Hamas terms for 'long-term truce' are similar to UN Human Rights Council's

My correspondent AC writes:

Today the United Nations Human Rights Council adopted a resolution stating that the council:

Expresses serious concern at the lack of implementation by the occupying power, Israel, of previously adopted resolutions and recommendations of the Human Rights Council, related to the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem,

[Recognizes] that the massive ongoing Israeli military operation in, the Occupied Palestinian territory, particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, caused 'grave violations of, the human rights of the Palestinian civilians therein, exacerbated the severe humanitarian crisis In the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and undermined international efforts towards achieving a just and lasting peace in the region,

Condemning all forms of violence against civilians and deploring the loss of human lives in the context of the current situation;

Recognizing also that the Israeli siege imposed on the occupied Gaza Strip, including the closure of border crossings and the cutting of the supply of fuel, food and medicine, constitutes collective punishment of the Palestinian civilians and leads to disastrous humanitarian and environmental consequences...

As regards the council's recommendations and commands, it, among other things,

2. Calls for the immediate cessation of Israeli military attacks throughout the Palestinian Occupied Territory, in particular the Occupied Gaza Strip that have resulted, thus far, in the' killing of more than 900 land the injury to mote than 4000 Palestinians, including a large number of women and, children,and the end to the launching of the' crude rockets against Israeli civilians that resulted in the loss of 4
civilian lives,and some injuries;

3. Demands the occupying power, Israel, to immediately withdraw its military forces from the occupied Gaza Strip;

4, Calls upon the occupying power, Israel, to end its occupation to all Palestinian, lands occupied since 1967, and to respect its commitment within the. peace process towards the establishment of the independent sovereign Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as its Capital, living in peace and security with all its neighbors;

6. Demands further the occupying power, Israel, to lift the siege, open all borders to allow access, free movement of humanitarian aid to the occupied Gaza Strip, including the immediate establishment of humanitarian corridors, in compliance with its obligations under International Humanitarian Law and to ensure free access of media to areas of conflict through media corridors;

.
14. Decides to dispatch an urgent independent international fact-finding mission, to be appointed by the President, to investigate all violations of international human rights law and International Humanitarian Law by· the occupying power, Israei, against the Palestinian People throughout the Occupied Palestian Territory, particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, due to the current aggression, and calls upon Israel not to obstruct the process of investigation and to fully cooperate with the mission;

Uncannily, Hamas's terms for a ceasefire are virtually identical to those of the UNHRC.

--"Once we receive a proposal, we will study it," said Hamas official Ayman Taha. "We are for any initiative that will bring an immediate cessation to the aggression and lift the siege entirely."

--Yuval Diskin, [head of Shabak] also told ministers that while Hamas had renewed its attacks, it was "interested in continuing the truce, but wants to improve its terms". "It wants us to lift the siege [of Gaza], stop attacks, and extend the truce to include [the West Bank]," Mr Diskin added.

--When this broken truce neared its end, we expressed our readiness for a new comprehensive truce in return for lifting the blockade and opening all Gaza border crossings, including Rafah. Our calls fell on deaf ears. Yet still we would be willing to begin a new truce on these terms following the complete withdrawal of the invading forces from Gaza. - Khaled Meshaal

--The top Hamas leaders in Damascus, however, agreed to consider a cease-fire in Gaza only, provided Israel would not attack Gaza and would permit normal humanitarian supplies to be delivered to Palestinian citizens. - Jimmy Carter writing in the Washington Post

--The delegation, said to have included Moussa Abu Marzouk, the second-ranking official in the Hamas political bureau in Damascus, told Suleiman [Egyptian Minister of Intelligence Omar Suleiman] that Hamas was prepared to stop all rocket attacks against Israel if the Israelis would open up the Gaza border crossings and pledge not to launch attacks in Gaza.

--Maan News: "For many years, we have proposed a long-term truce provided that the Israelis prove their willingness to withdraw, in accordance with international law, from all the territories occupied in the aftermath of their 1967 incursions. We are committed to ending hostilities provided that Israel demonstrates its willingness to stop its continuous attacks on our people and lifts the economic blockade that has crippled our economic and social life over the past three years Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank, including East Jerusalem; the dismantling of all Israeli settlements behind the 4 June 1967 lines; and the recognition of the right of the Palestinian people to return to their homes and determine their own future also need to be addressed to secure long-term peace." - Ahmed Yousef, a senior advisor to de facto Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh

--Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh said in a televised speech delivered from his hideout in Gaza on Monday that the Islamist group would "cooperate with any initiatives aimed at ending the (Israeli offensive) and bring about the enemy's withdrawal and the reopening of the crossings."

But Israel cannot accept these terms, be they from the UNHRC or Hamas. Neither before the current tragedy, when Israel agreed to lift the siege in return for a truce but did nothing of the sort--or now, during the siege. Israel declares that it wants Hamas to stop the rockets and "arms smuggling" through the tunnels, then it'll consider talking about anything else. Its actions prove otherwise. Hamas stopped the rockets and Israel maintained if not reinforced its siege. The tunnels were invented by an emaciated people so as not to starve to death in their concentration camp. No, Israel couldn't care less about the rockets.

What it wants is to crush opposition to its colonial rule and pound resistance into acquiescence, also known as the peace "process".

Meanwhile, Israel pushes the fighting into the cities, civilian areas. Of course, forcing Hamas to resist the onslaught from within civilian areas naturally means that Hamas, not Israel, is endangering civilians by fighting from within civilian areas, just as the Warsaw Ghetto resistance was using civilians as humans shields in fighting from within their cage.

All this is justified by the accusation that Hamas is using civilians as human shields, as Hezbollah was accused of doing to justify the 2006 bloodbath. Take this mobile-command-unit/combat-ready APC, also known as an ambulance when not seen from the cockpit of an F-16. Or these battle-hardened terrorists, commonly regarded as 21 dead medical personnel.

Some one from B'Tselem was interviewed recently on TV. They said something akin to, "Without accountability, international law is meaningless." Indeed it is. And the bloodletting continues.

Comments

[samuelburke]

Gaza Is the Future

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=14046
Israel's on a rampage – and here's why
Why is Israel pounding Gaza? Well, we know the official explanation, which goes something like this: if you Americans were being targeted by crude, albeit potentially lethal, rockets from, say, Mexico, on a daily basis, how would you respond? Israel, we are told, had to take on Hamas. As Barack Obama put it, while campaigning in Sderot, the Israeli response is "part of being a country." They had no choice.

This is bollocks, as everyone but the brain-dead realize. To begin with, Hamas offered a truce and had abided by the previous cease-fire, but the Israelis weren't interested. Instead, Tel Aviv chose to unleash what the whole world sees as an appallingly disproportionate response, raining death on one of the most tightly packed urban environments on earth and launching what looks to be an invasion and reoccupation of the Gaza Strip.

Of course, any military action by the IDF against Hamas' ragtag fighters is inherently disproportionate, given the radical imbalance in the power relationship between the two. Israel, after all, has the most effective, high-tech military machine in the region, bought and paid for by U.S. taxpayers – and with no expense spared on account of that. In any case, however, many are puzzled by what seems to be an inherently doomed project. The attack will merely popularize Hamas, without changing anything, and Israel will wind up back at square one, caught in a Sisyphean nightmare of constantly re-invading the same territory, then retreating once again. But what if they don't retreat?

The assumption that this is an overreaction to the pinpricks inflicted by Hamas is flat-out wrong: the current conflict, which is escalating rapidly, has zero to do with a few rockets lobbed over Israel's impregnable perimeter. That was merely a pretext, and a thin one at that. Yet the exhibition of such a reckless disregard for truth and world opinion hints at the real agenda at work here and underscores the arrogance underlying it.

[D.]

OT: I see Phil has a big piece at HuffPo --
Rethinking Zionism

It's a shameless attempt to get paid twice for the same article ;)

But's it's still quite good, and seems to be getting a large number of comments.

[Richard Witty]

A lame equivalence.

Phil has jumped.

[Dan Kelly]

Here is a response to Phil's "Rethinking Zionism" by Gabriel of Jews Sans Frontieres:

Philip Weiss's Declaration of Independence

[delia]

"Without accountability, international law is meaningless."

Julia Irwin said as much in the Sidney Morning Herald on Sunday:

"What happens in the Middle East today sets the standard for the world. And that applies to weapons as well as tactics. Using cluster bombs or phosphorus bombs against civilian targets is perfectly legal if you can believe the Israeli Defence Force. Assassinating Hamas leaders during a ceasefire does not constitute a breach. Collective punishments against communities, obstructing medical and humanitarian relief - all part of Israel's tactics - could now be considered acceptable behaviour in national and international conflict."

Did it really begin with Israel? It's in violation of about 62 Security Council resolutions. (Iraq was in violation of 16--and a million were slaughtered and Saddam got hanged.)

If Obama really wants to repair the US's reputation abroad, he might consider restoring dignity to the UN, promoting the reforms that John Bolton undermined, and abstaining from any more vetoes with respect to Israel.