Gaza-area Israeli Farmers Sue Hamas in International Court

Jewish farmers fly to The Hague to sue Hamas for

harming civilians and civilian agriculture

Arutz Sheva Staff

A scorched field near the Israel-Gaza borderYonatan Sindel, Flash 90

After many months of incendiary kites and mortar fire, farmers from the Gaza vicinity flew on Monday night to The Hague to file a lawsuit against Hamas with the International Criminal Court.

The lawsuit, which will be submitted through the "Shurat Hadin" organization, will be on behalf of the farmers and another 50,000 people from Israel and around the world who joined the lawsuit against senior Hamas figures.

The suit will focus on Hamas violations of the Rome Statute, including the use of children in warfare, use of a civilian population as human shields, attacking Israel's borders, and the burning of civilians' agricultural fields via incendiary balloons.

At the same time, a special exhibition will be displayed opposite the International Court Building, documenting the damage caused by the incendiary kites and mortar attacks in the Gaza vicinity.

Since March 2018, terrorists from Gaza have traumatized the people living in neighboring communities along the Gaza border, sending incendiary balloons, bullets, and rockets into Israeli territory. These four months have threatened both the Israelis' mental well-being and their livelihood.

Nearly 10,000 acres of farmland have been scorched, decimating the region’s agricultural economy, and there has been a massive increase in the number of individuals experiencing and being treated for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

I think this is a great idea, but I also think that Israel should use drones to capture the kites and return them to Gaza.

Dutch Official Reportedly Commits Suicide After Posting Video Claiming Muslim Gang-Rape

Islamization - Gang-Rape and Suicide in the Netherlands

By Greg Norman | Fox News

Willie Dille, a city councilor at The Hague, reportedly committed suicide this week.  (Dutch Parliament)

A Dutch city council member reportedly committed suicide just hours after posting a video online in which she claimed to have been gang-raped by a group of Muslims who were following the orders of a former fellow member of her anti-immigration PVV party.

Willie Dille, a 53-year-old who represented the PVV in parliament from 2010 to 2012 and later became a city councilor at The Hague, killed herself Wednesday after she “could no longer bear what had happened to her and the reactions she had had,” local PVV leader Karen Gerbrands told Dutch News.

In a video Dille reportedly posted online earlier in the day, she claimed former PVV parliament member Arnoud van Doorn – who apparently disliked her -- ordered the attack, which allegedly happened in early 2017.

Obviously something very traumatic happened to her

The video reportedly showed Dille pale and thin-looking. She claimed she was told by the attackers to keep quiet in the council debating chamber, amongst other threats she said to have received. The footage ended with her saying she was resigning her council seat, Dutch News reported.

The mayor of The Hague, Pauline Krikke, described Dille in a statement as someone who was “involved and passionate” with politics, the website added.

Van Doorn, however, denies the alleged attack and says he is weighing his legal options after his name surfaced.

Police also told the AD newspaper that Dille never made a formal complaint to them about the alleged attack.

“We offered her help and said we need a formal complaint and concrete evidence to start an investigation. But she did not make a formal complaint and we did not get any concrete information to enable us to launch an inquiry,” spokesperson Hilde Vijverberg said, according to Dutch News.

You need concrete evidence to start an investigation? Isn't that what an investigation is for?

Do you not know that victims of gang-rape are severely messed up psychologically? Her suicide should make that obvious, or do you need concrete proof? Gang-rape victims need every bit of help they can possibly get, and it appears she got none from you. Will you now investigate her claims, or does she have to come back from the dead and file a formal complaint?

As the Muslim population in the Netherlands grows, they become more and more powerful and less and less tolerant of criticism. You are committing cultural suicide; Willie's death should bring that message home.

Ukraine-Russia Conflict Comes Before International Court of Justice

Wouldn't it be astonishing if they actually managed to settle their disputes in court? That likelihood is probably a small fraction of 1 in a thousand, but just think how interesting it would be? What would NATO do? 

By Ed Adamczyk

Olena Zerkal, a representative of Ukraine, awaits the start of Ukraine's lawsuit against Russia on Monday in the international Court of Justice in The Hague, Netherlands. Ukraine contends Russia's support of anti-government forces in Ukraine and Russian annexation of Crimea are violations of United Nations treaties. Photo by Bas Czerwinski, EPA

(UPI) -- Ukraine began its case against Russia on Monday in the International Court of Justice in The Hague.

The four-day hearing is the start of a lawsuit in which Ukraine accuses Russia of illegally annexing Crimea and funding separatist rebels within Ukraine. It also includes the alleged Russian downing of a Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 in 2014, an incident in which all 298 people aboard the plane died.

A 45-page complaint details alleged violations under two U.N. conventions. It accuses Russia of violating the Terror Financing Treaty through its ongoing support of "illegally armed groups" in eastern Ukraine, and of alleged mistreatment of ethnic Tartar and Ukrainian populations, a violation of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination during the 2014 annexation of Crimea.

"Ukraine initiates the legal fight, the international opposition to Russian aggression in the legal field, the opposition to the occupation of Crimea and Donbas, and massive violation of human rights," said Iryna Herashchenko, Ukrainian parliament member and envoy to the legal proceedings, in a statement.

Russia has repeatedly denied the allegations and will be able to respond during the initial hearing. Ukrainian lawyers accused Russia of making it "impossible for Ukrainian citizens to feel safe anywhere in their country" in opening remarks Monday.

Court proceedings could take up to three years, former ICJ judge Bruno Simma told the German newspaper Deutsche Welle, noting that "It's a complicated situation."

Unlike the International Criminal Court, also headquartered in The Hague, Russia recognizes ICJ authority and as a U.N. security council permanent member can ask for a Russian citizen to be appointed to the ICJ's 15-member board of judges.

Nearly 10,000 people have died in the three-year conflict in Ukraine.

The U.S. has been Accused of War Crimes, so Here's What will Happen — Nothing: Neil Macdonald

It's a fantasy to think American officials would ever find themselves at the ICC dock

By Neil Macdonald, CBC News 

    ICC Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda said there is a reasonable case that the U.S. committed
    war crimes in Afghanistan. (Peter Dejong/Reuters)

Shockingly, the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Fatou Bensouda, announced this week there is a reasonable case that U.S. agents committed war crimes in Afghanistan.

Specifically, Bensouda cited "torture, cruel treatment, outrages upon personal dignity and rape."

It's fantasy, of course. Not the torture and rape and cruelty (and probably a lot more), but the very notion that American officials who committed or ordered such things might ever find themselves at the ICC dock, answering for their actions.

The U.S., which has enthusiastically supported war crimes prosecutions of foreign leaders it disapproves of, would simply never allow it.

In fact, the American Service-Members' Protection Act of 2002 empowers the president to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court."

It doesn't take much imagination to figure out what that means. The law has been nicknamed the "Hague Invasion Act."

'Inappropriate' findings

The State Department immediately swatted away Bensouda's finding as "inappropriate." The ICC has no business examining the actions of American officials, said spokeswoman Elizabeth Trudeau.

The U.S. voted against setting up the ICC, which has 124 member nations, so it doesn't think the court has any jurisdiction.

Further, said Trudeau, the U.S. has its own highly effective system for prosecuting violations of the laws of war, although she refused to name any recent examples.

But the U.S. is hardly the only nation to regard any ICC examination of its actions as inappropriate.

Let's be real here: the five veto-holding permanent members of the United Nations Security Council are the ones that control any military enforcement of a UN resolution, or any reference of a war crime to the ICC.

Does anyone really think any of them would ever allow prosecutors in The Hague to proceed against their own officials?

As Prof. Aurel Braun, an expert in international law at the University of Toronto puts it: "If you have a legal system where five players effectively have immunity, you don't have much of a legal system."

Anyway, the ICC prosecutor's declaration about American atrocities in Afghanistan was posturing designed to convince African countries they aren't the ICC's only targets.

It's hard to conclude otherwise, though.

The ICC has so far convicted just four people of crimes against humanity and other atrocities.

Their names are: Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Germain Katanga (nom du guerre Simba), Thomas Lubanga Dyilo and Ahmad al-Faqi al-Mahdi. Guess which continent they all operated on?

    Dominic Ongwen, a former senior rebel commander of the Lord's Resistance Army, sits in the
    courtroom of the International Criminal Court during the confirmation of charges in The Hague
    on Jan. 21, 2016. (Michael Kooren/Reuters)

The ICC also has several other prosecutions underway. The involve the following nations: Uganda, Democratic Republic of Congo, Central African Republic, Sudan, Kenya, Libya, the Ivory Coast and Mali.

Oh, and also Georgia. So, there's that.

University of Ottawa Prof. Errol Mendes, another expert on such matters, points out that some of the African cases were undertaken at the request of African leaders, who are now hypocritically howling discrimination. (Three African nations just pulled out of the ICC in protest).

But, of course, the Africans are also easy fall guys. Major powers, or even minor powers, are something else completely.

"In war, horrible things are done," says Prof. Braun.

"Shooting prisoners, attacks on civilians, use of torture. The sad thing is that most countries employ all those tactics."

Just talk

Which brings us to the very notion of a war crime, or, indeed, "international law."

An Israeli military expert once chided me for using such terms seriously.

The only real law, he said, is enforceable law. Everything else is just talk. Countries ultimately do what is in their self-interest, and the UN is of little concern.

As Joseph Stalin once said, how many divisions does the Pope have at his disposal?

The Nuremburg trials are often held up as the model of international justice, but even they were utterly one-sided.

Plenty of Nazis were hanged, but Western officials who deliberately bombed civilian populations in Germany were decorated. And what was the deliberate obliteration of nearly every civilian in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, if not a war crime?

Which, apparently, was what was necessary to end the war. One could argue that it ultimately saved lives by ending the war although I'm not sure why it was necessary to target a civilian population except that they probably couldn't deliver an atomic bomb close enough to a military target.

'There are only war criminals on the losing side.'

- Wilhelm Mohnke

I actually once tracked down a former Nazi general, Wilhelm Mohnke, who in 1985 was still officially accused of having gunned down Canadian prisoners of war.

"There are only war criminals on the losing side," he said, advising me to ask my father, who fought in Europe, what Canadians did with their prisoners.

I did. The answer was they were shot, more often than not. There wasn't time for niceties.

But probably the greatest modern self-mockery of international law is the UN's hapless effort to prosecute the murderers of Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri.

There's no reasonable doubt that Hezbollah, the fundamentalist Shia party that runs Lebanon, detonated the blast that killed Hariri and dozens of others 11 years ago in downtown Beirut.

The Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL), headquartered in the Hague, has detention facilities, guards, investigators, researchers, prosecutors, judges, defence lawyers and administrators. It constantly sends out communiqués on its progress.

It just doesn't have any defendants. Hezbollah has laughed at its efforts, and almost certainly penetrated its investigation early on.

So the STL is carrying out four trials in absentia.

Burning through millions

The tribunal has also cited a Lebanese newspaper in contempt and fined it thousands of Euros for publishing information about witnesses. The paper ignored the fine.

But what the STL has managed to do is burn through well over $600 million so far, and that doesn't count the millions spent by the UN's clumsy four-year investigation.

Canada has contributed about $6.5 million. The United States a great deal more.

Why? Well, because Hezbollah are war criminals. And international law demands that the perpetrators of war crimes be held accountable before the world.

Or not, of course.

How utterly insane!

Palestinian Propaganda Machine Turning the Dutch Antisemitic

Dutch ex-PM calls visiting Netanyahu ‘war criminal’ amid anti-Israeli protests in The Hague

People demonstrate against the visit of Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in The Hague, on September 6, 2016. © Bart Maat / AFP

Instead of rolling out a welcome mat for Israel’s PM Benjamin Netanyahu, who kickstarted his visit to the Netherlands on Tuesday amid huge pro-Palestine protests, the Dutch should “send him right away to the International Criminal Court,” Dries Van Agt said.

Is this picture an example of the 'huge' protests? I count 8 bodies.

Ahead of Netanyahu’s two-day visit to the country, Van Agt, who served as Dutch PM from 1977 to 1982, labelled the Israeli leader a “war criminal” in an televised interview with the NPO1 national TV channel on Monday.

The 85-year old politician and activist, known for his vocal support of the Palestinian cause, defended his controversial remark by saying that Israel has been committing a crime under the Rome Statute, one of the foundations of the International Criminal Court.

“The occupation and expansion… building of settlements, of occupied territory, this is according to the Rome Statute, which is… the setup… the statute on which the international criminal court is based, in so many words, a war crime,” Agt noted in an interview, as cited by the Times of Israel.

The Rome Statute, which has been effective since July 2002, outlines four key international crimes, including crimes of aggression, war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. Military occupation falls under crimes of aggression category.

Israel signed the treaty in December 2000, but did not ratify it. In 2002, Israel along with the US “unsigned” the document blaming the court of misinterpreting the law and “inventing new crimes.” One of the primary concerns was the clause allowing Israel to be prosecuted for war crimes for “transfer of parts of the civilian population of an occupying power into occupied territory.” 

That's just absurd and shows how the UN is controlled by antisemitism. It was obviously written specifically to prosecute Israel. 

Netanyahu, who met with Dutch PM Mark Rutte and King Willem Alexander during the first day of his visit on Tuesday, should not be treated like a much-anticipated guest by the authorities, but quite on the contrary, Agt argues.

“So why should we receive someone who continues with such things, we could have sent him right away to the International Criminal Court, that would have been better.”

Van Agt has courted controversy with his bold statements in the past. In 2008, the former PM, who stood on pro-Israel positions during his time in office, confessed that he was “ashamed” of siding with Israel during his tenure. As an eye-opener for him served a ‘horrendous” story of a Palestinian student humiliated by the IDF soldiers he heard on a visit to Bethlehem in 1999. 

And he actually believed it? You can't believe anything that comes out of Palestine. They will say anything to turn the world against Israel and, unfortunately, there is no shortage of fools to believe them.

Palestinians teach kindergarten age children to hate and aspire to kill Jews. That's not a problem for you Van Agt? How many UN resolutions were issued about this extreme child abuse? Any?

It's hardly believable, a student gets humiliated while suicide bombers are blowing up Jews in restaurants, and all he can think of is the student. You need a serious 'reset' Van Agt!

"I began studying, figuring out what's going on there. I found one story after the other. Then I started thinking about the 39 United Nations resolutions begging, demanding and imploring Israel to vacate the Occupied Territories,” he said in an interview to Haaretz, adding that his sudden political U-turn made his critics think that he is not “fully in my right mind anymore”.

I have to agree with his critics. You don't think 39 resolutions against Israel is absurdly excessive? How many dozens of resolutions did the UN issue against Russia for invading Chechnya? That was an extremely violent act of aggression, it surely deserved many more UN resolutions than Israel building homes in the West Bank. So far, I've found one!

The issue here is that Israel does not consider the West Bank and Golan Heights to be occupied territory, but disputed territory captured in a war that Israel did not start or want. The West Bank was under Jordanian control, the Golan Heights under Syrian control. Both of those countries attacked Israel. Why on earth should they ever give it back to them? So they can have another go at destroying Israel?

While politicians of his own Christian-Democratic Appeal party prefer to distance themselves from Van Agt’s rhetoric, thousands of activists gathered in front of the Dutch Parliament on Tuesday to protest the arrival of the Israeli leader and show solidarity to Palestine. The protesters were waving Palestinian banners and placards reading, “Netanyahu Not Welcome.” 

‘Surgical Strikes Hitting Surgical Wards’: UN Passes Resolution to Protect War Zone Hospitals

But will it actually make a difference?

Syrian army soldiers gather in front of the al-Dabit maternity clinic after it was hit by rockets fired by insurgents in government-held parts of Aleppo city, Syria, in this handout picture provided by SANA on May 3, 2016. © SANA 

The United Nations Security Council unanimously voted for a resolution condemning attacks on medical facilities in conflict zones, following a spate of deadly hospital bombings in Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan in recent months.

"Such attacks must end," UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said prior to the vote. "When so-called surgical strikes end up hitting surgical wards, something is deeply wrong."

The pledge, which has no clearly-defined legal power, but can serve as a recommendation, was co-authored by New Zealand, Spain, Egypt, Japan and Uruguay, the non-permanent members of the UN’s executive body, and upheld by the permanent members, China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

The 14-point resolution, not only demanded a stop to attacks on hospitals, but also said all warring must provide immunity and safe passage to medical personnel in the conflict zone. UN bodies will now compile reports on violations in individual countries, while peacekeepers have been given a mandate to help keep medical areas secure.

The resolution was passed following an impassioned speech from Medicins Sans Frontiers (MSF) President Dr. Joanne Liu, who said that in Syria alone its affiliated hospitals had been attacked 94 times since the breakout of the conflict in 2011, as part of a deliberate strategy “where healthcare is systematically targeted, and besieged areas are cynically denied medical care.”

“Four of the five permanent members of this council have, to varying degrees, been associated with coalitions responsible for attacks on health structures over the last year,” Liu chided the Council. “These include the NATO-led coalition in Afghanistan, the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen, the Russia-backed Syrian-led coalition.”

The resolution was being discussed just as news came out of Aleppo that three people had been killed and at least 15 injured by an Islamist rebel attack in the city of Aleppo, the sixth such incident since fighting intensified around what was once Syria’s biggest city two weeks ago.


Burnt vehicles are pictured in front of the damaged the Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF)-backed al-Quds hospital after it was hit by airstrikes in Aleppo, Syria April 28, 2016. © Abdalrhman Ismail / Reuters

The most deadly of these attacks came last week, when what rebels said was a government strike, killed 55 people in an MSF facility. Damascus has denied responsibility.

Other notable attacks included one on a hospital in the Afghan city of Kunduz last October, which was ostensibly targeted at Taliban fighters hiding in the facility, but resulted in the deaths of more than 40 people.

MSF has called the incident a “war crime,” and said that there had been no armed combatants at the facility.

These are, indeed, war crimes, and should not be tolerated whatsoever. A condemnation with no teeth is not going to change anything. They need to state quite emphatically that hits on hospitals or clinics will be treated as war crimes and those responsible as criminals to be prosecuted in the Hague.


The damaged hospital in which the Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) medical charity operated is seen on October 13, 2015 following an air strike in the northern city of Kunduz. © AFP

The NGO says that Saudi Arabia has destroyed three of its hospitals in Yemen over a period of several months, starting from last October, and that similar tactics were being applied in Sudan, the Central African Republic, and eastern Ukraine.


Resident Coordinator of the United Nations in Yemen, Jamie McGoldrick (C), inspects damage at a hospital in Yemen's southwestern city of Taiz January 21, 2016. © Anees Mahyoub / Reuters

France and the UK welcomed the resolution, while admitting that it did not propose anything that wasn’t already covered by other existing international legislation.

Russia also supported its text, but insisted that all reports of hospital strikes “must be verifiable” and cautioned against alleged hospital attacks being used for “media smear campaigns, for the purpose exerting political pressure in the interests of involved parties.”

Monsanto to Face ‘Tribunal’ in The Hague for ‘Damage to Human Health and Environment’

It will be interesting to see how much Monsanto pays attention to this, and how much the American media will pay attention to it. My guess it, 'not much' on both counts.

© Mal Langsdon / Reuters

A global group of professionals, scientists and environmentalists – the Monsanto Tribunal – are preparing a trial for the GMO seed giant in The Hague. They say the crowdfunded action, determined to charge Monsanto with “ecocide,” is more than a symbolic move.

The Monsanto Tribunal’s goal is to research and evaluate all of the allegations made against Monsanto in connection to all the damages its products have caused to human health and the environment. It is scheduled to be held at The Hague from October 12 to 16 in 2016. The trial will wrap up on next year’s World Food Day.

One of the main goals the broad group of signees [ABOUT US] wants the tribunal to achieve is establishing “ecocide” as a crime. “Recognizing ecocide as a crime is the only way to guarantee the right of humans to a healthy environment and the right of nature to be protected,” The International Monsanto Tribunal says on its website.

The Tribunal will look into a range of charges, including what it says are Monsanto’s crimes against nature and humanity.

“The Tribunal will rely on the ‘Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights’ adopted at the UN in 2011. It will also assess potential criminal liability on the basis of the Rome Statue (Statute) that created the International Criminal Court in The Hague in 2002, and it will consider whether a reform of international criminal law is warranted to include crimes against the environment, or ecocide, as a prosecutable criminal offense, so that natural persons could incur criminal liability.”

Several bodies and groups are supporting the initiative, including the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), IFOAM International Organics, Navdanya, Regeneration International (RI), and Millions Against Monsanto, as well as dozens more farming and environmental groups.

The decision to proceed with the tribunal was announced by the groups shortly before the Sustainable Pulse report was published, which was part of the COP21 UN Conference on Climate Change that runs until December 11 in Paris.

“The time is long overdue for a global citizens’ tribunal to put Monsanto on trial for crimes against humanity and the environment. We are in Paris this month to address the most serious threat that humans have ever faced in our 100-200,000 year evolution—global warming and climate disruption,” the president of the Organic Consumers Association, Ronnie Cummins, said at the press conference.

Meanwhile, president of IFOAM and member of the RI Steering Committee Andre Leu accused Monsanto of ignoring the human and environmental damage created by its products. Leu added that the transnational is able to maintain its devastating practices “by lobbying regulatory agencies and governments, by resorting to lying and corruption, by financing fraudulent scientific studies, by pressuring independent scientists, and by manipulating the press and media.”

“Monsanto’s history reads like a text-book case of impunity, benefiting transnational corporations and their executives, whose activities contribute to climate and biosphere crises and threaten the safety of the planet,” Leu stressed.

The American-based company has enjoyed a good reputation in the US media and is known for its strong ties on Capitol Hill.

The Monsanto Tribunal argues that the company is responsible for the depletion of soil and water resources, species extinction, and declining biodiversity, as well as the displacement of millions of small farmers worldwide.

Farmers in certain countries have been taking these developments very hard. In India, an alarming wave of suicides tied to Monsanto’s practices has been registered among farmers.

Instead of traditional crops, farmers have been forced to grow GM cotton, which is more expensive and requires additional maintenance. In the last 20 years, this trend has driven some 290,000 farmers to commit suicide due to bankruptcy, according to India’s national crimes bureau records.

Subjecting Monsanto to real legal consequences will be a challenge, though, as the corporation has never lost a case.

The company is notorious for routinely suing farmers, which has earned it the reputation of a legal bully in the eyes of critics. According to Food Democracy Now, the GMO corporation has filed 145 lawsuits since 1997, because farmers had reused their seeds in a manner inconsistent with Monsanto policies. This even includes cases where the farmers themselves had sued Monsanto for the inadvertent cross-pollination of their organic crops with GMO seeds.

One lawsuit representing 300,000 farmers was thrown out of court – for the mere reason that the farmers had already been sued by Monsanto. According to Food Democracy Now, the judge called the farmers’ case “unsubstantiated.”

Untold damage has also been caused to the ecosphere by the dying-off of 970 million Monarch butterflies since 1990. The herbicides Monsanto sells eradicate a range of the prolific pollinators’ natural food sources. The statistic was released by the US Fish and Wildlife Service in February.

People demonstrated in over 400 major cities across the world in May to tell the GMO giant they do not want its produce in their food. It was the third global March Against Monsanto (MAM).