Ismail Haniyeh speaks in Gaza in 2012 (Photo: Joe Catron/CC)
Israel continues to carry out targeted assassinations against non-combatants, this time murdering three sons and four grandchildren of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh
On April 10, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh announced that Israel murdered three of his sons in a targeted airstrike. The killing of Haniyeh’s children coincides with the Muslim Holy Day of Eid al-Fitr.
Hamas, as well as various other Palestinian resistance groups, released statements decrying the killings of Hazem, Amir, and Mohammad, as well as four of Haniyeh’s grandchildren who were also killed in the attack. Haniyeh’s three sons and three grandchildren were making family visits in Gaza City for Eid, when Israel bombed the car they were traveling in.
These killings took place as Haniyeh and other Hamas leaders are involved in pushing Israel for a ceasefire at the negotiating table. Haniyeh himself is among the chief negotiators on the side of the resistance. According to a Hamas statement from April 8, “While Hamas appreciates the significant efforts made by the mediators, and while the movement is keen to reach an agreement that ends the aggression against our people, the Israeli position remains obstinate and has not responded to any of the demands of our people and our resistance.”
An unnamed Palestinian official who spoke to the Lebanese Al Mayadeen news network said that all attempts and efforts by mediators to reach an agreement have encountered Israeli inflexibility and at present, there is no progress in negotiations. The official stated that any progress will be announced through official channels and emphasized that Hamas adheres to its demands, which include a ceasefire, Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, the entry of aid, the return of displaced Gazans, and a prisoner exchange.
Aljazeera is reporting that the genocidal Zionist enemy has murdered three of the sons and a number of the grandchildren of Ismail Haniyeh, the politburo chief of Hamas. This cowardly Nazi enemy, whose days usurping Palestine are numbered, always takes it revenge on children. https://t.co/gBeu3uYZS0
“The blood of my sons is not more precious than the blood of our martyred people in Gaza, for they are all my sons.,” said Haniyeh. “The occupation’s threats to invade Rafah do not frighten our people or our resistance. We will not submit to the blackmail practiced by the occupation, for those who surrender will not be spared. We will not compromise and we will not neglect, no matter how great our sacrifices are.”
The murders of Ismail Haniyeh's children and grandchildren in targeted strikes in Gaza is part of a pattern of the IDF sabotaging negotiations.
In the last Gaza war, Israel struck apartment buildings housing 3 PIJ commanders who were to go to ceasefire talks *that morning*. pic.twitter.com/HmB94aPtEZ
Condemnations were issued by various Axis of Resistance forces, including the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Mujahideen Movement, and Ansar Allah.
“We extend our condolences to the head of the Political Bureau of Hamas for the martyrdom of three of his sons and several of his grandchildren due to an aggressive Israeli airstrike that reveals the extent of the Israeli failure in the field,” said Ansar Allah, which has been waging a struggle in solidarity with the Palestinian people through its Red Sea blockade. “These great sacrifices, alongside the rest of the sons of Gaza and the occupied West Bank, indeed strengthen the steadfastness of the Palestinian people in the face of this Israeli arrogance.”
“We condemn, in the strongest terms, the barbaric massacre committed by the criminal Nazi entity, which targeted a number of the children of the head of the Political Bureau of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), the fighter brother Ismail Haniyeh, and his grandchildren,” stated the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which has been fighting Israeli forces in Gaza alongside Hamas. “We come forth from the sons of our Palestinian people everywhere, from the brothers in the Hamas Movement, and from the fighter brother Ismail Haniyeh, with the highest blessings for this martyrdom, asking Allah to cover the martyrs with His vast mercy.”
An aerial photography taken October 10, 2023 shows a neighborhood of Gaza City destroyed by Israeli bombardment. (Photo: Al Araby/Wikimedia Commons)
U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres reiterated his call for an “immediate humanitarian cease-fire, the unconditional release of all hostages, the protection of civilians, and the unimpeded delivery of humanitarian aid.”
Peace and human rights advocates on Sunday renewed calls for an immediate cease-fire in Gaza and an increase in lifesaving humanitarian aid for its starving people as the embattled enclave marked six months since the start of Israel’s genocidal retaliation for the October 7 attacks.
In six months of bombardment by air, land, and sea following the Hamas-led attacks that killed more than 1,100 people in Israel—with over 240 people taken hostage—Israeli forces have killed or maimed more than 116,000 Palestinians, including people believed to be dead and buried beneath the rubble of hundreds of thousands of bombed-out homes and other buildings. Gazans—especially children—are starving to death as Israel severely restricts the amount of aid allowed to enter the strip. Women are “burying their newborns every day” as they have nothing to feed them.
Around 90% of Gaza’s 2.3 million people have been forcibly displaced, perhaps permanently, in what many Palestinians and international observers are calling a new Nakba, the ethnic cleansing catastrophe perpetrated by Jewish militants during the establishment of the modern state of Israel in 1948. Gaza’s infrastructure has been obliterated, with reconstruction expected to cost $18.5 billion, or nearly Palestine’s entire annual gross domestic product.
“Over the last six months, the Israeli military campaign has brought relentless death and destruction to Palestinians in Gaza—with more than 32,000 people reportedly killed and more than 75,000 injured—the vast majority women and children,” United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said during a press conference marking six months of a war in which the International Court of Justice has found that Israel is plausibly committing genocide.
"6 months on, we are at the brink of mass starvation, of regional conflagration, of a total loss of faith in global standards & norms."
“During my visit to the Rafah crossing 10 days ago, I met veteran humanitarians who told me categorically that the crisis and suffering in Gaza is unlike any they have ever seen,” Guterres continued. “Meanwhile—as I saw on my way to the Rafah crossing—long lines of trucks loaded with humanitarian aid continued to face obstacle after obstacle.”
“When the gates to aid are closed, the doors to starvation are opened,” he said. “More than half the population—over a million people—are facing catastrophic hunger. Children in Gaza today are dying for lack of food and water. This is incomprehensible, and entirely avoidable. Nothing can justify the collective punishment of the Palestinian people.”
Guterres noted the 196 humanitarian aid workers—including more than 175 U.N. personnel and members of Doctors Without Borders, the International Red Crescent, World Central Kitchen, and other organizations—who have been killed by Israeli bombs and bullets over the past six months.
“I repeat my urgent appeals for an immediate humanitarian cease-fire, the unconditional release of all hostages, the protection of civilians, and the unimpeded delivery of humanitarian aid,” Guterres said.
Demonstrators took to the streets of cities around the world to condemn Israel’s genocide and demand an immediate cease-fire.
Māori folx performing the Haka at the Free Palestine rally in Naarm/Melbourne.
6 months on the streets marching for an end to the genocidal assault on Gaza and for a Free Palestine.
Land back, liberation End colonial occupation From this continent to Aotearoa to Palestine pic.twitter.com/UQniMrZ9LX
There were also protests in cities including Tel Aviv and New York calling for the release of all Israelis and others held hostage in Gaza. New York rabbi Ellen Lippman said she wouldn’t be attending the rally because she “cannot call for the release of the hostages without an explicit demand for an immediate cease-fire and an end to the Israeli assault on Gaza.”
Left-wing Israelis held vigils outside the U.S. embassies in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv on Friday to demand an end to Washington’s military and diplomatic support for Israel’s genocide.
“The United States supplies the guns, and Israel pulls the trigger,” organizer Erez Bleicher told the crowd.
Today marks six months of Israel's genocide in Gaza.
With US support, over a hundred thousand Palestinians have been killed, kidnapped, tortured, or injured. Over a million are at risk of starving to death.
President Joe Biden in recent days has urged an immediate cease-fire, even as the U.S. continues to provide the bulk of Israel’s weapons. In a Thursday call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Biden “made clear the need for Israel to announce and implement a series of specific, concrete, and measurable steps to address civilian harm, humanitarian suffering, and the safety of aid workers,” the White House said in a statement. “He made clear that U.S. policy with respect to Gaza will be determined by our assessment of Israel’s immediate action on these steps.”
Israel responded by saying it would temporarily allow more aid to enter Gaza.
The Green Party has repeated its call for a full bilateral ceasefire, the release of all hostages, the suspension of arms exports to Israel, and for key players in the Netanyahu government to be held accountable for possible war crimes, six months on from the 7 October attacks by Hamas.
Image of the Green Party’s Carla Denyer on BBC Question Time.
Co-leader of the Green Party, Carla Denyer, said:
“This isn’t just a far away conflict that we have nothing to do with. By consistently refusing to call for a ceasefire and continuing to supply arms, the UK Government has been complicit in the deadly assault on Gaza by the Israel Defence Forces.
“Six months on from the horrific Hamas attacks on Israeli citizens, it is clear that the Netanyahu government’s response has been totally disproportionate. Over 33,000 innocent Palestinian civilians have now been killed, the majority of them women and children. This is not an act of self defence. As the UN’s Human Rights Council has resolved, the actions by the Israeli government are possible war crimes and crimes against humanity. Indeed, the UK Government itself has reportedly concluded secretly that Israel is breaking international humanitarian law.
“It is time for our Government to end their complicity and start leading efforts towards peace. They must finally call for a ceasefire, immediately suspend arms exports to Israel and back the UN Human Rights Council’s call for accountability for all violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law.”
In the six months since October 7th, the Green Party of England and Wales has called for:
A full bilateral ceasefire
The release of all hostages
A suspension of all arms export licences to Israel until the violence stops
The cessation of all military collaboration with Israel, including use of British bases by Israeli forces, and intelligence sharing
Targeted Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against individuals and institutions supporting or facilitating Israel’s occupation of Palestine
An investigation by the Metropolitan Police and Director of Public Prosecutions of war crimes committed against UK citizens, or where UK citizens are potential perpetrators
The UK government to use its position as a permanent member of the UN Security Council to vote for, rather than abstain on, ceasefire votes
Targeted sanctions against key individuals in the Israeli leadership, including travel bans and asset freezes on Israel’s government ministers
An end to occupation of the Palestinian territories
The UK government to return to international law being the benchmark for UK policy, and repair the UK’s international reputation as a defender of the international rules-based order.
The editorial boards of the nation’s major media organizations must have been frantic last week.
Used to reporting on US foreign policy, wars and arms exports so as to portray the United States as a benevolent, law-abiding and democracy-defending nation, they were confronted on March 25 with a real challenge dealing with Israel and Gaza. No sooner did the Biden administration, for the first time, abstain and thus allow passage of a United Nations Security Council resolution that was not just critical of Israel, but demanded a ceasefire in Gaza, than US officials began declaring that the resolution that they allowed to pass was really meaningless.
It was “nonbinding,” they said.
The New York Times (3/25/24) reported that US’s UN Ambassdor “Thomas-Greenfield called the resolution ‘nonbinding’”—and let no one contradict her.
That was enough for the New York Times (3/25/24), which produced the most one-sided report on the decision. That article focused initially on how Resolution 2728 (which followed three resolutions that the US had vetoed, and a fourth that was so watered down that China and Russia vetoed it instead) had led to a diplomatic dust-up with the Israeli government: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu canceled a planned visit to Washington by a high-level Israeli delegation to discuss Israel’s planned invasion of Rafah and the future of Gaza and the West Bank.
The Times quoted Richard Gowan, a UN expert at the International Crisis Group: “The abstention is a not-too-coded hint to Netanyahu to rein in operations, above all over Rafah.”
Noting that “Security Council resolutions are considered to be international law,” Times reporters Farnaz Fassihi, Aaron Boxerman and Thomas Fuller wrote, “While the Council has no means of enforcing the resolution, it could impose punitive measures, such as sanctions, on Israel, so long as member states agreed.”
This was nevertheless followed by a quote from Washington’s UN Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield, who abstained from the otherwise unanimous 14–0 vote of the rest of the Security Council, characterizing the resolution as “nonbinding.”
The Times offered no comment from any international law scholars, foreign or US, to rebut or even discuss that claim. Such an expert might have pointed to the unequivocal language of Article 25 of the UN Charter: “The members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.”
If the US offered its claim that this language only applies to resolutions explicitly referencing the UN Charter’s Chapter VII, dealing with “threats to the peace,” an international law expert (EJIL: Talk!, 1/9/17) might note that the International Court of Justice stated in 1971, “It is not possible to find in the Charter any support for this view.”
‘Creates obligations’
The Washington Post (3/26/24) quoted an international law expert to note that the resolution “creates obligations for Israel and Hamas.”
The Washington Post (3/26/24), though like the Times a firm defender of Washington’s foreign policy consensus, did marginally better. While the Times didn’t mention Britain or France, both major US NATO allies, in its piece on the Security Council vote, the Post noted that the four other veto powers—Britain and France, as well as China and Russia—had all voted in favor of the resolution, along with all 10 elected temporary members of the Council.
The Post also cited one international law legal expert, Donald Rothwell, of the Australian National University, who said the “even-handed” resolution “creates obligations for Israel and Hamas.”
While that quote sounds like the resolution is binding, the Post went on to cite Gowan as saying, “I think it’s pretty clear that if Israel does not comply with the resolution, the Biden administration is not going to allow the Security Council members to impose sanctions or other penalties on Israel.”
The Post (3/25/24) actually ran a stronger, more straightforward piece a day earlier, when it covered the initial vote using an AP story. AP did a fairer job discussing the fraught issue of whether or not the resolution was binding on the warring parties, Israel and Hamas (as well as the nations arming them).
That earlier AP piece, by journalist Edith M. Lederer, quoted US National Security spokesperson John Kirby as explaining that they decided not to veto the resolution because it “does fairly reflect our view that a ceasefire and the release of hostages come together.”
Because of the cutbacks to in-house reporting on national and international news in most of the nation’s major news organizations, most Americans who get their news from television and their local papers end up getting dispatches—often edited for space—from the New York Times, Washington Post or AP wire stories. (The Wall Street Journal, for example, ran the same AP report as the Post.)
‘A demand is a decision’
CNN (3/27/24) quoted US officials claiming the resolution was nonbinding—and noted that “international legal scholars” disagree.
In TV news, CNN (3/27/24) had some of the strongest reporting on the debate over whether the resolution was binding. The news channel said straight out, “While the UN says the latest resolution is nonbinding, experts differ on whether that is the case.”
It went on to say:
After the resolution passed, US officials went to great lengths to say that the resolution isn’t binding. State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller repeatedly said during a news conference that the resolution is nonbinding, before conceding that the technical details of are for international lawyers to determine. Similarly, White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby and US ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield separately insisted that the resolution is nonbinding.
Those US positions were challenged by China’s UN Ambassador Zhang Jun, who “countered that such resolutions are indeed binding,” and by UN spokesperson Farhan Haq, who said Security Council resolutions are international law, and “so to that extent they are as binding as international law is.”
CNN quoted Maya Ungar, another International Crisis Group analyst:
The US—ascribing to a legal tradition that takes a narrower interpretation—argues that without the use of the word “decides” or evocation of Chapter VII within the text, the resolution is nonbinding…. Other member states and international legal scholars are arguing that there is legal precedence to the idea that a demand is implicitly a decision of the Council.
‘A rhetorical feint’
According to the Guardian (3/26/24), the US’s “nonbinding” interpretation “put the US at odds with other member states, international legal scholars and the UN itself.”
To get a sense of how one-sided or at best cautious the US domestic coverage of this critically urgent story is, consider how it was covered in Britain or Spain, two US allies in NATO.
The British Guardian (3/26/24), which also publishes a US edition, ran with the headline: “Biden Administration’s Gaza Strategy Panned as ‘Mess’ Amid Clashing Goals.” The story began:
The Biden administration’s policy on Gaza has been widely criticized as being in disarray as the defense secretary described the situation as a “humanitarian catastrophe” the day after the State Department declared Israel to be in compliance with international humanitarian law.
But the real contrast is with the Spanish newspaper El País (3/29/24), which bluntly headlined its story “US Sparks Controversy at the UN With Claim That Gaza Ceasefire Resolution Is ‘Nonbinding.’” Not mincing words, the reporters wrote:
By abstaining in the vote on the UN Security Council resolution demanding an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, the United States on Monday sparked not only the anger of Israel, which had asked it to veto the text, but also a sweeping legal and diplomatic controversy due to its claims that the resolution—the first to be passed since the start of the Gaza war—was “nonbinding.” For Washington, it was a rhetorical feint aimed at making the public blow to its great ally in the Middle East less obvious.
El País (3/29/24) quoted the relevant language from the UN Charter: “The members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.”
After quoting Thompson-Greenfield saying it was a “nonbinding resolution,” and Kirby saying dismissively, “There is no impact at all on Israel,” they wrote,
These claims hit the UN Security Council—the highest executive body of the UN in charge of ensuring world peace and security—like a torpedo. Were the Council’s resolutions binding or not? Our was it that some resolutions were binding and others were not?
The reporters answered their own rhetorical question:
Diplomatic representatives and legal experts came out in force to refute Washington’s claim. UN Secretary-General António Guterres made his opinion clear: the resolutions are binding. Indeed, this is stated in Article 25 of the UN Charter: “The members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.” Several representatives of the Security Council, led by Mozambique and Sierra Leone, pointed to case law to support this argument. The two African diplomats, both with legal training, said that the Gaza ceasefire resolution is binding, regardless of whether one of the five permanent members of the Council abstains from the vote, as was the case of the US. The diplomats highlighted that in 1971, the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) established that all resolutions of the UN Security Council are legally binding. The Algerian ambassador to the UN summed it up even more categorically: “Security Council resolutions are binding. Not almost, not partly, not maybe.”
Unlike most most US news organizations, El País went to an expert, in this instance seeking out Adil Haque, a professor of international law at Rutgers University, where he is a professor, and also executive editor of the law journal Just Security. Haque, they wrote, “has no doubts that the resolution is binding.” He explains in the article:
According to the UN Charter, all decisions of the Security Council are binding on all member states. The International Court of Justice has ruled that a resolution need not mention Chapter VII of the Charter [action in case of threats to the peace, breaches of the peace or acts of aggression], refer to international peace and security, or use the word “decides” to make it binding. Any resolution that uses “mandatory language” creates obligations, and that includes the term “demands” used in the resolution on Gaza.” He adds, “For now, it does not seem that the US has a coherent legal argument.”
It should be noted that the New York Times, when there is a dispute regarding a document, typically runs a copy of the document in question—or, if it is too long, the relevant portion of it. In the case of Resolution 2728, which even counting its headline only runs 263 words, that would have not been a hard call. Despite the disagreement between the US and most of the Council over the wording of the ceasefire resolution, the Times chose not to run or even excerpt it.
Hundreds of demonstrators demanding an immediate cease-fire in the Gaza Strip march in Washington D.C. on March 7, 2024. (Photo: Celal Gunes/Anadolu via Getty Images)
“Given these numbers,” said one progressive campaigner, “I don’t know how President Biden can reconcile his stalwart support for Israel with the clear preference that his core constituents have for an end to this war.”
A Gallup survey released Wednesday shows that U.S. public support for Israel’s military assault on Gaza has plummeted since November, with the decline particularly sharp among Democratic voters whom President Joe Biden will need to turn out to win reelection against presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump.
Just 18% of Democratic voters currently approve of “the military action Israel has taken in Gaza” and 75% disapprove, according to the new poll, which was conducted between March 1-20. In November, 36% of Democratic respondents expressed approval of Israel’s war and 63% disapproved.
“The crosstabs are even more striking—nearly two-thirds of people under 54, people of color, and women disapprove of the military action in Gaza,” Sam Rosenthal, political director of the progressive advocacy group RootsAction, told Common Dreams in response to the new poll. “That is effectively the Democratic Party’s base.”
“Given these numbers,” Rosenthal added, “I don’t know how President Biden can reconcile his stalwart support for Israel with the clear preference that his core constituents have for an end to this war.”
Overall, Gallup found that 55% of the American public—including 60% of Independents and 30% of Republicans—disapproves of Israel’s military campaign in the Gaza Strip, up from 45% in November. Just 36% of the U.S. public approves, down from 50% four months ago.
“Biden is risking his second term and our democracy by continuing to support the kind of violence and cruelty that is being perpetrated in Gaza right now.”
Observers noted that Gallup’s new poll was conducted after the Israeli military’s February 29 massacre of Palestinians seeking food aid. Since October, according to one human rights monitor, Israeli forces have killed more than 560 people waiting for humanitarian aid, the delivery of which Israel’s government has intentionally hindered—fueling the spread of famine across the territory.
The Biden administration has backed Israel’s assault from the beginning, providing the Netanyahu government with billions of dollars worth of weapons and diplomatic cover despite widespread and growing protests at home and abroad. Gallup’s survey found that 74% of U.S. adults say they are following developments in Gaza “closely.”
Political analyst Yousef Munayyer wrote on social media that “Biden’s policy of continued support for Israel’s war on Gaza is in line with the views of the right-wing Republicans,” noting that 64% of GOP voters still approve of the Israeli assault—down slightly from 71% in November.
“Just to emphasize how extreme his position is and out of line with his voters,” he added, “more Republicans disapprove of the war than Democrats who approve.”
Growing Democratic opposition to Israel’s military action in Gaza has fueled grassroots campaigns across the country urging voters to mark “uncommitted” on their Democratic primary ballots to pressure Biden to change course ahead of the general election against Trump, who has voiced support for Israel’s devastating assault on Gaza.
“Uncommitted” campaigns won 11 Democratic National Convention (DNC) delegates in Minnesota and two in both Michigan and Washington state.
“Biden is risking his second term and our democracy by continuing to support the kind of violence and cruelty that is being perpetrated in Gaza right now,” Faheem Khan, president of the American Muslim Advancement Council and a lead organizer of Uncommitted WA, said earlier this week.
Rosenthal of RootsAction told Common Dreams on Wednesday that the U.S. decision to abstain and allow the U.N. Security Council to pass a cease-fire resolution earlier this week was “a step in the right direction, and a clear indication that domestic pressure from campaigns like Listen to Michigan and other uncommitted voting efforts is working.”
“However, actual policy towards Israel has changed very little,” said Rosenthal. “Biden is still clamoring for more military aid to be sent, and the U.S. still largely supports Israel’s line, i.e., that military operations in Gaza are solely aimed at rooting out Hamas. What is manifestly obvious to the rest of the world, that Israel is committed to the wanton destruction of the Gaza Strip, is somehow escaping the administration’s notice.”
“President Biden should decide quickly whether he wants to continue to uphold policy that is increasingly associated with the opposition party,” Rosenthal added.
