JIHAD USES UN COMPOUND TO FIRE AT ISRAEL ISRAEL RETURNS FIRE

Here is blatant media bias. The headline on yahoo front page: ISRAEL AIRSTRIKES DESTROY THOUSANDS OF POUNDS OF FOOD FOR REFUGEES and when you click on the article, the headline is Israel Forces shell UN headquarters in Gaza.

The UN is the global arm of the jihad. Of course, the UN will use this to excoriate Israel and demand a hudna, when in fact they allow the jihad to wage war on UN facilities so that they can demand the Jews stop defending themselves. Has the UN commented on the Israeli Airstrikes aborted to protect civilians? Have the Muslims ever done that?

Israel Strikes UN Agency in Gaza as Ban Seeks Truce (Update2) Bloomberg

Jan. 15 (Bloomberg) -- Israeli armed forces struck the headquarters of a United Nations  relief agency and a hospital in Gaza City as UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was in Israel lobbying its leaders to accept a cease-fire.

Ban, who visited Egypt and Jordan yesterday, said diplomats are closer to reaching a truce between Israel and Hamas after 20 days of fighting. He expressed “strong protest and outrage” over the Israeli strike on the UN site and said Defense Minister Ehud Barak had told him it was a mistake. The UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees suspended operations after its Gaza compound was shelled, setting a warehouse ablaze.

“I hope the Israeli government will heed this call of the Security Council and the international community that the fighting must stop,” Ban said at a Tel Aviv news conference.

Hours later, at a dinner at the residence of Israeli President Shimon Peres, Ban said he understood that “Israel will make an important decision on a cease-fire” today. “I hope it will be the right one,” the UN chief said.

As fighting escalated in Gaza, with more than 1,000 Palestinians killed since Israel’s opening air assault on Dec. 27, representatives of Israel and the militant Islamic Hamas movement met separately with Egyptian mediators. Israel is still weighing whether it has met its goals of stopping Palestinian rocket fire on its southern towns and cities and restoring deterrence, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said.

“Israel will keep its right to give an answer to any type of threat,” she said at the news conference with Ban. “We need to decide when to stop.”

I am sure the Jews will replace the food, they always do.

OT related: UN Agency That Runs School Hit in Gaza Employed Hamas and Islamic Jihad Members - Joel Mowbray

Comments

[Ironeagle]

Well, it's par for the course for the lefty media. I wonder how they would be reacting if the Jihadi retards were firing rockets at their preci9us news buildings. They would be screaming for retribution but, if it's Israel protecting itself, well we can't tolerate that. "Those poor refugees need food." Tell them to ask their wonderful cowardly men to supply it!
Note to the Israelis: Kick their *ss*s!

[seeteufel]

I am all for proportionality. When the Muslim armies attacked in 1948, 1% of all Jews in Israel died in the battles. Now that the entire world of Islam is fighting Israel, she should remember the mercy shown by Islam and not kill any more than 1%.
With 1,000 already dead, there are only about 99 million left before it get disproportionate.

[Thomas Carney]

The US and Israel need a NEW Rule of Engagement:

ANY TIME A BUILDING THAT IS PROHIBITED BY ANY WAR CONVENTION IS USED TO FIRE UPON US OR ISRAELI TROOPS, IT IS NO LONGER A BUILDING PROHIBITED BY WAR CONVENTIONS AND THAT BUILDING AUTOMATICALLY BECOMES A TARGET.

My uncle was shot by a Nazi sniper in a church steeple in the Battle of the Bulge, which was a violation of the Geneva Convention. After my uncle and a couple others went down because of sniper, my uncle's commanding officer ordered the church to be levelled to the ground with the sniper in it.

[Gharkad]

Thomas,

Just for you we'll put it in. Oh, wait. It's already there:

Fourth Geneva Convention 1949, Article 28 "The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations."
Protocol 1 (1977) Art 51. - Protection of the civilian population
"7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.", and,
Protocol 1 (1977) Art 52. General Protection of civilian objects
"1. Civilian objects shall not be the object of attack or of reprisals. Civilian objects are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 2.
2. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage."
Note that neither Israel nor the USA have signed, ratified, nor agreed to accession on this protocol, possibly due to disagreeing with the relaxation of rules regarding differentiation of combatants and non-combatants.

So there you have it. At the time, in 1944, the use of places of worship for military purposes was not against any Geneva Convention though, and his commanding officer at the time was in his rights to level the church had there not been a sniper there. But is perhaps a testament to the US military forces that they didn't wantonly destroy such buildings.

The whole set of rules pertaining to protection of non-combatants and places attempts to minimise the deaths, injury and damage to them. These rules explicitly recognise that if they were to provide an absolute protection against attack, then they will be used to shield one side's forces from military operations of the other, and so these rules dissolve this protection if one side attempt to use them as a shield. By making a protected place or person military useless as a shield, they hope to prevent their use as such.

If a school is being used to fire rockets from, its normally protected status evaporates while it is being used as such. If a UN compound is being used to shield enemy mortar teams firing against Israelis, then it loses its protected status too. If a Hamas military leader asks his family to act as human shields, Israel is still free to target him - but not to target his family as the specific target, although they may be caught in the destruction of the leader. Despite what some people believe, these are the rules of war.