The forcible relocation of two million people from one country to another country by a government could potentially be considered an act falling under the definition of genocide as outlined in the UN Genocide Convention, depending on the specific circumstances and the intent behind such actions. The key consideration is whether the relocation is carried out with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group.

Under the Genocide Convention, the following acts are considered genocide if committed with the intent to destroy such a group:

1. Killing members of the group.

2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group.

3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.

4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.

5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

If the forcible relocation is carried out with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a specific group based on their national, ethnical, racial, or religious identity, it could be considered an act of genocide. The specific circumstances, intent of the government, and evidence would need to be assessed to determine whether the actions constitute genocide under the convention.

It's important to note that the interpretation and application of the Genocide Convention are complex and may require a legal assessment by international bodies, such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) or international tribunals, to determine whether genocide has occurred in a given situation. The convention is meant to address one of the most serious crimes against humanity, and its provisions are taken very seriously in the international legal community.

=============

The United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, often referred to as the "UN Genocide Convention," is an international treaty adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 9, 1948. Here is a summary of its key provisions and objectives:

1. Definition of Genocide: The convention defines genocide as acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group. These acts include killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions leading to the group's physical destruction, imposing measures to prevent births within the group, and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

2. Prevention and Punishment: The convention obligates signatory states to prevent and punish acts of genocide. States are required to take necessary measures to prevent genocide, and if it occurs, they are obligated to punish the perpetrators.

3. Universal Jurisdiction: The Genocide Convention allows for the prosecution of individuals accused of genocide, regardless of their nationality or where the crime was committed. This principle of universal jurisdiction is a crucial component for international justice.

4. Accountability: The convention emphasizes individual criminal responsibility for those involved in planning, inciting, or carrying out acts of genocide. It paved the way for the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the prosecution of individuals responsible for genocide.

5. No Statute of Limitations: Genocide is considered a crime of such a heinous nature that there is no statute of limitations for prosecuting those responsible. This means that individuals can be prosecuted for genocide regardless of how much time has passed since the commission of the crime.

6. Protection of Victims: The convention underscores the importance of protecting and assisting victims of genocide, including refugees and those who have suffered harm as a result of genocide.

7. Reporting and Prevention: Signatory states are encouraged to submit periodic reports to the United Nations on measures taken to prevent and punish genocide. The convention also establishes a Committee on Genocide Prevention to review these reports and provide recommendations.

The UN Genocide Convention is a pivotal international legal instrument aimed at preventing and addressing one of the most serious and morally reprehensible crimes against humanity. It has played a significant role in shaping the modern framework for international criminal law and human rights, with the goal of deterring and ending acts of genocide around the world.

PROJECT CODENAME: OPERATION FAUCI

MISSION: Inoculate population against viral disinformation, disinformation; crypto-Nazism, neo-Confederatism, and the banality of evil, meaning the failure to THINK; the silencing of our voice of conscience; the vaporization of self while engaged in the act of doing without thinking; the succumbing to the Siren song of Bibi’s appeals to emotion; Bibi’s cult of personality; and alienation from our government and other democratic institutions that safeguard of freedom from tyranny; our cherished liberties; and our aspirations for peace, justice, prosperity; and equality under the eyes of God and all humanity.

October 19, 2023  (Updated 5 Dec 2023 with links)

RE: Israel’s double-standard: War Crimes in Gaza puts Global Security at High Risk

Dear Representatives from the State of Israel:

Israel lost nearly 3,000 troops in the Yom Kippur War; the Arabs–Syria and Egypt–nearly 18,000 lost souls. How many young Israeli lives are you prepared to sacrifice for bloodthirsty revenge?

How many young Israeli soldiers will be killed or injured in an unnecessary, illegal, war of revenge using the cover story of “threat to our security” for engaging in an effort of wholesale mass deportation of 2.2 million Gazan residents or their extermination by aerial bombardment?

Can Israel not defend its borders after this humiliating defeat to Hamas? Is this siege against the civilian population of Gaza due to:

• Security risk of another Hamas invasion, which is a patently absurd claim unless Israel intends to continue being negligent and incompetent in defending a tiny border with Gaza and defending the Israeli settlements left undefended by Israel’s government. Bibi’s claim that this is a war of necessity otherwise Hamas will regroup and attack again is a CLASSIC APPEAL TO IGNORANCE–the logical fallacy based on the assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary.  Usually best described by, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”  This fallacy wrongly shifts the burden of proof away from the one making the claim. Using this fallacy shows the shallowness of Bibi’s claim because there is in fact ample evidence that Hamas is blockaded and surrounded and unable to restock its inventory to wage a ‘counter-offensive.’ Perhaps Bibi plans to gas the Hama combatments in their tunnels. 

• Is Bibi still unable to secure Israel’s Gaza border fence for the protection of your own citizens and residents? What is the rush to war against your own Occupied Territory that has been economically crushed by your nearly two-decade long blockade? 

What is the end goal of this ground war–this door-to-door Mosul-Fallujah style urban warfare hell that Bibi intends to inflict on brave young IDF soldiers, and their families and communities? What relief will Israel provide to the residents of Gaza under Israel’s occuptation? Will Gazans be granted full Israeli citizenship after the extermination of Hamas? Will Israel cede control of Gaza to the Palestinian Authority? Will Israel rebuild the ruins of the City of Gaza? Will there be a two-state or one-state solution and happy life for all forever more? Or is this siege and forcible resettlement just a ploy for another land grab?

Do you imagine that Hamas is not dug-in anticipating a response? Do you think horrendous acts of violence against civilians was a sudden breakdown of discipline as part of an otherwise well-coordinated attack? Or did Hamas pull a page from the chapter on war crimes and terrorism in the Putin-playbook in Ukraine? 

Do you think the mullahs would have jeopardized disbursement of $6 Billion after surrendering our hostages as bargaining chips? In their political calculus to notify the public and U.S. officials about their warning delivered to Israel about their intelligence reports indicating an imminent “explosion” in Gaza, Do you think the Egyptians–already in hot water because of the prosecution of their agent New Jersey Senator Bob Menedez–had decided to merely prank Bibi and annoy the US by publicly rebuking Bibi by in effect telling the world and U.S. officials, “we had warned Team Bibi–why didn’t you prepare Bibi?” 

I want to warn you about the dangerous path your Prime Minister has chosen. I am in solidarity with the people of Israel who have suffered a 9/11-scale terrorist attack designed to be as gruesome, cruel, and provocative as the hijacking of three airliners used as ballistic-missiles against the people of my nation.

The outrageous arguments for the necessity of war based on the patently FALSE premise about Hamas posing an imminent danger is demonstrated by points listed below that are far too many to list here.

What are Bibi’s ulterior motives?

Ulterior Motives for Revenge Siege on Gaza

• Plans to expel by force 2.2 million Gazan residents to flee to Egypt (what Israeli’s refer to as Nakba 2.0) and force both Egypt and the international community to accept this plan by creating a humanitarian catastrophe?

• Blood-thirsty lust for revenge–illegal reprisal in a humiliating military defeat by a non-state actor–HAMAS–which is operating in the Gaza Strip–a tiny area the size of Philadelphia and is described as the largest ‘open-air death’ camp by former U.N. official Chris Dunness, and remains territory that is Israeli de facto occupied, legally. Occupied according to international law, without a military of its own, jointly administered by Hamas and by Israel.

• Hatred of all Palestinians as evidenced by public statements by Israel’s corrupt government and many of Israel’s political, military religious figures who speak openly for the need to create a humanitarian crisis, defy international law, and show contempt for the pleas for a ‘humanitarian pause’ and entry of humanitarian aid made by President Biden, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, the American people, the United Nations General Assembly, and every member of the U.N. Security Council–except the United States and the Soviet Union, which both appear to be playing politics for their respective proxies. 

• Hatred of America and Contempt for the international-rules based order created by the sacrifices of 600,000 U.S. service members who died for the cause of freedom against Nazism, antisemitism, totalitarianism, and all that we Americans hold dear, including the international-rules based order established by the Greatest Generation for the benefit of the United States, the victorious Allied Powers, and all of Humanity regardless of whether they chose democracy or some other system–All humanity has benefited from the unprecedented peace among the great powers and adherence to international law that has enabled the prosperity –from China to India–and the very existence of Israel, which would NOT exist without the consent of the United Nations–which for better or worse–authorized the existence of a Jewish homeland in 1947.

Self-Defense-No.

Unfortunately the George W. Bush leadership team responded to violence by violating the norms and treaties that my grandparents’ generation made possible for the world to collectively achieve. Freedom has a price and responsibilities. We all benefit from tremendous sacrifices made by our grandparents’ generation who defended our way of life–meaning our freedom is dependent on your freedom. The right not to suffer death by starvation (Holodomor or Gaza-No-More) while under siege, and the right for our friends in Ukraine to feed the world, is a fundamental right, and to deny these self-evident rights is a war crime. 

ISRAEL WAR CRIMES-Siege on Gaza

⏩Link to Presentation

➤Analysis: The Siege of Gaza and the Starvation War Crime

➤Policy Guide: Explainer on Laws of Armed Conflict

HAMAS WAR CRIMES

⏩Link to Presentation

Israel is held by a Double-Standard by the U.S. and Europe, 

The West applies a double-standard to Israel involves violations of the international-rules based order while committing verifiable crimes abhorrent to citizens of all Western Democracies; abhorrent to citizens of all democracies worldwide; abhorrent to citizens of every nation whether they are ruled by a monarch; a dictator; or single party. REgardless of the double-standard applied to Israel by the West, no Western country since 1945 has committed the crimes against its own people–people under occupation–as Israel has done with impunity since becoming an independent state in 1948. The West and the World has had enough. Enough.

The Rules Apply Equally to All–States and Non-states

Between the two world wars the world lost 150 million souls, and my people—the American people—left safety provided by two great oceans to stare down German bullets on the beaches of France in order to support our allies facing destruction and defeat to the evil of Nazism and colonial imperialism. Just as all humanity suffers when innocent concert goers are slaughtered in Israel, all humanity has benefited from sacrifices made by the greatest generation for the sake of justice, liberty, freedom, truth, and making a world where the dignity of each and every human life is cherished from cradle to grave. The price in blood, sweat, tears, and death purchased all of humanity the opportunity for wise leaders around the world to come to agreement about the design, financing, operation, and enforcement of the rules-based international order we have today—an order and peace achieved by ultimate sacrifice of over 600,000 U.S. military personnel who like Moses, would not be allowed to enter the promised land after 40 years in the desert.

How many democracies imprison entire cities with 4-meter high walls?

As far as I am aware, no European democracy has a four-meter high wall enclosing the residents of a major city, let alone a city known as the birthplace of Jesus Christ. Should prophecy be fulfilled with the return of Christ, I sure hope God his father is a carpenter because he’s going to need a God-damn sturdy &  tall ladder to get over that Israeli-built concrete security wall surrounding Bethlehem! No matter if King Herod is killing every baby in Bethlehem, neither mere mortal nor Messiah for all mankind is getting out of Bethlehem except over that impossibly high wall or through the Israeli security gate, assuming your papers have been approved, which means better luck next time for Christ’s sake! 

While standing in front of that prison wall surrounding Bethlehem, Would it be a double-standard for the President of the United States to quote President Reagan’s line in a speech in front of the Berlin Wall?   “Mr. Netanayu, Tear down this Wall!”

Human Rights Olympics: HIgh Jump or Limbo?

Those fortunate to have power are bound to a higher standard than other member nations. Instead of raising the bar and encouraging other nations to aspire to new heights, the United States did the limbo, setting the bar as low as Dick Cheney could go. The world must DEMAND more of the United States. DEMAND it. We can and will do better. 

George W. Bush inflicted severe damage to the world order by appealing to our emotions, exploiting our trauma, and leading the USA to commit war crimes against the Iraqi people. Bush fractured the Post-World War II international order that we helped design, finance, build, and operate for our benefit—and our national interest is not isolationism or exploitation or containment of other nations. For America, we must advance the best interests of the world for our mutual benefit, because our success depends on global peace and prosperity. To act otherwise is a miscalculation to our detriment and that of the whole world.

Bibi’s war crimes against humanity on civilians in the Gaza Strip is a substantial risk to a fragile, and fractured international rules-based order that has made possible a period of unprecedented peace among the great powers; During this peace came prosperity for most of the world, including China and India.

Right of Self-Defense is Not Right of Destroying Civilians 

Israel has the right to exist. Israel has the right to defend itself. So does Ukraine, and self-defense includes using advanced Western-weapons against the aggressor within their own country and across the aggressor’s border. To defend against ongoing attacks is not illegal, but it must be proportional, and the rules of war forbids war crimes for both state and non-state actors. No exceptions. No double standards. No “Get out of Jail” free card for war crimes. Rules are Rules. NO breaking, NO bending rules for apartment buildings or interrogations. No dehumanizing euphemisms like ‘collateral damage.’ No special exemptions for Jews who run Apartheid regimes.   

 God says No to Bibi and Natan Sharansky-

Zionist Rules mean No International Rules. 

• No “above the law” exclusion clause for almighty God’s chosen people;

• No Jewish Supremacy; No right of imminent domain on Arabs; 

• No covenant with God granting absentee landlords a two-thousand-year “right to return;”

• No double-standard applicable to Israel only that grants Israel exemption from standards applied by Western democracies to judge their own conduct by and by all democracies to judge each other. No nation–especially any patriotic American–accepts the Zionist premise of this Israeli government that by divine right, the Palestinian people are inferior–as a subset of the rest of the world designated inferior to Israel’s genetically-superior, European colonial-settlers chosen by God to return to their homeland and purge the land of indigenous Palestinians and wage unremitting war for territorial land grabs against neighbors and institute a Torah-based rabbinical monarchy, which is the publicly-stated position of Israel’s Zionist Jewish Supremacists in Bibi’s government, namely Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Smotrich.

• No Nazi Lebensraum (or American manifest-destiny) passes assigned to colonizing settlers granting them state-sponsored rights to terrorize their non-Jewish neighbors with state-sanctioned pogroms (riots); to confiscate other people’s property without due process; without compensation; without regard to Israeli law, let alone international law and commonly understood basic human decency; and without accountability to the rule of law for the murder of Palestinian civilians.

• No right to forcibly displace Native Americans into “reservations” or other forms of “concentration camps” like the Warsaw-Gaza-Strip ghetto or much of Los Angeles, which is the Ku-Klux-Kapital of the Konfederacy of Klanifornia, where County Supervisor Kathryn Barger endorses modern lynching (death penalty), concentration camps for racial minorities (bad schools to jail), bloated law enforcement budgets, No right to competent counsel, 99 percent conviction rates just like for the Occupied Territories and Russia, and “election recalls” when voters reject her Apartheid status quo for LA County.** 

.

Rules are Not football. No Bend it Like Beckam.

Bibi and Natan Sharansky don’t get to apply their own rules from some ancient Dead Sea Scroll. There is one standard. But apparently, Natan Sharansky and Bibi believe No Rules apply to them. They apparently think shooting their neighbors in the back while screaming Holocaust " is a Likud “Get out of Jail free card.” Does Bibi send out fundraising emails about the Holocaust when he’s committing crimes of racism and genocide by blowing up residential apartment buildings and locking down poor little Jesus behind four-meter walls in Bethlehem?

I stood on the street only four blocks away from the South Tower imploded in the Manhattan financial district. Nearly three-thousand souls perished four blocks from where I stood. I bought the bullshit sold by Bush/Cheney who called for war; I did not have the appreciation that I now have for the rules-based order that has made possible the collective action of the world to sanction Putin’s superpower-size military. I now realize that it is tantamount to treason for me or any American or any world leader to flagrantly violate the rules of the international order; to callously and arrogantly break bonds of trust among nations forged over decades.

No Vests for the Army? Time for an Audit of U.S. aid to Israel?

What Bibi is doing by waging an unnecessary siege on the civilian population when his IDF doesn’t even have equipment for reservist is nothing short of self-serving, maniacal, intentional and negligent destruction of young IDF soldiers, young men and women who are going to fight an unnecessary battle that is likely to make Israel less secure, meaning their sacrifices are squandered by the state. Then there are the war crimes against the civilians of the Gaza Strip, which are crimes against all humanity just like the crimes committed by Hamas against civilians.

Bibi, what do you say to my Grandma?

And they are crimes against my grandparents and the greatest generation—You will have Bibi piss on the graves of my grandparents? You will desecrate their graves of their countrymen buried in 26 national cemeteries in foreign lands—all told over 200,000 buried or memorialized in foreign cemeteries so that Bibi can piss on their graves for his personal lust for Power, Partisan Gain, Profit, Petty Grievances and fragile ego, and Avoidance of Prosecution for his crimes? Those who paid the ultimate price are worth Bibi’s piss? Is that how you treat America? Is that how you treat Ukrainians—the heart of the Pale of Settlement that will be destroyed by Putin should America elect Trump again, with Bibi through his war crimes helping to engineer another Trump victory just like Bibi did in 2016?

In choosing to say “you are either with us or against us,” and “might makes right,” and “if you break the rules, we will have no red lines either,” Bibi Netanayu like George W. Bush has become a risk to global stability; a threat to peace worldwide; a pariah in the eyes of the world, including the United States where patience is wearing thin for this Prime Minister

Hamas, Reliable & Routine Elections, Welcomes Dissent, Right?

I condemn the war crimes committed by Hamas, which is a plague on the Palestinians, and Gaza in particular which has NOT had an election since Hamas gained control in 2006. I have tremendous empathy for the people of Israel—war crimes were committed against them. Apparently, Bibi’s response to a non-state group committing war crimes is to kill twice as many innocent civilians and commit Putin-scale atrocities against civilians. Here is a list of Bibi crimes:

“But what about Fazid hurting my feelings?” What about? What about?

The Arabs have legitimate grievances about being humiliated, dehumanized, and persecuted under Israel’s Apartheid Occupation. and its propaganda-machine that attempts to suppress and censor Truth with Bibi’s Soviet-style denial, deflection, and What-aboutism. Given Bibi’s complicity with Putin’s election interference in 2016 U.S. elections, should I be concerned about Bibi being in cahoots with Putin again? If it were up to me, rather than seek a fatwa condemning Bibi to crucifixion–since he thinks he’s king of the Jews–I would issue an American Fuk-U-Bibi.

Meddling in the  2016 U.S. election in cahoots with the arch-enemy of Jews & Americans!

Recall BiBi’s campaign consultants Arthur Finkelstein and George Birnbaum, who served in Israel’s government while undermining America’s electoral system and democratic institutions much as Bibi has tried to accomplish by personifying the greatest threat to the existence of Israel since the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.  Israel has NEVER been more secure from foreign invasion than today but the country’s risk profile as a hybrid democracy /  Apartheid Occupier has never been weaker than today because of Bibi’s systematic destruction of the state—while terrorizing Arabs with land grabs and persecution.

One solution to destroy Hamas is sending Natan Sharansky on condition he not be gagged. Like the polar opposite of a mythical Siren who decoys sailors to shipwreck by song, Natan will ANNOY them to death triggering mass suicide in reaction to his repetitive, self-serving, Soviet-KGB packaged 3D-defintion blabbering BS. Natan is a chauvinistic blowhard peddling old Soviet KGB tricks—his bullshit 3D definition of antisemitism, which says anti-zionism equals antisemitism, is a thinly veiled con for censoring all criticism of Putin’s Mini-Bibi.

Hitler’s Helping Hand, a National Security Threat and Menace to the Globe

Many Americans, including many Jews considered candidate Donald Trump to be Hilter reincarnated because of his history of virulent racism against all groups, particularly those he considered weak, and therefore prime targets for scapegoating. Heavily redacted affidavit report  text message exchanges hint of the involvement of a prime minister and a minister without portfolio, along with greetings from the PM to. Roger Stone and the possibility of a four-star general joining the meeting, and of course, an “October Surprise”. 

Message to STONE: European country ready to release secret tapes to DESTROY objective. Can we meet ASAP? 4-star general will join.

See LINK for source doc

Putin and the PM shared the same goal: Destroy Hillary Clinton. The redacted record strongly suggests Bibi meddled in our 2016 Presidential election while in cahoots with criminal operative Roger Stone and WikiLeaks Julian Assange and Putin’s Guccifer 2.0 in order to deliver an “October Surprise” for BiBi’s own self-serving objective of defeating Hillary Clinton. 

Imagine how Hillary Clinton would have handled Covid? How likely would Clinton have demonstrated astounding incompetence, negligence, and malice resulting in the unnecessary death of over one million Americans who died of Covid? How many Jews died during the initial catastrophic outbreak in New York City due to the Administration’s incompetence and Kutcher’s evil decision to deny aid to New York:

At the end of July 2020, writing for Vanity Fair, [Katherine Eban] revealed that Kushner had commissioned a robust federal COVID-19 testing plan, only to abandon it before it could be implemented. One public health expert in frequent contact with the White House’s official coronavirus task force said a national plan likely fell out of favor in part because of a disturbingly cynical calculation: “The political folks believed that because [the virus] was going to be relegated to Democratic states, that they could blame those governors, and that would be an effective political strategy.”

Imagine America’s foreign policy not being the product of Putin’s highest expectation for self-destructive and disastrous foreign policy that raised severe doubts about the reliability and commitment of the United States to its alliances, the rules-based international order, and preservation of its own democratic institutions, particularly the Republican Party which is now a spineless, hyper-reactionary, crypto-fascist, neo-Confederate blight on the body politic and demonstrably incapable of governance.

Bibi’s meddling contributed to the erosion of American democratic institutions and loss of confidence in America’s standing in the world. And tens of thousands of deaths. Bibi, you have blood on your hands. You and your fascists, and security apparatus should be regarded as a national security threat to the United States. He helped elect a crypto-Nazi who did not read the Presidential Brief, but was reported in the September 1990 issue of Vanity Fair to have kept a book of Hitler’s speeches by his bedside when his fortunes crashed with the end of the 1980s.

Too ILLegit to Quit? 

Prosecution? Lil’ Putin Netanyahu–Regime Change - Elections!

Israelis, you need to hold elections. Regime Change. Bibi’s got to go. You’re putting your country, the USA, and the whole world at risk by acting like a bunch of thugs—shutting off water, gas, medical supplies, food—starving people—the Holodor—by Bibi Stalinista!

Is Tikkun olam about repairing the world or preserving and upholding an Apartheid social order?

Tell Dadi to take care of his business. Protect the state, not the Puny-Putin PM trying to avoid prosecution and responsibility for gutting the IDF, putting young Israeli lives at risk, and taking a wrecking ball to the country’s democratic institutions and basic freedoms in the name of anti-reform led by theocratic-Talibanistic fascist-nationalists who don’t even serve in the IDF!

With sincere condolences for the losses of family and friends, we are with you here in America. Our friendship will survive your horrific PM but you must decide whether Israel is to become more democratic or be doomed to devolving into Ben-Gvir’s rabbinic monarchy, with a feudal caste system. I prefer beaches with women unlike the Haredi, who seem more like the Taliban.

Warm regards, Bryan Gobin

You will find a considerable amount of my reading material located on this webpage.

Website Work-in-Progres: www.TULPPP.com

Bryan Gobin

ceo@tulppp.com

Connect with me on LinkedIn

Attachments

Random Notes

Evidence of Incompetence

• Refusal to heed warnings from Egypt about an imminent “explosion” launched from Gaza and from warnings from the United States about disturbing risks emerging in the Gaza Strip. 

• Apparently having no redundancy in its remote monitoring system; 

• No troops in a readiness posture 

Failure relative to Yom Kippur War and the General 

Utter incompetence, negligence, and possible treason relative to Israel’s posture ahead of the 1973 Yom Kippur War, when Prime Minister Golda Meir and her military advisors were in fact aware of Syrian and Egyptian military exercises and aggressive posturing by Arab adversaries. The government of Prime Minister Golda Meir did the following:

• Used Diplomatic Channels to communicate Israel’s peaceful intentions and desire NOT to wage war against neighboring states;

• Decided NOT to launch a Preemptive attack in self-defense against neighboring states based on uncertainty about Arab-nation intentions–raising issues about 1) the necessity of a pre-emptive attack for self-defense 2) when the  imminence of an attack from the Arab nations remained possible but uncertain and 3) the risks of a pre-emptive attack resulting in a case of self-fulfilling prophecy–by starting the war that PM Meir sought to avoid and 4) the international condemnation and unintended consequences of being an aggressor–for what most would consider an unprovoked war regardless of the merits of Israel’s claims.

• Adopted a readiness stance for the possibility of Arab nations launching an attack in reaction to intelligence gathered by both domestic sources and international allies as in fact Israel’s did in fact do in preparation for the possibility of Egypt, Syria, and other Arab states launching a futile and suicidal attack against Israel.

• Major General (res.) Giora Eiland, former head of the Israel National Security Council is a LIAR about being the only guy ready during the Yom Kippur War while stationed at the Golan Heights, and I will call him out!

Duplicitous and malicious intentions regarding Hamas

• Supported at least since 2006 by Netanyahu and members of his government–and described as a “asset” by Finance Minister Smotrich as a means for “divide and conquer” of Palestinian people, and for propaganda aimed at Demonizing all Palestinians as ‘terrorists’ and ‘antisemites’ and, for Delegitimizing their rightful aspiration for the U.N. backed creation of a Palestinian state, and for holding Palestinians to a double-standard whereby Israeli Settlers residing in illegal settlements are allowed to commit pogroms against Palestinians; Israeli military personnel are allowed to blow up schools and shoot children, but any action by Palestinian civilians–such as protesting and resisting–is wrongfully and intentionally misrepresented as a Hamas terrorist attack.

• Hamas has publicly stated that is does NOT take any responsibility for the protection of civilians in Gaza, which shows intent to commit war crimes against Gazan civilians. 

• Pitting extremist Hamas–which says NO and NEVER to the undeniable right of Israel to exist under international law versus the pragmatic Palestinian Authority in the West Bank that has recognized Israel; has negotiated in good-faith with Israel under the auspices of the Oslo negotiating process; and seeks to have a state.the Palestinian effort to be unified under one government and be able to negotiate for their American and U.N. recognized right for establishing a state.   

Bryan C. Gobin

Chief Catalyst, TULPPP.com

Connect with me on LinkedIn

The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.

→Return to top of page 

END

Memorandum: Retreat from Gaza, End War Crimes and Genocide

October 20 2023

To: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu 

From: Bryan C. Gobin, Chief Orchestrator, TULPPP.com

Dear Prime Minister Netanyahu,

I am writing to provide you with an extended analysis of the international legal framework surrounding the invasions of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003, including the discussion on anticipatory self-defense and the concept of imminence in the context of transnational terrorism and weapons of mass destruction (WMDs).

Final Recommendation

Recommendation: In light of the assessment of military capabilities, adherence to international humanitarian law, and the tragic loss of civilian life, it is my revised and emphatic recommendation that a large-scale ground invasion of the Gaza Strip should be avoided. Israel's strategic advantage and its commitment to international legal principles should guide our approach to ensure the security of our nation.

The use of ground forces should remain a last resort, reserved for situations where no other viable alternative exists. It is essential to exercise restraint and avoid actions that could result in civilian casualties and further destabilize the region. The tragic loss of life among the civilian population, including women, children, and the elderly, underscores the urgency of finding a more peaceful and sustainable resolution to the conflict.

Prime Minister, I urge you to consider the revised recommendations presented here as we navigate this challenging period. The protection of the lives of our soldiers and the well-being of our citizens must remain our top priorities. By leveraging our military capabilities, adhering to international humanitarian law, and assessing the imminence of the threat, we can make the best decisions to ensure the security of Israel and work towards a more peaceful future in the region.

Legal Criteria for Ground Invasion is NOT Satisfied

The following criteria are NOT met that are NECESSARY for justifies a ground invasion resulting in high civilian casualties and loss of life:

1. No Imminent Threat of a near- to medium-term attack from Hamas for the following reasons:

   • No evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in possession of Hamas, and No State Sponsors of Hamas have access to such weapons themselves.

   • Zero likelihood of Hamas being able to wage a similar attack of the scale and scope of 7 October invasion from Gaza unless Israel 

     • continues to ignore its own intelligence and warnings from allies, 

     • Remains negligent in protecting Israelis from a rag-tag army using rudimentary weapons

2. No legal basis for this war has been or will likely be provided by U.N. Security Council, a majority of U.N. member states, or regional neighbors, who are in fact adamantly opposed to a siege on Gaza.

3. No Justification for self-defense for reasons discussed above determining there is No Imminent threat of another attack that cannot be defended by means other than invasion that will by Israel's own admission result in significant civilian casualties and loss of civilian life.

4. No Justification for killing civilians who may be used as involuntary human shields as claimed by Israeli spokes people.

Please see analysis demonstrating that your situation is not equivalent to actions taken against Afghanistan, and note that the invasion of Iraq is controversial because it was a violation of international law by standards and common understanding prevailing at the time.

Self Defense

When a state faces an imminent attack, it may have a right to act in anticipatory self-defense. Article 51 and other provisions of the UN Charter do not address this situation. However, customary international law recognizes the right of anticipatory self-defense [do not confuse anticipatory with Bibi's blood-thirsty retaliatory!] when an armed attack is imminent and inevitable. If an attack is possible but not imminent, a state probably cannot launch a pre-emptive strike.

key words: necessary, proportionate, imminent, inevitable

Imminence: 

• The threat should be imminent. This means that there should be clear evidence that an armed attack is about to occur or is ongoing. A past attack, even if serious, does not necessarily justify ongoing military action.

• Imminence in Self-Defense: The concept of imminence in self-defense demands that there be a genuine and immediate threat that leaves no reasonable alternative to using force in self-defense. Given the significant advantage of Israel's military capabilities and defense systems, particularly against rocket attacks, the imminent threat to Israeli civilians is substantially mitigated

Proportionality: 

1. • The response to an armed attack should be proportional to the threat. 

   • Excessive force or indiscriminate attacks on civilians are not justified under the principle of proportionality.

   • International Humanitarian Law and Proportionality: International humanitarian law's principle of proportionality underscores the importance of ensuring that the use of force is proportionate to the military advantage anticipated. In the context of the ongoing conflict, where Israel enjoys significant military superiority and the effectiveness of the Iron Dome defense system, the use of a large-scale ground invasion may be viewed as disproportionate.

   • The tragic loss of civilian life and the immense number of injuries among the Gazan population are deeply concerning. The civilian death toll, especially among women, children, and the elderly, highlights the dire humanitarian situation and the human suffering resulting from the conflict. The deaths of thousands of civilians, the injuries sustained, and the large number of families that have lost multiple members underscore the need to minimize harm to innocent civilians.

Necessity: 

1. • Non-violent means of resolving the conflict should be exhausted before resorting to armed force.

   • The use of force must be necessary to address the threat. 

     1. The baseline Scenario - October 6.

     2. Based on the information about respective military capabilities, possible changes in security threats, and regional politics, there is Not a Sufficient change in the baseline scenario, and therefore, it remains highly doubtful that there is an objective imminent threat to Israel from Hamas.

     3.  Hamas lacks the military capabilities to pose an imminent risk to Israel when Israel has advanced defense systems like Iron Dome, a powerful air force, and a highly mechanized army.

2. Collective Security: 

   • Before exercising the right to self-defense, states should report to the United Nations Security Council to seek its collective response to the threat.

3. Humanitarian Law: 

Once a conflict begins, all parties are bound by international humanitarian law, which includes rules for protecting civilians, prisoners of war, and humanitarian organizations.

Revised Recommendation: 

In light of the assessment of military capabilities, adherence to international humanitarian law, and the tragic loss of civilian life, it is my revised and emphatic recommendation that a large-scale ground invasion of the Gaza Strip should be avoided. Israel's strategic advantage and its commitment to international legal principles should guide our approach to ensure the security of our nation.

The use of ground forces should remain a last resort, reserved for situations where no other viable alternative exists. It is essential to exercise restraint and avoid actions that could result in civilian casualties and further destabilize the region. The tragic loss of life among the civilian population, including women, children, and the elderly, underscores the urgency of finding a more peaceful and sustainable resolution to the conflict.

In conclusion, Prime Minister, I urge you to consider the revised recommendations presented here as we navigate this challenging period. The protection of the lives of our soldiers and the well-being of our citizens must remain our top priorities. By leveraging our military capabilities, adhering to international humanitarian law, and assessing the imminence of the threat, we can make the best decisions to ensure the security of Israel and work towards a more peaceful future in the region.

Sincerely,

Bryan C. Gobin

Chief Catalyst & Orchestrator

CEO@TULPPP.com

Memo. Applicability of Cases of U.S. Invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan to 7 Oct Attack by Hamas on Israel.

October 20 2023

To: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu 

From: Bryan C. Gobin, Chief Orchestrator, TULPPP.com

Dear Prime Minister Netanyahu,

I am writing to provide you with an extended analysis of the international legal framework surrounding the invasions of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003, including the discussion on anticipatory self-defense and the concept of imminence in the context of transnational terrorism and weapons of mass destruction (WMDs).

Invasion of Afghanistan:

Legal Justification: The invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 by the United States and its coalition allies was primarily justified under the right to self-defense, as provided for in Article 51 of the UN Charter. This justification was widely accepted in the international community, given the clear link between the 9/11 attacks and the Taliban regime, which was harboring Al-Qaeda. The fundamental principle of self-defense was the cornerstone of this operation and was broadly endorsed, aligning it with international law principles.

UN Authorization: The United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1373, which called on all states to cooperate in the fight against terrorism. This resolution implicitly supported the international efforts in Afghanistan but did not explicitly authorize the use of force. While not a formal authorization, it acknowledged the need for collective action against terrorism and, therefore, complemented the multilateral efforts in Afghanistan.

Multilateral Approach: The invasion of Afghanistan was conducted as a multilateral operation with a coalition of countries, including NATO member states. This coalition-building contributed to the perception of a collective response against a common enemy, strengthening the argument for legitimacy and adherence to the rule of law.

Rule of Law Adherence: The invasion of Afghanistan, based on the principle of self-defense, was seen by many as a legitimate response to an armed attack, which aligned with international law principles. The multilateral approach and the support of the international community underscored its adherence to the rule of law.

Invasion of Iraq:

Legal Justification: The invasion of Iraq in 2003 by the United States and its coalition allies was justified on the grounds of pre-emptive self-defense, with concerns about Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). However, this justification was controversial and widely disputed. The legal basis for this invasion was more contentious, as it relied on the concept of pre-emptive self-defense rather than responding to an immediate armed attack.

UN Authorization: The invasion of Iraq did not have explicit authorization from the United Nations Security Council. In fact, several UNSC members opposed military action, highlighting the absence of consensus within the international community.

Unilateral Approach: Unlike the invasion of Afghanistan, the Iraq invasion was characterized by a more unilateral approach, led by the United States, with some coalition partners but without broad international consensus. This unilateralism raised concerns about the operation's alignment with international legal principles.

Rule of Law Controversy: The decision to invade Iraq was met with significant controversy and opposition in the international community. The pre-emptive self-defense justification, the lack of explicit UN authorization, and the absence of conclusive evidence of WMDs contributed to perceptions that it did not conform to established international legal principles. The controversy surrounding this invasion emphasized the importance of adherence to the rule of law and multilateralism in international affairs.

Discussion on Anticipatory Self-Defense:

The question of anticipatory self-defense remains a subject of debate among states and legal experts. While some advocate for a narrow interpretation of self-defense, others argue that preemptive actions may be justified under international law. The necessity of anticipatory self-defense stems from the evolving nature of threats in the modern age. It is essential to emphasize that self-defense actions must be necessary and proportionate. Necessity in self-defense means that force may be used only when there is no other reasonable and effective alternative. The use of force must also be proportionate to the threat faced, ensuring it is not excessive.

Instances of anticipatory self-defense, such as Israel's strike on the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981, have sparked discussions on the legality and necessity of such actions. The international community's response to these cases varies, underscoring the need for clearer international consensus regarding anticipatory self-defense.

Imminence in the Context of Transnational Terrorism and WMDs:

The concept of imminence in the context of transnational terrorism and weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) is a challenging issue. Traditional definitions of imminence may not suffice in the face of modern threats. Imminence should be interpreted in a way that accounts for the unpredictability of attacks by terrorist groups armed with WMDs. The international community must consider the gravity of the threat, the capabilities of the attacker, and the nature of the threat. 

Hamas does NOT have WMDs, therefore there is No Imminent Threat that cannot be shielded by Iron Dome and other defensive measures while negotiations for hostage release and a durable peace are negotiated.

The case of Israel's strike on Osirak illustrated the complex nature of defining imminence. Legal scholars and experts have argued for a broader understanding of imminence to ensure an effective response to potential threats while respecting the principles of necessity and proportionality.

Role of the Security Council:

The United Nations Security Council plays a pivotal role in authorizing the use of force, emphasizing collective decision-making to maintain international peace and security. The Security Council has issued resolutions that have authorized military actions in response to various international crises, including those related to self-defense. These actions highlight the importance of the Security Council as the primary forum for legitimizing the use of force and reinforcing the principles of international law.

In conclusion, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq provide valuable insights into the complexities of international law, self-defense, anticipatory self-defense, and imminence in the face of modern threats. These historical events underscore the importance of multilateralism, adherence to the rule of law, and the need for clear international consensus regarding anticipatory self-defense and imminence.

It is crucial for our government to continue upholding international law, engaging in diplomatic efforts to foster consensus, and respecting the role of the United Nations Security Council in maintaining international peace and security.

Please let me know if you require further information or specific actions to be taken in alignment with these recommendations.

Sincerely,

Bryan C. Gobin

Chief Catalyst & Orchestrator

CEO@TULPPP.com

ChatGpt Memo. War of Unequals, Hamas was Clever. 

Israel incompetent, negligent, and incredulously ignoring all intelligence warnings including those given by allies.  

Assessment of Hamas Threat to the Israeli Military:

Given the baseline assumption that rocket attacks are to be expected but not on a scale that would seriously threaten the Israeli military, the assessment is as follows:

• Relative Capabilities: The Israeli military maintains a significant advantage in terms of conventional military capabilities, including air defense systems, intelligence, and technology. In the face of regular rocket attacks, the Israeli military's defensive measures and preparedness are tailored to mitigate these threats effectively.

• Threat Level: In this context, the threat to the Israeli military posed by Hamas, which relies on rocket attacks, is "somewhat doubtful." While these attacks can cause disruptions and casualties, the Israeli military's robust defense systems and preparedness have historically minimized the impact of such attacks on its operational capabilities.

• Military Capabilities: The significant disparity in military capabilities between Israel and NON-STATE ACTOR remains apparent. Israel's advanced technology, well-equipped military, and highly effective defense systems provide it with a considerable advantage in countering threats, particularly from rocket attacks.

Hamas (non-state actor) Military Strength:

• Hamas: Hamas is considered a non-state actor and operates primarily in the Gaza Strip. Its military capabilities have evolved over the years, even though it faces significant limitations due to its status as a non-state entity. Some key aspects of Hamas's military capabilities include:

1. Rockets and Mortars: Hamas has developed a military arsenal that includes thousands of rockets, including long-range missiles and drones. They also possess various bombs and mortars.While these rockets are often relatively basic and have a lower accuracy rate compared to advanced missiles, they can still pose a threat to Israeli cities and communities.

2. Tunnels: Hamas has constructed an extensive network of tunnels, some for smuggling and others for military purposes. These tunnels have been used for both offensive and defensive operations.

3. Drones: Hamas has deployed drones for reconnaissance and even limited offensive operations. While not as advanced as military drones used by states, they represent a significant development in their capabilities.

4. Guerrilla Tactics: Hamas relies on asymmetric warfare strategies, including guerrilla tactics and ambushes. This allows them to maximize their limited resources, which is heavily reliant on rockets, and repurposed civilian equipment such as paragliders to bulldozers, pickup trucks, and motorbikes..

5. Local Manufacturing: Over the years, Hamas has developed some local manufacturing capabilities for producing rockets, munitions, and even drones.

6. Hamas receives funding from various sources, including Iran, which provides up to $100 million annually. Other funding sources include Gulf countries, Turkey, Malaysia, Algeria, Sudan, and even cryptocurrency. Sanctions: The U.S. Treasury Department has imposed sanctions on Hamas members and its financial network, targeting their global companies with assets of over $500 million. With the encouragement of Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu, Qatar has provided approximately $1 Billion of humanitarian assistance to Hamas over the past Decade. 

7. Hamas faces significant financial constraints and relies heavily on external aid, primarily from Qatar. This limits their ability to procure advanced weaponry.

Israel's Military Strength:

1. Weapons and Equipment: Israel is has nuclear warheads, highly sophisticated drones, fighter aircraft, tanks, submarines, artillery, missile defense systems (e.g., Iron Dome), armored personnel carriers, warships, drones, and more.

2. Air Force: Israel's air force is one of the most advanced globally, with modern fighter jets, unmanned aerial vehicles, and precision-guided munitions.

3. Ground Forces: Israel maintains a well-trained and equipped ground force with modern armored vehicles, artillery, and infantry.Israel Defense Forces (IDF): Israel has established itself as one of the most technologically advanced military powers in the Middle East. The IDF was founded in 1948 and maintains compulsory military service. The IDF comprises approximately 169,500 active-duty personnel and around 465,000 reservists. During times of conflict, Israel can call up large numbers of reservists.

4. Intelligence: Israel's intelligence agencies, such as the Mossad and Shin Bet, provide a crucial advantage in surveillance, counter-terrorism, and intelligence gathering.

5. Advanced Technology: Israel possesses some of the world's most advanced military technology, including missile defense systems like the Iron Dome, Arrow, and David's Sling, as well as sophisticated drones and cyber warfare capabilities.

6. Navy: Israel's navy is capable of protecting its coastal waters and carrying out naval operations.

7. Budget: Israel's annual military budget exceeds $20 billion, surpassing the combined military spending of Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, and Jordan.

8. U.S. Support: The United States is the largest supplier of military aid to Israel, contributing approximately $130 billion since Israel's founding. This support includes weapons grants, financial aid, and access to advanced military equipment. In response to a recent attack, President Biden pledged additional support, including funding for Israel's defense, specifically the Iron Dome missile defense system.

9. Economic and Industrial Base: Israel's strong economy and industrial base provide resources for military development and procurement.

Despite NON-STATE ACTOR's [Hamas] military developments over the years, including rockets, tunnels, and drones, its capabilities remain limited when compared to Israel's advanced weaponry and technological edge. This asymmetry significantly diminishes the imminent threat posed by NON-STATE ACTOR, particularly regarding the potential harm to Israeli civilians.

Israel is widely recognized for having one of the most technologically advanced and well-equipped military forces globally. Its military capabilities encompass a robust intelligence apparatus, sophisticated weaponry, air superiority, and advanced defense systems. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) are known for their training and operational effectiveness, and their counter-terrorism units have a reputation for precision and quick responses.

The Iron Dome missile defense system, in particular, has been a critical component in intercepting and neutralizing threats posed by rockets launched from Hamas-controlled Gaza. The effectiveness of this system has saved numerous lives and reduced damage from rocket attacks.

Challenges in Countering the October 7th Attack:

The October 7th attack by Hamas, which resulted in a high death toll, posed unique challenges for Israel. It's essential to examine these challenges in-depth to understand the dynamics at play:

1. Tunnels and Hidden Infrastructure: Hamas is known to have a network of tunnels and underground infrastructure, which it uses for various purposes, including storing weapons, conducting ambushes, and evading Israeli surveillance. This subterranean warfare capability makes it difficult to detect and prevent attacks, especially when hostages are involved.

2. Civilian Shielding: Hamas often operates within densely populated civilian areas, using civilians as human shields. This tactic creates a moral and operational dilemma for Israel's military. Striking at Hamas targets in these areas risks civilian casualties, which can lead to international condemnation and damage Israel's reputation.

3. Surprise Element: The October 7th attack took advantage of the element of surprise. Israeli forces were caught off-guard, and the attackers exploited this vulnerability. The suddenness and scale of the attack put Israeli security forces in a challenging position.

4. Infiltration and Deception: Hamas militants reportedly crossed into Israeli territory, infiltrating from Gaza. Their ability to evade detection, likely aided by the network of tunnels, allowed them to move within Israeli territory before launching their assault. Their tactics included using civilian disguises.

Not a War of Equals

Israel is a regional military nuclear-armed superpower. Hamas is a non-state actor with limited capacity for producing small weapons; the Gaza Strip has virtually no industrial base. 

To use an analogy, Israel is like a Bradley Tank against a rock throwing child. There is no parity.

Response to the October 7th Attack:

Israel's military responded to the October 7th attack by launching a campaign aimed at countering Hamas and its threat. The Israeli response included airstrikes on known Hamas infrastructure, rocket launch sites, and efforts to target Hamas leadership. The objective was to disrupt Hamas's capacity to carry out such attacks and deter future acts of violence.

It's crucial to acknowledge that the aftermath of such an event is often fraught with complexities. The assessment of casualties is ongoing, and the exact number of individuals abducted into Gaza is not yet definitively known.

The Broader Implications:

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is marked by its deep-rooted historical, political, and social complexities. Israel's response to the October 7th attack must be understood in this broader context. The Israeli government has a duty to protect its citizens from acts of terrorism, and this includes preemptive actions aimed at countering potential threats.

However, military actions can have far-reaching consequences. International scrutiny, diplomatic relations, and public perception are impacted by the strategies and methods employed in responding to such attacks. Israel's response to Hamas's actions on October 7th has generated discussions on proportionality, the protection of civilians, and the need for conflict resolution.

Conclusion:

In assessing whether Israel's military capabilities were insufficient to thwart the October 7th attack, it's important to recognize that no military is impervious to surprise attacks and acts of "terrorism" or resistance, Israel's military, despite its advanced technology and capabilities, faces a unique set of challenges in its conflict with Hamas. The use of tunnels, civilian shielding, surprise attacks, and a complex geopolitical backdrop all play a role in shaping the outcomes of such incidents. To mitigate against risks, Israel has created ghettos and Bantustans as a means to imprison the Palestinian population while violating international law, confiscating land designated for a Palestinian state, and assuring Israelis that the Palestinian 'problem' is now contained.

Moreover, beyond military capabilities, addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict requires a multifaceted approach that includes diplomacy, negotiations, and efforts to address the underlying grievances of both sides. The tragic events of October 7th serve as a grim reminder of the need for a peaceful resolution to this protracted conflict, one that can help prevent future tragedies and loss of life.

Prepared by ChatGPT - Memo to the Prime Minister

Memorandum:

The Non-State Actor Attack on Israel from Gaza on October 7, 2023: Implications for Israel's Security

Introduction

The security landscape of Israel is marked by complex and multifaceted challenges, with the threat posed by non-state actors being a prominent and persistent concern. Non-state actors in the form of terrorist organizations and armed groups have, over the years, engaged in actions aimed at undermining Israel's security and stability. One of the most recent and distressing incidents was the attack on October 7, 2023, originating from the Gaza Strip, which resulted in severe consequences. This essay aims to provide a detailed analysis of the attack, Israel's response, and the implications for Israel's security in dealing with non-state actors. It is essential to recognize that the term "non-state actors" encompasses a wide range of groups, from militant organizations to insurgent factions, that operate independently of recognized state authorities. In the context of this essay, the primary focus will be on the attack by a non-state actor based in the Gaza Strip.

The October 7 Attack: Origins, Execution, and Impact

The attack on October 7, 2023, was a grave and shocking incident that posed a significant threat to Israel's security. Understanding the origins, execution, and impact of this attack is crucial in assessing the broader security implications.

Hamas committed WAR CRIMES by murdering and torturing civilians; taking hostages; and conducting raids on residential settlement areas where there were no military targets and where Hamas killed civilians in a heinous manner seemingly designed to provoke a maniacal response a government whose ministers are basically crooks, street thugs and Jewish supremacist terrorists, particularly Finance Minister Smotrich and Internal Security Minister Ben-Gvir. I

Thei Laws of Armed Combat proscribe intentional or negligent attacks on civilian no matter how egregious the perceived or real crimes committed by the other side. Any statement about war crimes committed by Hamas must condemn those crimes, just as any statement about the Siege on Gaza must condemn the unlawful crimes committed by the Israeli government against the civilians in Gaza.

In total, Israel reported 1,400 deaths (subsequently reduced to 1,100), of which there were 1100 civilians--both Israelis and foreign nationals--and 300 military personnel.

Origins of the Attack

The attack on October 7, 2023, was orchestrated by a non-state actor based in the Gaza Strip. This region has been a longstanding hotspot for tensions and conflicts between Israel and various Palestinian factions. The Gaza Strip is primarily governed by Hamas, a Palestinian organization that has been designated as a terrorist group by Israel, the United States, and the European Union. Hamas, in conjunction with other militant groups in the area, has consistently challenged Israel's security.

The specific origins of the attack can be traced back to a combination of factors, including territorial disputes, historical grievances, and ongoing political and religious tensions. It is essential to recognize that these factors have contributed to the overall context in which non-state actors in Gaza operate.

Execution of the Attack

The attack on October 7, 2023, unfolded in a shocking and aggressive manner. Hamas employed tactics employed in the past in an innovative operation designed to exploit vulnerabilities in Israeli defenses, which was clearly the result of a planned that had been carefully planned and prepared for while Israel seemingly down-graded readiness and surveillance to a degree that can only be described as negligent and and incompetent, and possibly stemming from an attitude of superiority, arrogance, complacency or some combination thereof.  

The success of the attack from a military standpoint hinged on a) the element of surprise; b) a new strategy that exploited vulnerabilities in Israeli defenses and knowledge of likely responses to Hamas actions; and a novel strategy using rockets as a decoy for paragliders and boats to enter Israel while other Hamas combatents broke the Israeli security fence  that whose remote monitors could no longer receive video and other data from the border due the knock out of mobile communications towers by Hamas's drones, which made possible tghe land-based invasion without any knowledgeo f the remoter operators. 

 The non-state actor Hamas  based in the Gaza Strip initiated this assault with a high level of coordination and aggression. The attack involved a multifaceted approach, including the firing of rockets and mortar shells into southern Israel, infiltration attempts by armed fighters, and hostage-taking.

One of the most distressing aspects of this attack was the use of a wide range of weaponry and tactics. The non-state actor utilized rocket attacks to target civilian populations, causing panic and destruction. Simultaneously, there were attempts to infiltrate Israeli territory, posing a direct threat to civilians and military personnel. Hostage-taking was another horrifying dimension, where innocent civilians were held captive, creating a complex humanitarian crisis.

Impact of the Attack

The attack on October 7, 2023, had devastating consequences for Israel. It resulted in significant casualties, including both military personnel and civilians. Moreover, infrastructure in southern Israel was damaged, causing economic losses and disruptions. The impact extended beyond physical damage and included severe psychological trauma experienced by those affected.

The attack also prompted an urgent and forceful response from the Israeli government. In the aftermath, Israeli officials reported the killing or remains of 138 individuals, including more than 300 Israeli soldiers and 1,100 civilians. The death toll, like the number of hostages abducted into Gaza, remained in flux as Israel strived to determine the fate of its missing citizens. These figures serve as a somber reminder of the gravity of the situation.

Israeli Response to the October 7 Attack

In the aftermath of the October 7 attack, Israel mounted a significant counteroffensive against the non-state actor based in the Gaza Strip. This response demonstrated that while surprised, Israel's military capabilities could be swiftly activated to confront the threat. The Israeli government employed a range of strategies in its response to the attack:

• Aerial and Artillery Strikes: Israel conducted extensive aerial and artillery strikes on targets in the Gaza Strip controlled by the non-state actor. These strikes aimed to degrade the military infrastructure and capabilities of the group responsible for the attack.

• Ground Operations: The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) launched ground operations to detect and neutralize the tunnels used by the non-state actor. This ground offensive served as a testament to Israel's willingness to commit ground forces in the face of a serious threat.

• Brokering Negotiations: In addition to military operations, Israel engaged in negotiations through various intermediaries to secure the release of hostages and potentially reach a ceasefire agreement. This diplomatic effort ran parallel to the military response.

• Assessment of Israel's Military Capabilities

• The attack on October 7, 2023, revealed both the strengths and vulnerabilities of Israel's military capabilities. While Israel's military possesses advanced technology, well-trained personnel, and strategic alliances, it faces unique challenges in asymmetric warfare scenarios, particularly when confronting non-state actors like the one based in the Gaza Strip.

• Importance of Adaptation: The attack emphasized the importance of the IDF's capacity to adapt quickly to emerging threats and to develop counterstrategies for unconventional warfare scenarios.

• Civilian Protection: The incident highlighted the need for Israel to enhance its capabilities for minimizing civilian casualties in densely populated areas.

Implications for Future Strategy

The October 7 attack underscores the importance of reevaluating strategies for dealing with non-state actors in urban environments.

Technology and Intelligence: Israel must continue to invest in technology and intelligence to improve its ability to detect tunnels, monitor activities within densely populated areas, and engage in precise strikes that minimize collateral damage.

International Relations: The incident demonstrates the need for Israel to navigate international relations skillfully, addressing the concerns of the global community while protecting its national security interests.

Political Solutions: While military capabilities are crucial, long-term stability requires political solutions. The attack highlights the importance of seeking comprehensive peace agreements to address the root causes of the conflict.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the attack on October 7, 2023, originating from a non-state actor in the Gaza Strip, exposed the significant security challenges that Israel faces. The attack was a stark reminder of the complexities inherent in dealing with non-state actors operating in urban environments. Israel's response demonstrated its capacity to adapt and defend its citizens. However, the incident serves as a sobering reminder of the ongoing complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Moving forward, Israel must continue to innovate and adapt to effectively address the evolving threats posed by non-state actors while 

ChatGPT Memo. The Challenge of Non-State Actors: A Comprehensive Analysis of Israel's Security Dilemma

Introduction

The Israeli state has been in a constant struggle for survival since its inception in 1948. As a nation born out of conflict and geopolitical complexities, Israel has faced a wide array of security challenges over the years. One of the most prominent among these challenges is the threat posed by non-state actors. These non-state actors, often backed by regional or international powers, have played a significant role in shaping the security landscape of Israel. This essay aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of Israel's security dilemma concerning non-state actors, including their origins, motivations, and the strategies employed by Israel to counteract these threats. It is important to understand that the term "non-state actors" encompasses a wide range of groups, such as terrorist organizations, militias, and insurgent groups, that operate independently of recognized state authorities. In the context of Israel, one of the most notable non-state actors has been Hezbollah, a Shiite militant organization based in Lebanon.

Origins of Non-State Actors in Israel's Security Landscape

Non-state actors have been a consistent feature of Israel's security landscape for decades. These groups have their origins in various historical, political, and socio-cultural factors. To comprehend the dynamics, it is essential to explore the historical roots of non-state actors in the region.

The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), founded in 1964, was one of the earliest non-state actors involved in the Israeli-Arab conflict. The PLO aimed to establish an independent Palestinian state and used a variety of tactics, including armed struggle, to achieve its objectives. While the PLO eventually evolved into a quasi-state entity with the Oslo Accords in the 1990s, it laid the groundwork for other non-state actors to emerge.

One of the most significant non-state actors in Israel's contemporary security landscape is Hezbollah. Founded in the early 1980s during the Lebanese Civil War, Hezbollah is a Shiite militant organization backed by Iran. It emerged in response to Israel's occupation of southern Lebanon and aimed to resist Israeli forces. Over the years, Hezbollah has evolved into a formidable paramilitary and political force in Lebanon, with strong anti-Israeli sentiments.

The motivations driving these non-state actors vary, but several common themes underpin their actions:

1. Nationalism and self-determination: The desire for self-determination and the establishment of a Palestinian state or the liberation of Lebanese territories are powerful motivating factors.

2. Resistance to perceived occupation: Many non-state actors perceive Israeli policies as occupation and seek to resist or challenge these policies through armed struggle.

3. Religious and ideological factors: Groups like Hezbollah are driven by Shiite Islamist ideology and their commitment to the "Axis of Resistance," aligning themselves with Iran's revolutionary ideals.

Strategies Employed by Israel to Counter Non-State Actors

Israel has devised multifaceted strategies to counter the threat posed by non-state actors. 

These strategies have evolved over time and continue to adapt to the changing security environment. Key aspects of Israel's approach include:

1. Military Operations:

   • Israel has employed military force against non-state actors, particularly in response to attacks or threats. Operations such as "Operation Peace for Galilee" in 1982 aimed to curb the influence of the PLO in Lebanon, while Israel's multiple conflicts with Hezbollah involved a combination of air and ground operations.

2. Intelligence and Surveillance:

   • Israel places a strong emphasis on intelligence gathering and surveillance to preempt potential threats. The country's intelligence agencies, such as Mossad and Shin Bet, have played a crucial role in monitoring non-state actors' activities.

3. Border Security:

   • Israel has invested in border security infrastructure to prevent infiltrations and attacks. The construction of physical barriers, like the West Bank barrier, is a prominent example.

4. Cyber Warfare:

   • Recognizing the evolving nature of warfare, Israel has also engaged in cyber warfare to disrupt non-state actors' activities and communications.

5. Deterrence:

   • Israel seeks to deter non-state actors by ensuring a credible response to any provocation. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) maintain a robust military posture to discourage potential adversaries.

6. International Diplomacy:

   • Israel engages in international diplomacy to garner support against non-state actors, particularly when these groups have international backers. It seeks to portray its actions as self-defense and garner diplomatic pressure on the adversaries.

7. Targeted Operations:

   • Israel has conducted targeted operations to eliminate key figures within non-state actor organizations. These operations aim to disrupt the command structure and reduce the group's effectiveness.

Impact of Non-State Actors on Israel's Security

The presence of non-state actors significantly influences Israel's security and foreign policy. Their actions have far-reaching consequences, affecting multiple aspects of Israeli society and governance:

1. Security Concerns:

   • Non-state actors pose a direct security threat to Israel. Their attacks can result in casualties, infrastructure damage, and economic losses. Israel must allocate substantial resources to maintain readiness against these threats.

2. Socio-Political Impact:

   • Security concerns influence public sentiment and political discourse in Israel. The government's ability to address security challenges is a crucial factor in electoral politics.

3. Regional Geopolitics:

   • The activities of non-state actors are often intertwined with regional geopolitics. For example, Hezbollah's influence in Lebanon has a direct impact on Lebanon's relations with Israel and the broader Middle East.

4. Conflict Dynamics:

   • Non-state actors can escalate conflict dynamics. Hezbollah's involvement in the Syrian Civil War and its alliance with Iran has introduced additional complexities to Israel's regional relationships.

5. Diplomatic Efforts:

   • Israel's diplomatic efforts are shaped by the presence of non-state actors. It seeks international support to counteract these groups and employs diplomacy to manage conflict escalation.

6. Humanitarian Concerns:

   • Conflict with non-state actors often results in humanitarian crises, especially when clashes occur in densely populated areas. Israel's actions are scrutinized in terms of adherence to international humanitarian law.

The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and Non-State Actors

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a primary theater for the activities of non-state actors. The historical backdrop of the conflict, coupled with the persistence of disputes, has created fertile ground for these groups to thrive. Here, we discuss the role of non-state actors in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

1. Palestinian Non-State Actors:

   • Palestinian non-state actors, including various factions within Hamas and Islamic Jihad, have engaged in armed resistance against Israel. Their motivations often revolve around national self-determination and the liberation of Palestinian territories.

2. Impact on Peace Efforts:

   • Non-state actors have at times disrupted peace efforts and reconciliation attempts between Israelis and Palestinians. Their actions can undermine the authority of recognized Palestinian leadership.

3. Gaza Strip:

   • Hamas, a significant non-state actor in the Gaza Strip, controls the territory and its governance. This poses unique challenges for Israel, as it must address security concerns while mitigating humanitarian crises in the densely populated enclave.

4. Humanitarian Consequences:

   • The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, compounded by the actions of non-state actors, has resulted in humanitarian consequences. Civilians, especially in the Gaza Strip, bear the brunt of these consequences.

Non-State Actors in Lebanon: The Hezbollah Conundrum

Hezbollah, based in Lebanon, represents one of the most formidable non-state actors that Israel has had to contend with. Hezbollah's emergence and evolution have had a profound impact on the security dynamics of the region.

1: Introduction and Discrimination Israeli citizenship laws create a two-tier system, favoring Jewish citizens over non-Jewish citizens and residents of the occupied territories. The discussion points out that this discrimination is a part of a broader system that aims to control and dominate Palestinians in the occupied territories. Unlike South Africa's openly racist laws during apartheid, Israel's system employs obscure military orders and regulations, making systemic discrimination less immediately apparent.

2: 'Road Apartheid' and Goldstone Report The concept of 'road apartheid' is a literal fact and a metaphor for systemic institutional racism in the West Bank, highlighting separate and unequal road networks for Jewish settlers and Palestinians. The 2009 UN Fact Finding Mission (Goldstone Report) suggests systematic discrimination against Palestinians, potentially amounting to the crime against humanity of persecution. The discriminatory treatment is noted in various areas such as legal, housing, access to resources, citizenship, and more.

3: Division of the Occupied Territory Policies implemented by Israeli governments have divided the occupied territories into non-contiguous enclaves, restricting Palestinian movement and access. The Gaza Strip has been particularly affected, effectively becoming a besieged Palestinian area. East Jerusalem, a vital economic and cultural hub, has also been isolated, with Palestinian residents excluded from many citizenship entitlements.

4: Territorial Fragmentation and Annexation Israel exercises extensive control over the Jordan Valley, a significant portion of the West Bank. This control includes land confiscation, settlement expansion, home demolitions, and restrictions on Palestinian access. These practices align with the 'Allon Plan' and aim to annex the Jordan Valley. The construction of the separation wall in the West Bank, declared illegal by the International Court of Justice, serves the primary purpose of annexing land accommodating Jewish settlements. It creates a system of enclaves where residence and passage are determined by racial identity, furthering Israel's territorial ambitions.

5: Discrimination Through Land Laws Israeli land laws create racial discrimination, with the Israeli legal system distinguishing between nationality and citizenship. The law codifies Israel as the state of the Jewish nation, and no 'Israeli nation' exists. Jewish nationals are privileged over non-Jewish citizens and face discrimination in various areas, including land use, natural resources, and services. This two-tiered system is also extended to the occupied territories, where Jewish settlers enjoy privileges over Palestinian residents.

6: Dual Legal Systems and Segregation There are dual legal systems in place in the West Bank, where Jewish settlers and Palestinian residents are subject to separate bodies of law and courts. Jewish settlers benefit from the application of Israeli civil law and constitutional rights, leading to institutional segregation. This institutionalized discrimination is systemic, creating separate but unequal legal regimes based on racial identity.

7: Systemic Discrimination and Domination There is systemic discrimination and domination exercised of Palestinians by Israel both in Israel and the occupied territories. Discriminatory policies are deeply rooted in Israel's legal system, promoting Jewish nationality over other groups. This extends to Israel's administration of the occupied territories, creating a situation where the fundamental rights and freedoms of Palestinians are severely compromised. Notably, Jewish nationals are granted privileges, and this institutionalized discrimination is an essential element in maintaining dominance.

8: Jewish Nationality and the Law of Return The concept of "Jewish nationality" and the Law of Return play pivotal roles in Israel's legal system. The Law of Return grants every Jew the right to immigrate to Israel, which extends to the occupied Palestinian territory. While Jewish immigrants are entitled to citizenship, this law explicitly excludes Palestinian refugees who were displaced during the 1948 war from returning to their homes. This disparity in treatment underscores the discriminatory nature of Israel's laws and its intention to privilege Jewish nationals.

9: Legal Framework in the Occupied Territories In the occupied territories, Israel maintains a dual legal system. Jewish settlers are subject to Israeli civil law, while Palestinians are subject to military administration. This creates a glaring discrepancy where two separate sets of laws apply to different groups living in the same territory, reinforcing an apartheid-like structure.

10: Implications of Dual Legal Systems The application of Israeli civil laws in the West Bank settlements results in territorial fragmentation and effectively integrates these settlements into Israel, making it difficult to distinguish them from Israeli territory. This legal framework operates in a way that enforces separation between Israeli citizens and Palestinian residents. The text argues that this has led to a pattern of discrimination, with Jewish settlers benefiting at the expense of the Palestinian population.

Summary Part 11: Institutionalized Discrimination Israel's discriminatory practices are not isolated incidents but are part of an institutionalized system. Discrimination is embedded in Israeli laws, affecting various aspects of life for Palestinians in Israel and the occupied territories. This systemic discrimination, in the text's view, amounts to a form of apartheid.

Israel operates a criminal Apartheid occupation of the fragmented remainder of the land designated for a Palestinian state. Rather than a state, Israel prefers Apartheid. Israel's policies are tantamount to a systematic crime against humanity.Israel's legal framework and practices create a two-tier system that privileges Jewish nationals and settlers while systematically oppressing Palestinians. This institutionalized discrimination can be viewed as a form of apartheid, which calls for a thorough and systematic analysis.