RSS
‘Civilians’ Holding Israeli Hostages Were Not Civilians — an Analysis of International Law
Noa Argamani, a rescued hostage embraces her father, Yakov Argamani, after the military said that Israeli forces have rescued four hostages alive from the central Gaza Strip, in Ramat Gan, Israel, in this handout image obtained by Reuters on June 8, 2024. Photos: Israeli Army/Handout via REUTERS
The IDF completed a stunning rescue operation last Saturday, bringing home hostages Noa Argamani (25), Andrey Kozlov (27), Almog Meir (21), and Shlomo Ziv (40), who had been held in Gaza for eight months.
A number of the hostage takers were killed in the operation, including Abdala Aljamal, a journalist for Al Jazeera, as well as his father, a local doctor. The deaths of the hostage takers triggered significant international criticism against Israel over civilian casualties, including the startling assertion by a BBC journalist that Israel should have warned of the rescue operation in advance.
The Geneva Convention Additional Protocol I defines three categories of persons in a conflict: 1. combatants (Article 43), 2. civilians (Article 50), and 3. any person who has taken part in hostilities but who does not qualify as a legitimate combatant under Article 43 (Article 44).
In 2006, the United States officially adopted a designation called the “unlawful combatant,” which reflects this third category from the Geneva Convention. A number of other countries have also adopted their own “unlawful combatant” laws, including the United Kingdom and Israel. The argument in favor of the “unlawful combatant” designation is that it is necessary for dealing with terrorism and other non-state actors — an entire category of combat that was not fully contemplated at the time the Geneva Conventions were created.
The concept of an “unlawful combatant” is not universally accepted and is strongly criticized by some countries. Nonetheless, it is well established by international humanitarian law that “a civilian is a person who does not take an active part in hostilities.” Therefore, a person who does take part in hostilities is, at best a combatant, or at worst an “unlawful combatant,” but in no event can such a person claim to be a “civilian.”
Hamas claimed that all those who died in the hostage rescue operation were “civilians,” yet the Hamas fighters who opened fire on the hostages were clearly not, and the locals who captured and held hostages cannot be considered “civilians” either.
The International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages and Geneva Convention Additional Protocol I, Article 75, strongly prohibit taking and holding hostages, and treat doing so as both a war crime and an act of terrorism.
Therefore, a person holding Israeli hostages in Gaza is, at the very least, a hostile combatant, and arguably an “unlawful combatant.” In either case, a hostage taker is unquestionably a war criminal and, by international convention, also a terrorist. This is true whether or not such a person wears a uniform or holds a rank, and remains true even if the hostage taker “moonlights” at some other job, such as, in this case, a journalist or a doctor. In no event can a person who holds hostages be considered a “civilian.”
It is clear from common sense and basic morality why this legal conclusion must be true: if it were not, then hostage rescue missions and even basic self defense would be prohibited as long as the attacker does not wear a uniform or hold an official rank, creating a paradoxical world in which terrorism is technically permitted, but self-defense is not.
During last Saturday’s hostage rescue operation, the IDF came under heavy fire, much of which was directed at the hostages themselves. Hamas claimed that some 200 civilians were killed, figures which triggered widespread international condemnation against Israel.
Yet in an exposé last November, the Associated Press revealed what local journalists have known for years: that Hamas casualty figures, as a rule, do not distinguish between civilians and combatants, nor do they identify the cause of death, which sometimes includes accidental Hamas crossfire, intentional Hamas executions, and misfired Hamas rockets.
A further Associated Press exposé this month revealed that Hamas has significantly overstated the number of women and children supposedly killed in Gaza since October 7. Therefore, any Hamas claims relating to casualty figures should be treated with significant skepticism. Furthermore, it is unclear how many of the locals present at the hostage rescue had been active in taking and holding the hostages, which is not only a war crime and an act of terrorism, but also precludes such a person from claiming the status of “civilian.”
International criticism of Israel’s hostage rescue operation stands in stark opposition to the fundamental tenets of international law, morality, and basic common sense. Such discussions lead us toward a paradoxical worldview in which hostage taking and terrorism are permitted, while self-defense and hostage rescue operations are not: thus emboldening terror groups the world over, and planting the seeds of long-term danger to all free societies.
Daniel Pomerantz is the CEO of RealityCheck, an organization dedicated to deepening public conversation through robust research studies and public speaking.
The post ‘Civilians’ Holding Israeli Hostages Were Not Civilians — an Analysis of International Law first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
How reality TV got real: A review of Emily Nussbaum’s ‘Cue the Sun!’
There’s a trope on sitcoms where characters think they’re being filmed for a reality television show, when in fact what they’re experiencing is real life. (Real life within the fictional […]
The post How reality TV got real: A review of Emily Nussbaum’s ‘Cue the Sun!’ appeared first on The Canadian Jewish News.
RSS
Israeli Cabinet to Meet Tuesday to Approve Lebanon Ceasefire Deal
A view shows the moment of an Israeli strike on a building, amid the ongoing hostilities between Hezbollah and Israeli forces, in the Chiyah district of Beirut’s southern suburbs, Lebanon, Nov. 25, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Adnan Abidi
A senior Israeli official said on Monday that Israel‘s cabinet would meet on Tuesday to approve a ceasefire deal with Hezbollah, and a Lebanese official said Beirut had been told by Washington that an accord could be announced “within hours.”
Israeli officials had said earlier that a deal to end the war was getting closer though some issues remained, while two senior Lebanese officials voiced guarded optimism even as Israeli strikes pounded Lebanon anew.
US news website Axios, citing an unnamed senior US official, said Israel and Lebanon had agreed to the terms of a deal, and a senior Israeli official told Reuters that Tuesday’s meeting was intended to approve it.
Israel‘s ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon, said Israel would maintain an ability to strike southern Lebanon under any agreement.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office declined to comment on the Axios report.
The US has pushed for a deal to end over a year of hostilities between the Iran-backed terrorist organization Hezbollah, which is based in Lebanon and wields significant political and military influence in the country, and Israel that erupted last year following the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas’s Oct. 7 massacre across southern Israel.
Since the Hamas onslaught, which launched the war in Gaza, Hezbollah has been firing barrages of rockets, missiles, and drones at northern Israel almost daily, forcing tens of thousands of Israelis to flee their homes. Israel had been exchanging fire with Hezbollah but drastically escalated its military operations over the last two months, seeking to push Hezbollah forces further away from the Israel-Lebanon border. The intensified fighting has raised fears of a wider Middle East war.
In Beirut, Lebanese Deputy Parliament Speaker Elias Bou Saab told Reuters there were “no serious obstacles” left to beginning implementation of a US-proposed ceasefire with Israel.
Bou Saab said the proposal would entail an Israeli military withdrawal from south Lebanon and regular Lebanese army troops deploying in the border region, long a Hezbollah stronghold, within 60 days.
He said a sticking point on who would monitor compliance with the ceasefire been resolved in the last 24 hours with an agreement to set up a five-country committee, including France and chaired by the United States.
A Western diplomat said another stumbling block had been the sequencing of Israel‘s withdrawal, the Lebanese army’s deployment, and the return of displaced Lebanese to their homes in south Lebanon.
Efforts to clinch a truce appeared to advance last week when US mediator Amos Hochstein declared significant progress after talks in Beirut before holding meetings in Israel and then returning to Washington.
“We are moving in the direction towards a deal, but there are still some issues to address,” Israeli government spokesperson David Mencer said, without elaborating.
Michael Herzog, the Israeli ambassador in Washington, told Israel‘s GLZ radio an agreement was close and “it could happen within days … We just need to close the last corners,” according to a post on X by GLZ senior anchorman Efi Triger.
A second senior Lebanese official, speaking on condition of anonymity earlier in the day, said Beirut had not received any new Israeli demands from US mediators, who were describing the atmosphere as positive and saying “things are in progress.”
The conflict between Israel and Hezbollah spiraled into full-scale war in September when Israel went on the offensive, pounding wide areas of Lebanon with airstrikes and sending troops into the south.
Israel has dealt major blows to Hezbollah, killing its leader Hassan Nasrallah and other top commanders and inflicting massive destruction in areas of Lebanon where the group holds sway.
Diplomacy has focused on restoring a ceasefire based on UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which ended a 2006 Hezbollah-Israel war.
It requires Hezbollah to pull its fighters back around 30 km (19 miles) from the Israeli border, behind the Litani River, and the regular Lebanese army to enter the frontier region.
Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar said the test for any agreement would be in the enforcement of two main points.
“The first is preventing Hezbollah from moving southward beyond the Litani, and the second, preventing Hezbollah from rebuilding its force and rearming in all of Lebanon,” Saar said in broadcast remarks to the Israeli parliament.
Far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said Israel must press on with the war until “absolute victory.” Addressing Netanyahu on X, he said “it is not too late to stop this agreement!”
But Agriculture Minister Avi Dichter said Israel should reach an agreement in Lebanon. “If we say ‘no’ to Hezbollah being south of the Litani, we mean it,” he told journalists.
Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem said last week that the group had reviewed and given feedback on the US ceasefire proposal, and any truce was now in Israel‘s hands.
Branded a terrorist group by the United States, the heavily armed, Shi’ite Muslim militant group has endorsed Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri of the Shi’ite Amal movement to negotiate.
The post Israeli Cabinet to Meet Tuesday to Approve Lebanon Ceasefire Deal first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Take Action Now: Help Stop These 6 Media Outlets From Running Biased Stories Against Israel
The Wall Street Journal’s previous office in Palo Alto. Photo: Wiki Commons.
If we’ve learned anything about the reporting from inside Gaza in the past year, it’s that there is virtually no such thing as professional journalism inside the Strip.
On multiple occasions, HonestReporting has exposed Gazan journalists who have disqualified themselves from claiming to be reporting objectively. Some have publicly expressed their antisemitism or blatant anti-Israel bias. Others have been revealed to be active supporters of terrorism, or friends of Hamas.
Media outlets have taken action against several of these exposed journalists, and their bylines can no longer be found on mainstream media reports from Gaza.
But others have continued to report, as media outlets prefer to sweep the issue under the carpe,t hoping that the problem will simply disappear.
But it won’t.
It’s not enough to expose the biased, antisemitic, or terror-supporting journalists. It’s time to expose the six media outlets whose silence has protected 20 biased journalists.
HonestReporting is launching a social media campaign to hold these outlets accountable. We demand they stop letting these “journalists” report on Israel-related issues.
Six major outlets employ 20 journalists tied to bias or even terror groups. Despite clear evidence, accountability is ignored. Over the next few weeks, we’ll expose how they infiltrated newsrooms—why it matters, and what you can do about it.
Stay tuned. pic.twitter.com/BOZ3r4k6Yd
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) November 19, 2024
Reuters
The agency still employs eight journalists exposed for infiltrating Israel, expressing biased views, or having unethical ties with Hamas:
- Yasser Qudih: Infiltrated Israel on October 7, and was honored by Hamas. He also won the 2024 Pulitzer prize with Reuters photography staff.
- Doaa Rouqa and Hamuda Hassan: No action taken after they celebrated images of October 7 atrocities.
- Iraq Bureau Chief Timour Azhari: Covers the Israel-Hezbollah conflict, yet demonizes Israel online.
- Suhaib Jadallah Salem, Mohammed Jadallah Salem, Fadi Shanaa, and Ibraheem Abu Mustafa: All received awards from Hamas. But Reuters had no problem with this, or with the terror groups‘ paraphernalia that decorated the Reuters office:
The Associated Press
The wire service still employs seven journalists who either infiltrated Israel or collaborated with terror groups:
- The agency hasn’t taken action against Hatem Ali and Ali Mahmud, who were in exactly the right place on October 7 to capture images of Israelis kidnapped to Gaza:
- Adel Hana, Hatem Moussa, Fatima Shbair, and Khalil Hamra: All participated in official Hamas propaganda events, yet were and are defended by AP. Adel Hana also taught media courses for the Hamas-run Information Office.
- Mohammed Zanaty: A Lebanese cameraman who supported an ally of Hezbollah online, yet AP kept silent on the matter.
AFP
The wire service stood by Mohammed Baba, a photojournalist who participated in a Hamas promo and was honored by the terror group.
The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), New York Times (NYT), and CBS News
Zero action has been taken against the following journalists:
- Abeer Ayyoub, WSJ: Shared terrorist propaganda.
- Samar Abu Elouf, NYT: Honored as Hamas “work partner.”
- Yousef Masoud, NYT: Infiltrated Israel on October 7.
- Marwan Al-Ghoul, CBS News: Spoke at an official event of the PFLP, a proscribed terror organization.
These 20 identified journalists have proven they cannot report on Israel objectively. It’s past time for these outlets and journalists to be held accountable.
How You Can Help
Take action now. Demand accountability from Reuters, AP, AFP, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and CBS News: These journalists must no longer be allowed to report on Israel for any respectable publication.
Go to HonestReporting’s dedicated Call Out Complicity page, where you can sign the petition, send emails to editor,s and post our campaign content to social media.
We must get loud.
We must demand action.
HonestReporting is a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.
The post Take Action Now: Help Stop These 6 Media Outlets From Running Biased Stories Against Israel first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login