologies “virtually identical” to what is used in intercontinental ballistic missiles. Pompeo said the planned rocket launches would violate UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which called upon Iran not to “undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons.” He warned Iran that the administration “will not stand by and watch the Iranian regime’s destructive policies place international stability at risk.”

Pompeo and Bolton base their ICBM argument on the spurious claim that Iranian SLVs rely on technology that is essentially indistinguishable from an ICBM. But that idea has been thoroughly demolished by the leading independent specialist on the issue. Michael Elleman of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, in Washington, D.C., explained in detail in March 2018 why Iran’s SLVs—the Safir and the Simorgh—are fundamentally different from an ICBM or any other ballistic missile.

The second-stage propulsion systems for the SLVs, Elleman wrote, “rely on low-thrust, long-action time engines, which are ideal for accelerating a satellite on a path parallel to the earth’s surface and into a sustainable orbit.” But such engines are “poorly suited for ballistic missile trajectories,” which must reach much higher altitudes, he observed.

Elleman also pointed out that the Simorgh must be “prepared for launch over an extended time on a fixed launching pad,” making it “vulnerable to pre-launch attack.” That would explain why, he wrote, no country has ever “converted a satellite launcher into a long-range ballistic missile.”

Because Iranian SLVs cannot be considered as designed to carry a nuclear weapon, testing them is certainly not a violation of Resolution 2231, contrary to Pompeo’s position. But for Pompeo and Bolton, it provides another rationale to attack Iran—just as Cheney originally planned to use the false claim of a covert Iranian nuclear weapons program as justification for attacking Iran, until he and Bush were rebuffed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in a December 2006 meeting.

These parallels between the Cheney push for war against Iran and the Pompeo-Bolton schemes to justify such a war tell only part of the story. There are differences between the two situations that could make the present danger even greater. Trump may be more manipulable by Pompeo and Bolton than George W. Bush was by Cheney. And although the military leadership is clearly still opposed to war with Iran, as it was in 2006 and 2007, it remains to be seen whether the next secretary of defense will be independent enough to stand up to Pompeo and Bolton on the issue.

On the face of it, the combination of Bolton, who seems utterly irrational about war with both Iran and North Korea, and Pompeo, who has apparently adopted extreme right-wing views on Israel as a result of his belief in “the rapture,” presents a greater danger of success in precipitating war than did Cheney. Unless much stronger antiwar forces can be organized in coming months, that danger appears extremely serious.

Gareth Porter, an investigative historian and journalist specializing in US national security policy, received the UK-based Gellhorn Prize for journalism for 2011 for articles on the U.S. war in Afghanistan. His new book is Manufactured Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare. He can be contacted at porter.gareth50@gmail.com.

Reprinted from TruthDig with the author’s permission.

Read more by Gareth Porter

Antichrist Redraws Iraq’s Political Map

The Iraq parliament meets in September. (Reuters)

Sadr, Ameri Redraw Iraq’s Political Map

Wednesday, 27 February, 2019 – 06:45 –

Baghdad – Hamza Mustafa

The countdown has begun for the resumption of parliamentary sessions in Iraq amid ongoing divisions between the rival political powers that has left key portfolios vacant in Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi’s cabinet.

The disputes have hampered parliament work and lawmakers have only been able to ratify one law since being elected to office in May.

Ahead of the resumption of parliament’s regular sessions, the Sairoun coalition, of cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, and al-Fateh alliance, of Hadi al-Ameri, are set to meet to confirm the agreements they had reached last year in wake of the polls.

An informed Iraqi source told Asharq Al-Awsat that the leaderships are expected to meet later this week.

He revealed that the meetings they had held recently did not enjoy the consensus of their partners, especially the Shiite ones in each of the Reform and Reconstruction bloc, which includes Hikma movement leader Ammar al-Hakim and former Premier Haidar al-Abadi, and the al-Binaa bloc, which includes former PM Nouri al-Maliki.

“The senior Shiite partners, such as Maliki, Abadi and Hakim believe that the Sairoun and Fateh coalitions cannot take unilateral decisions in Iraq,” said the source on condition of anonymity.

Former Minister Wael Abdul Latif told Asharq Al-Awsat that parliament does not boast a constitutional bloc that can name a candidate for the position of prime minister.

Instead, lawmakers completely ignored the constitution when they nominated Abdul Mahdi to his post. He was chosen through consensus, “which is a gimmick that does not exist in the constitution,” he remarked.

Resorting to consensus has effectively obstructed the filling of the vacant government positions and it is impeding government work, he said, noting: “More than 100 days have passed since the cabinet has been formed and nothing tangible has been achieved.”

Fateh MP Naim al-Aboudi rejected Abdul Latif’s claims, saying that the “understanding between his bloc and Sairoun has led to the formation of parliamentary committees that are tasked with completing the cabinet lineup.

He stressed: “The Fateh and Sairoun blocs will shoulder the responsibility of the government’s failure given that it was formed due to the consensus reached between them.”