The Latest Hamas-Israel Confrontation - Some Pertinent Legal Points
Amb. Alan Baker, July 24, 2014
Jerusalem Viewpoints No. 602 July-August 2014
http://jcpa.org/article/hamas-israel-confrontation-legal-points/

- The ideological foundation of Hamas as set out in its national charter,
and its actions of indiscriminate terror directed against Israeli towns,
villages and citizens, clearly define its character as a terrorist entity.
This is reflected in the fact that Hamas has been formally outlawed in
several major states.
- The terrorist actions by Hamas, including the indiscriminate targeting of
Israel’s civilian population centers and the deliberate and cynical exposure
and use of its own civilians, mosques, hospitals and schools as human
shields, are violations of international humanitarian law. for which Hamas’
leaders and commanders are accountable and prosecutable.
- International law recognizes Israel’s right to defend itself, whether by
the conventional international right of self-defense as set out in the UN
Charter or by the international customary right to self-defense.
- Accusations that Israel is collectively punishing the Palestinian
population of the Gaza Strip have no basis. Israel’s military actions are
solely directed to one strategic and tactical purpose, not to punish the
population, but to halt the indiscriminate rocket fire and terror
infiltration into Israel’s sovereign territory.
- The allegation leveled against Israel that it uses disproportionate force,
is a misreading of the international rules of proportionality in armed
conflict which are intended to regulate the extent of force needed in
relation to the military challenge anticipated.

Much is being written and spoken about in the international media and by
leaders in the international community regarding the recent violence between
the Hamas terror entity in the Gaza Strip and Israel, especially given the
graphic pictures displayed by the various media sources. But there are
pertinent legal points that do not always figure in this barrage of
selective, often inaccurate, and even malicious commentary and criticism.

The following points summarize some of the legal aspects of this situation:

The Inherent Character of Hamas as a Terrorist Entity

The professed ideological foundation of Hamas, as set out in its national
charter1 , aligns it integrally with the Muslim Brotherhood and clearly
identifies it as a terrorist entity. According to Hamas’ ideology, Israel
has no place in the world and its declared goal is the destruction of the
Jewish state: “Hamas strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of
Palestine.” In addition, the organization promotes an anti-Semitic ideology
that glorifies jihad and the killing of Jews.

Whether the Hamas administration in the Gaza Strip is regarded as a
component of the Palestinian Authority, following the recent April 2014
unification accord with the head of the PLO Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen),2 or
as a “quasi-state,” a “non-state entity,” or even as a “state” (with borders
and government), its character as a terrorist entity is well-established and
universally recognized.

Such recognition includes formal and legal classification and outlawing of
Hamas as a terror organization by the United States, Canada, the European
Union, Jordan, Egypt, Israel and Japan.3

Its declared modus operandi advocates and espouses terror against Israel as
the means to achieve its ends. It views every Israeli man, woman and child
as a legitimate military target thereby justifying its terrorist attacks by
missiles, suicide bombings, murder and abductions. It openly admits its
strategy of terrorizing Israel’s civilian population through the use of
rockets and missiles indiscriminately aimed at Israel’s towns and villages.
Its leaders and spokesmen are on public record admitting their
responsibility for such acts of terror. Thus the indiscriminate rocket fire
is consistent with its ideology, which sees Israeli civilian casualties as
strategic and tactical military successes. 4

Terrorism in International Law

International law and practice outlaw the use of terror, for whatever reason
or justification. This is confirmed in a number of resolutions adopted by
the UN Security Council, especially following the 11 September 2001 attacks
against the United States.5

In its resolution 1269 (1999)6 the Council, in the first operative
paragraph of the resolution:

“Unequivocally condemns all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as
criminal and unjustifiable, regardless of their motivation, in all their
forms and manifestations, wherever and by whomever committed, in particular
those which could threaten international peace and security”.

More specifically, United Nations Security Council resolution 1566, dated
October 2004, passed under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, states as follows:

“Condemns in the strongest terms all acts of terrorism irrespective of their
motivation, whenever and by whomsoever committed, as one of the most serious
threats to peace and security”. “….criminal acts, including against
civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily
injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror
in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons,
intimidate a population or compel a government or an international
organization to do or to abstain from doing any act, which constitute
offences within the scope of and as defined in the international conventions
and protocols relating to terrorism, are under no circumstances justifiable
by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial,
ethnic, religious or other similar nature.” 7

No less than 16 international conventions and protocols have been adopted
between 1963 and the present day by the United Nations, criminalizing all
aspects of international terror, including significant landmark resolutions
of the UN General Assembly. Together they represent the clear consensus of
opinion of the international community in outlawing all forms of terror.8

One such UN Convention, the 1997 International Convention for the
Suppression of Terrorist Bombings9 , determines:

“1. Any person commits an offence within the meaning of this Convention if
that person unlawfully and intentionally delivers, places, discharges or
detonates an explosive or other lethal device in, into or against a place of
public use, a State or government facility, a public transportation system
or an infrastructure facility:

(a) With the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury; or

(b) With the intent to cause extensive destruction of such a place, facility
or system, where such destruction results in or is likely to result in major
economic loss.”

Similarly, in this context the operative provisions of the unanimously
supported 1994 “UN Declaration on Measures to Eliminate International
Terrorism” 10 are no less relevant:

“1. The States Members of the United Nations solemnly reaffirm their
unequivocal condemnation of all acts, methods and practices of terrorism, as
criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomever committed, including
those which jeopardize the friendly relations among States and peoples and
threaten the territorial integrity and security of States;

2. Acts, methods and practices of terrorism constitute a grave violation of
the purposes and principles of the United Nations, which may pose a threat
to international peace and security jeopardize friendly relations among
States, hinder international cooperation and aim at the destruction of human
rights, fundamental freedoms and the democratic bases of society;

3. Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the
general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political
purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations
of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or
another nature that may be invoked to justify them;”

In addition to the multinational instruments outlawing terror, there is an
extensive series of regional counter-terror conventions, encompassing the
African Union, OAS, ASEAN, CIS, SHARC, Shanghai Cooperation Organization,
Council of Europe, EU Action Plan, Arab League and the Organization of
Islamic Conference11 .

International Crimes and Criminal Responsibility by Hamas

The terrorist actions practiced by Hamas – both indiscriminate targeting of
Israeli towns, villages and civilians, as well as the exposure of its own
residents as human shields — are violations of international law and
internationally accepted humanitarian norms, specifically, the violation of
the rule of distinction, which requires combatants to limit attacks to
legitimate military targets.12

As such these constitute both crimes against humanity and war crimes,
prosecutable before the International Criminal Court (ICC), as well as
before municipal courts and tribunals that are guided by universal criminal
jurisdiction.

Advocating a religious holy war aimed at creating a regional Islamic entity
encompassing the whole of the territory of Israel, and the call to “liberate
Palestine” and to “raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine”13
appear to contravene the provisions of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention
of Genocide.14

The 1998 Rome Statute that founded the International Criminal Court (ICC)
declares that the court is intended to deal with “the most serious crimes of
concern to the international community as a whole.” Specifically, it gives
the court jurisdiction regarding the above-mentioned crimes, and in the
absence of a referral by a state, it enables both the UN Security Council
and the court’s prosecutor to initiate investigations. 15

Hamas has its own structured military force, political and social
institutions, and de facto control over a defined territory, and has
launched thousands of rockets towards Israeli towns, terrorizing and
jeopardizing the lives of thousands of Israelis. Hamas, even as a non-state
entity, or part of a non-state entity, is considered by all accepted
criteria, to be fully accountable under international humanitarian law for
its actions in carrying out its terror attacks against Israeli civilians and
for using its own civilians as human shields.Thus, its leadership,
commanders and fighters are punishable for crimes against humanity and war
crimes.

In her article “Accountability of Hamas under International Humanitarian
Law” jurist Sigall Horowitz states the following16 :

“Under international law, non-state actors are bound by customary IHL norms
when they become a party to an armed conflict. Thus, the Appeals Chamber of
the Special Court for Sierra Leone held as follows: “it is well settled that
all parties to an armed conflict, whether states or non-state actors, are
bound by international humanitarian law, even though only states may become
parties to international treaties.” 17

Regarding the individual criminal responsibility of Hamas members Horowitz
adds:

“…the use by Hamas members of Qassam and Grad rockets in connection with the
armed conflict, may amount to a war crime under the Rome Statute.
Accordingly, these acts may entail the individual criminal responsibility of
Hamas fighters who committed, ordered or assisted them, or otherwise
contributed to their commission. These acts may also entail the individual
criminal responsibility of Hamas military commanders and political leaders,
under the principle of superior responsibility.“18

In addition to the crime of conspiring and attempting to commit genocide
referred to above, the following acts of terror carried out by Hamas
constitute serious crimes of concern to the international community:

Indiscriminate Targeting Israeli towns and Villages and Civilians with
rockets

a. 1907 Hague Regulations19 :
- Article 25: “The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns,
villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.“

b. 1977 Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions20 :
- Article 48: “In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian
population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all
times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between
civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their
operations only against military objectives”.
- Article 51(2): “The civilian population as such, as well as individual
civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence
the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian
population are prohibited“.
- Article 51(4): “Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate
attacks are:

(a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective;

(b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed
at a specific military objective; or

(c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which
cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each
such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or
civilian objects without distinction.”
- Article 57 requires that civilian population, civilians and civilian
objects be spared in the conduct of military operations, and that all
feasible precautions be taken in order to avoid and minimize incidental loss
of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects, and
the giving of effective advance warning of attacks.

Using Civilians as Human Shields
- Deliberately storing and firing rockets from within, or in close proximity
to hospitals, mosques, schools and houses in densely-populated areas, both
to shield and camouflage rocket emplacements and in order to deliberately
generate Israeli military action against such emplacements and thereby
endanger Palestinian civilians, constitutes a war crime.21
- The storing of rockets in an UNRWA school in Gaza is perhaps a typical
example of this crime, which generated a statement of condemnation by UNRWA
itself.22
- The use of one of Gaza’s central mosques – the Al-Farouq Mosque in the
Nuseirat refugee camp – for storing rockets and weapons and as a compound
for Hamas operations is a further example of this crime.23
- Article 51(7) of the 1977 Protocols to the Geneva Convention24 states:

“The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual
civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from
military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives
from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties
to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or
individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from
attacks or to shield military operations.”
- Article 58(b) requires avoiding locating military objectives within or
near densely populated areas.

The following provisions of the ICC Statute refer to such crimes:
- Article 7: crimes against humanity — the multiple commission of
“widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population.”
- Article 8: war crimes – large-scale commission, as part of a plan or
policy of intentional attacks against the civilian population or against
individual civilians and civilian objects; intentionally launching an attack
in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or
injury to civilians; attacking or bombarding towns, villages dwellings or
buildings which are not military objectives; utilizing the presence of
civilians to render certain points, areas or forces immune from military
operations; and using children under fifteen to participate in hostilities.

Israel’s Right to Self-Defense

International law recognizes two basic rights to self-defense, conventional
international law as set out in Article 51 of the UN Charter:

“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of
individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a
Member of the United Nations…”25

The second right is that of customary international law, based on the
Caroline case (1837) which established a right of self-defense in the face
of a necessity which is “instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means,
and no moment of deliberation”.26

Israel’s right to invoke the Article 51 right to self-defense vis-à-vis
terrorist attacks against its towns and villages was curiously denied by the
International Court of Justice (ICJ) in its 2004 Advisory Opinion on the
Israeli Security Fence case27 on the grounds that the threat can only come
from another “state.” This strange conclusion has been rejected both by
judges of the court as well as international jurists.

As stated by Judge Higgins (UK):

“I do not agree with all that the Court has to say on the question of the
law of self-defence. In paragraph 139 the Court quotes Article 51 of the
Charter and then continues “Article 51 of the Charter thus recognizes the
existence of an inherent right of self-defence in the case of armed attack
by one State against another State.” There is, with respect, nothing in the
text of Article 51 that thus stipulates that self-defence is available only
when an armed attack is made by a State. The question is surely where
responsibility lies for the sending of groups and persons who act against
Israeli civilians and the cumulative severity of such action…..

This is formalism of an un-evenhanded sort.”

In a similar vein, Judge Buergenthal (U.S.)28 criticized the above
conclusion as being “dubious” and stated29 :

“…the United Nations Charter, in affirming the inherent right of self-
defence, does not make its exercise dependent upon an armed attack by
another State.”

“Attacks on Israel coming from across that [green] line must therefore
permit Israel to exercise its right of self-defence against such attacks,
provided the measures it takes are otherwise consistent with the legitimate
exercise of that right.”

In several key resolutions, the Security Council has made clear that
“international terrorism constitutes a threat to international peace and
security” and has affirmed the inherent right of individual or collective
self-defense as recognized by the Charter of the United Nations in the face
of such terror.

This has been reiterated in resolution 1368 (2001) 30 , adopted only one day
after the 11 September 2001 attacks on the United States, in which the
Security Council invokes the right of self-defense in calling on the
international community to combat terrorism. Similarly in Security Council
resolution 1373 (2001)31 adopted pursuant to Chapter VII of the Charter, the
Council “reaffirmed the inherent right of individual or collective
self-defence as recognized by the Charter of the United Nations as
reiterated in resolution 1368 (2001)”.

Needless to say, neither of these resolutions imposed any limit on their
application to terrorist attacks by State actors only, nor was an assumption
to that effect implicit in these resolutions.32

Claims Being Made against Israel

Collective Punishment

The claim that Israel is collectively punishing the population of the Gaza
Strip, enunciated by the UK Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg,33 is both
wrong and based on misleading legal assumptions. As stated above, Israel’s
actions are directed towards one strategic and tactical purpose – not to
punish the population but to halt the indiscriminate rocket fire and use of
infiltration tunnels to carry out acts of terror against the civilian
population.

While international law bars “collective punishment,”34 none of Israel’s
combat actions against Hamas constitute collective punishment, whether in
the form of imposition of penalties on individuals or groups on the basis of
another’s guilt, or the commission of acts that would otherwise violate the
rules of distinction and/or proportionality.35

However, the deliberate and systematic exposure by Hamas of its residents to
Israeli combat activities, rather than permitting them to enter shelters and
tunnels, and the systematic intimidation and threat of terror through
indiscriminate daily rocket attacks directed against Israeli towns and
villages, constitute collective punishment of millions of Israeli citizens
as well as Palestinian residents of the Gaza Strip and as such, are flagrant
and willful violations of the norms of international humanitarian law.

Deliberate Targeting of Residences

Israel is being falsely accused by the United Nations and others of
deliberately and willfully targeting residences.36

Tragically, one of the many violations by Hamas of international
humanitarian norms is the conduct of its terror activities within
residential areas throughout the towns and villages in the Gaza Strip,
including the use of commanders’ own homes where their families and other
civilians may be residing. These houses have been used for weapons storage,
command, control, and communication centers.

The use of houses, homes and other residential structures for military
purposes endangers them and render them as legitimate military targets under
international law.

Article 52(2) of the First Geneva Protocol37 specifically refers to the
obligation to limit attacks to military objectives – “objects which by their
nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military
action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization in
the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage;”

In order to accurately determine military targets, the IDF employs advanced
methods, including multiple levels of intelligence, the provision of legal
advice; and extensive prior training provided to operational commanders.
Even when a house is considered by all relevant legal criteria to be a
legitimate military target, the Israeli forces minimize potential harm to
the surrounding civilian population through real-time visual coverage in
order to assess the civilian presence at a target; provision of advance
warning before striking a target; and the careful choice of weaponry and
ammunition in order to minimize harm to civilians.38

As such, Israel has no policy of deliberately targeting civilians or
civilian property, and makes every effort to give effective advance warning
of impending strikes that could potentially affect the civilian population.

Despite the deliberate policy and practice of Hamas to forcibly use
civilians, including children, to shield their rocket and weapons
emplacements, Israel has gone to great lengths in responding to the Hamas
rocket attacks to ensure minimal harm to such civilians. This includes
providing early warnings to persons residing or located in, or in the
vicinity of houses targeted because of their use for purposes of planning
acts of terror, storing weapons or as rocket emplacements, and public
appeals to non-combatants to distance themselves from such targets.39

The Claim of Disproportionate Force/Casualties

Allegations in the international media and by international organizations
and some governmental representatives40 that Israel’s actions are
“disproportionate” and thus in violation of international law, are both
factually and legally incorrect .

The requirement of proportionality in armed conflict is a measure of the
extent of force needed in relation to the concrete and direct military
advantage anticipated. It is not a comparison between casualties of the
parties involved, nor of the damage caused during the fighting.41

A monograph entitled “Applying the Principle of Proportionality in Combat
Operations,” published by of the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed
conflict42 , states:

“…harming civilians is not in itself illegal. An injury to civilians or
damage done to civilian objects as a side-effect of a military
operation may be permissible provided that it is proportionate to the
military gain anticipated from the operation.

This principle is considered part of customary international law, which
binds all states. It has become part of the positive law of armed
conflict (IHL) with its codification in the First Additional Protocol
to the Geneva Conventions of 1977. Article 51 para. 5b) states that “[a]n
attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian
life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination
thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct
military advantage anticipated,” is prohibited.”

The tragic and regrettable fact that there are more civilian casualties and
property damage within the Gaza Strip than there are in Israel is not a
function of disproportionate use of force by Israel, or use of
disproportionate weaponry, but of the fact, as outlined above, that Hamas
forcibly and deliberately utilizes civilians and civilian structures and
homes as human shields. The buildings are used for their rocket
emplacements and command centers, thereby knowingly exposing the residents
to harm with a view to both preventing Israeli actions against their rocket
launching and other military facilities, and to cynically parade dead
civilians in front of television cameras that transmit these gruesome
pictures around the world with captions blaming Israel.

In so doing, Hamas is committing a double war crime by deliberately
targeting Israeli civilians while at the same time embedding its weapons,
leaders, operatives and infrastructures in the midst of uninvolved
Palestinian civilians.

Similarly, the fact that Hamas prevents civilian access to its underground
web of tunnels and bomb shelters, reserving them for its military commanders
and for storage of rockets, and the fact that Israel has developed extensive
framework of shelters as well as its “Iron Dome” anti-missile defensive
system, cannot be used as basis for accusing Israel of disproportionate
force.

The Comparison of Casualties

Perhaps one of the most reprehensible practices of the international media
is the so called “body-count” comparison, and the sad conclusion that
disproportionality is exemplified by the fact that more Palestinians are
killed than Israelis.43 The absurd assumption that this comparison makes is
that more Israeli casualties would be preferable in order to “even-out” the
count. Israel’s “Iron Dome” missile defense system, which has protected
thousands of potential Israeli civilian casualties from Hamas rockets, is
blamed as the cause of this disparity in casualties.

Clearly Israel cannot be held responsible for such an equation. As in any
armed conflict, and especially in light of the circumstances of the present
one, civilians are tragically killed and injured. Unlike Hamas, Israel does
not have a policy of deliberately targeting civilians, but regrettably,
whether due to the fact that Hamas deliberately exposes its civilians to
shield targets, or whether due to the occasional human or targeting error or
inaccurate mapping, civilians are casualties.

Israel has very strict policies of investigating such instances, and in
cases of alleged war crimes or negligence, taking the appropriate legal and
disciplinary action.

Threats to Institute Action against Israeli Leaders in the International
Criminal Court (ICC)

Amongst the media hype and political declarations by Palestinian leaders and
senior elements within the international community, there is a constant wave
of threats to institute proceedings for alleged war crimes against Israel’s
leaders and military commanders before international and national criminal
tribunals.,

As outlined above, Israel’s code of military law and command structure
require strict conformity with international humanitarian norms, and any
allegation of violation of such norms by soldiers or commanders are duly
investigated and where appropriate, legal proceedings are instituted within
Israel’s military justice framework. As such, the threats to institute
action in the ICC are unrealistic and fail to consider the requirements of
the statute of the ICC.

However, the openly-admitted and blatant series of war crimes committed by
Hamas and its leaders as detailed in this paper and the lack of any will,
capability, legal framework or means within the Hamas or Palestinian legal
structure of investigating and trying such crimes, require that they be
referred to the ICC with a view to ensuring that the leaders and instigators
of the Hamas terror infrastructure be brought to criminal justice.

Closing Points

This paper is intended to place the current Hamas-Israel conflict within the
proportions of international law and practice, with a view to dispelling
some of the media hype and exaggeration, and the selective and biased
statements and allegations being made against Israel.

Armed conflict in any circumstances involves situations in which civilians
are regrettably affected. International law aims to limit harm to innocent
civilians by ensuring that the involved parties conduct the hostilities in
accordance with humanitarian norms with a view to preventing, as much as is
possible, civilian casualties.

Israel, a sovereign state with an army that conducts itself in accordance
with such norms, is making every effort to abide by them, despite the
blatant, willful and indiscriminate violation by Hamas, both vis-a-vis its
own population as well as vis- a-vis Israel’s population.

One hopes that the crimes against humanity and the war crimes committed by
the leaders and senior terrorist commanders of Hamas will not go unpunished,
and that the international community will act to ensure that they do not
benefit from impunity.



* * *

Notes

1 Hamas Charter, http://www.acpr.org.il/resources/hamascharter.html see
Article 2:

The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of the Muslim Brothers
in Palestine. The Muslim Brotherhood Movement is a world organization, the
largest Islamic Movement in the modern era. It is characterized by a
profound understanding, by precise notions and by a complete
comprehensiveness of all concepts of Islam in all domains of life: views and
beliefs, politics and economics, education and society, jurisprudence and
rule, indoctrination and teaching, the arts and publications, the hidden and
the evident, and all the other domains of life.

See also article 7:

Hamas is one of the links in the Chain of Jihad in the confrontation with
the Zionist invasion. It links up with the setting out of the Martyr Izz
a-din al-Qassam and his brothers in the Muslim Brotherhood who fought the
Holy War in 1936; it further relates to another link of the Palestinian
Jihad and the Jihad and efforts of the Muslim Brothers during the 1948 War,
and to the Jihad operations of the Muslim Brothers in 1968 and thereafter.

And Article 13:

There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. The
initiatives, proposals and International Conferences are but a waste of
time, an exercise in futility. The Palestinian people are too noble to have
their future, their right and their destiny submitted to a vain game

2 http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/19580

3 See U.S. “Country reports on terrorism 2005?, United States Department of
State. Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism. U.S. Dept. of State
Publication 11324. April 2006. p 196

see also http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm.

See Canadian “Currently listed entities”. Department of Public Safety and
Emergency Preparedness. November 22, 2012.

See EUCouncil Common Position 2003/651/CFSP.

See Jordan policyhttp://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3978/king-abdullah-hamas
.

SeeCairo court bans activities by Palestinian Hamas in Egypt, brands it a
terrorist organization. Associated Press. March 4, 2014

4 See headline in “Middle East Eye”, 8 July 2014 “Hamas claims
responsibility for rockets fired at Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Haifa” – See
more at:
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israels-army-prepared-ground-assault-gaza-official-275282816:
“For the first time, the Ezzedine al- Qassam Brigades strike Haifa with an
R160 rocket, and strike occupied Jerusalem with four M75 rockets and Tel
Aviv with four M75 rockets,”

See also “Hamas claims responsibility for rocket fire on Israel”.http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Hamas-claims-responsibility-for-rocket-fire-on-Israel-361830and
“The Islamic Jihad took responsibility for the rockets fired toward Tel
Aviv”http://www.jpost.com/Operation-Protective-Edge/Rocket-alert-sirens-sound-in-Zichron-Yaakov-120-km-north-of-Gaza-362087See alsoi24newshttp://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel/diplomacy-defense/36623-140708-gaza-israel-launches-operation-protective-edge “In a video statement that wasbroadcast across Arab media late on Thursday evening, the brigade said: “Themore shahids falling make us stronger and more determined for victory. Forthe first time yesterday, we showered from the north of the homeland to thesouth in Dimona. Tens of rockets showered the center of the occupation. Thatis only a few of what is waiting…”See also Fatah joins Hamas and Islamic Jihad in missile launches | The TimesofIsraelhttp://www.timesofisrael.com/moderate-fatah-joins-hamas-and-islamic-jihad-in-missile-launches/#ixzz37KhRmK25See alsohttp://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/israeli-warplanes-pound-gaza-strip/story-e6frg6so-1226982452456?nk=30dd8b2330cf43d6507b130e303ae6c6 “TheEzzedine al-
Qassam B