Загрузка видео...
Не удалось загрузить видео
قدّم الناطق الرسمي باسم القوات المسلحة توضيحًا بالصوت والصورة حول الإجراءات المتبعة لحماية المدنيين أثناء العمليات العسكرية الجارية، وذلك في سياق ردّه على سؤال طرحته منصة صدى السودانيين "سودانيز ايكو Sudanese Echo". وأكد أن حماية المدنيين شكّلت أولوية قصوى منذ اللحظات الأولى للحرب، مشيرًا إلى التزام القوات المسلحة بنهج... show more
18,565 просмотров • 1 год назад •via X (Twitter)
Комментарии: 0
Нет доступных комментариев
Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста
![THE TRUTH ABOUT OCTOBER 7TH: Reports confirm that Netanyahu, the Mossad and the IDF deliberately allowed the October 7th attack by Hamas to take place. They knew one year in advance of the attack and did nothing to stop it. They deliberately stood down during the attack allowing many more innocent Israelis to be slaughtered in order to get domestic and international support for war in Gaza and Iran. HOW DID OCTOBER 7TH HAPPEN? On October 7th, Hamas was able to carry out its shocking terror attack against Israel, despite Israel’s intelligence, military and security apparatus commonly considered the best in the world. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu himself tweeted and quickly deleted a statement denying any foreknowledge of the October 7th attack. “Under no circumstances and at no stage was Prime Minister Netanyahu warned of war intentions on the part of Hamas" the tweet said, before it was promptly deleted. Why did Netanyahu’s team delete that tweet? Because in fact he did have intelligence that there would be an attack by Hamas and tried to hide this from the world. Foreign security services, Israeli security services and the Israeli public all knew that Hamas was planning a violent, cross-border incursion where they would attempt to over-run and attack the kibbutz communities in southern Israel and take prisoners back to Gaza. And they also knew when. But it happened anyway. Why? Ten days before the attack, and then again three days before the attack, Egypt intelligence officials passed “repeated warnings” to the highest levels of Israel’s government. In one of these warnings, Egypts premiere intelligence minister General Abbas Kamel personally called Netanyahu and warned that Hamas was about to do “something unusual, a terrible operation.” Unnamed Egyptian officials told YNET News that they were shocked by Netanyahu’s “indifference to the news.” But Israel didn’t have to trust or believe Egypt, because actually, most of the warnings of the October 7th attack came from Israeli civilians and the Israeli military itself. The civilians and soldiers who brought these emergency warnings to the military were ignored and in some cases, strangely enough, threatened with legal action. In 2022, the IDF, through confidential sources, or spies, in Gaza, actually obtained the detailed Hamas Al Aqsa Flood attack plans. Codenamed “Jericho Wall” by Israel, the excursion plan called for a barrage of rockets to begin the attack and for gunmen to pour into Israel en masse via para-gliders, on motorcycles and on foot and take hostages back into Gaza, all of which happened on October 7th. Hamas followed the blueprint that Israel already had with shocking precision. So Israel had the attack blueprints, but were they taken seriously by the IDF? Yes, the plans were diligently studied. A presentation on the planned attack was given to senior officers in the IDF’S Gaza division. The presentation concluded with this sentence: “This invasion constitutes the gravest threat that IDF forces are facing in the defense of Israel” So in response to this, did Israel’s security establishment beef up and enhance their surveillance of Hamas militants on the other side of the border? No, stunningly, they actually did the exact opposite. They decided to entirely stop monitoring Hamas’s handheld radio traffic. Because they saw it “as a waste of effort” even though during that same time in 2022, Israelis living in the kibbutz communities near the Gaza border, most of whom have some type of military training due to Israel’s mandatory IDF service laws, were, according to Israeli media, picking up clear evidence that Hamas was “practicing the breaching of the fence and conquering kibbutzim and seizing hostages and destroying everything in their path.” Then, In April 2023, 6 months before the attack, again according to Israeli media, the IDF “restricted the ability” of Israelis living near the border “to monitor Hamas’ wireless traffic.” In September 2023, less than a month before the attack, the head of the IDF’s “Devil’s Advocate” intelligence unit, which challenges prevailing narratives within Israel’s military, twice alerted senior decision-makers in both the army and political spheres about Hamas’ plans for a large-scale cross-border military operation. He reiterated these warnings in person at Intelligence Branch strategic assessment sessions on September 26th and 27th. Just days before the attack. So it was clear to everyone that Hamas wasn’t only planning to do something horrible, but it was also clear what that horrible and evil thing was. According to a female IDF soldier who spoke to Israel’s channel 12 news program, she was constantly trying to warn her superiors about the gravity of Hamas training exercises. She was threatened with legal action. “We were told that if we continue to harass on this issue, you will stand trial.” So, Egypt knew, the Israeli military knew, and the Israeli civilians knew. Yet, two days before October 7th, the Israeli military took two entire commando brigades, or around 100 soldiers, away from the the soon to be breached locations of the Gaza border and sent them to the other side of the country, to the West Bank village of Huwara despite no Hamas presence being in Huwara and despite there being giant Israeli dance parties taking place right along the same border fence where violent, escalating and obvious Hamas drills of breaching and kidnapping were taking place. According to Israeli media reports, Lt. Col. Sahar Fogel, an operations officer at the IDF’s Gaza Division, opposed the approval of the Nova Party based on the last minute nature of its event application and the intensifying Hamas drills at the border and because if something were to happen, more soldiers were on holiday. It was the Jewish holiday of Sukkot. The Lt. Col. explained his opposition to the party’s approval to his superiors. He was instructed to allow the event. Israeli Newspaper Haaretz reported that other Gaza division officers privately “told of irregular conduct and pressure surrounding the approval of the party.” In February 2024, Elkana Federman, the head of security for the Nova festival gave an interview to Israel’s Channel 14 where he made a statement that hasn’t been reported on by any American media. “I had a guard at the festival who had served in the Re’im Division [near Gaza border], and a week before the festival he sent me a voice message, basically warning me, saying, ‘Elkana, something is going to happen over Sukkot. I just wanted to let you know, there are a lot of warnings, I passed the voice message on to local IDF officials and they told me everything was all right.” The Hamas attacks were violent and brutal. They have been likened to tragic events such as September 11th and the Holocaust, so it comes as a surprise that Benjamin Netanyahu and members of his Likud party have at times described the attacks as somewhat of a political gift. Nissim Vaturi, a member of Netanyahu’s Likud party in the Knesset, referred to the attack as sort of gift from God because they are being used to justify the current ongoing war, stating: “We were meant to fight this war against Hamas, as is happening now, and luckily for us it came from the heavens.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu explained that Israel didn’t have domestic or international support to invade or destroy Gaza. He said the October 7th Hamas attack solved both of those problems for him, stating “We couldn’t get the domestic consensus to make a definitive solution to the problem of Hamas. That is, no one would agree across the Israeli public to go in and basically destroy Hamas, go throughout Gaza and destroy Hamas. We didn’t have the international consensus either; nobody would understand why we are doing it. Both conditions were created because of the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7th.” Did the Israeli military, the Israeli intelligence community, and the political leadership of Israel allow this ghastly attack to happen to justify wiping out the population of Gaza? The evidence proves, yes. WHERE WAS THE IDF? During the October 7th attacks what did the Israeli military do? For hours they did nothing, it was a deliberate military stand down order. It's important to remember that Israel is just slightly bigger than the size of the state of New Jersey. But for some reason, once the Hamas attacks began, the time it took the Israeli army and rescue teams to arrive, fight and rescue Israelis at the different kibbutz communities and sites being attacked took anywhere from 4 hours to more than 20 hours. The New York Times has reported: “Thousands of soldiers were less than 40 minutes from the towns that were under attack.” A video that Israeli media obtained from an army helicopter, corroborated by Israeli survivors, prove that there were more than 500 Israeli soldiers directly outside of the Kibbutz entrance, fully armed, with Humvees and tanks but it took 10 hours for those soldiers to show up. Avital, a survivor of the Be’eri attack, described to Haaretz: “500 soldiers stood outside, with equipment and vehicles. I remember yelling at them, ‘We’re being slaughtered, come in, save us and no one said anything.” So why did it take so long for help to arrive? Haaretz reported: “At 7 A.M., the party organizers called Lt. Col. Elad Zandani, the man tasked with approving the festival and told him that terrorists were shooting the partygoers. He suggested that they fend for themselves. The first IDF forces arrived at the party scene at 3 P.M., that’s an 8 hour response time for one of the most efficient, capable and well militarized security forces in the world operating in a country the size of New Jersey with their Gaza division only a few miles away. And what makes this even more strange? Around 4 hours into the Hamas assault, at 10:46AM, Israel was already launching operations and bombing targets inside of Gaza. So, if Israel could begin an offensive attack into Gaza within 4 hours, why did it take more than 6 hours and in most cases more than 10 hours and even 20 hours in some cases to mobilize inside of their own country to stop the ongoing attack and to defend the lives of their own people? The New York Times quoted Ben Zion, an Israeli military reservist who spoke to Israeli media. He said his unit voluntarily left central Israel in a convoy at 1:30PM, they got together and left for the south on their own. He expected to see the roads packed with soldiers and equipment and armored vehicles heading south. “The roads were empty!” he recalled in an interview. Roughly seven hours into the fighting, he turned to the reservist next to him and asked: “Where’s the IDF?” The brutal and deadly Hamas terrorist attack of October 7th is so central to justifying Israel’s ongoing war in Gaza that Israel is actually outlawing questioning the October 7th government narrative. Israelis who spread information counter to the October 7th government narrative, which the Israeli Knesset calls “falsehoods and propaganda” could face up to 5 years in prison. Between the abundance of concrete evidence that suggests Israeli military allowed October 7th to happen by ignoring dozens of reliable and specific warnings, threatening soldiers with legal actions who tried to warn their military superiors and taking troops away from the area of the Gaza border that was attacked and now evidence that suggests there was some type of military stand down order in place on October 7th, it is important to ask, what was October 7th and what kind of war is the United States supporting? WHAT IS THE HANNIBAL DIRECTIVE? Images and videos of burnt cars, blacked and charred bodies and incinerated homes in southern Israel were plastered on every phone screen and television after the October 7th Hamas attack. The images and videos were used by the Israeli government to justify the military’s heavy handed tactics in their ongoing war against Hamas, But were all the images and videos actually the result of the Hamas attack? Innocent Israeli civilians were brutally killed by Hamas on October 7th, but there is evidence that proves the IDF killed their own Israeli citizens in what is known as the Hannibal Directive. To understand what the Israeli military did to their own civilians on October 7th, you have to understand the political aspirations of Hamas and what the goal of taking hostages is, it is political leverage. There are over 10,000 Palestinians in Israeli jails. 3,000 of whom haven’t been to trial or charged with a crime. When militant groups manage to capture Israeli civilians or soldiers it gives them leverage to force a prisoner swap and get some of their people out of Israeli prison. For example, in 1986, Hamas managed to kidnap 3 Israeli soldiers and bring them to Gaza. They demanded 1,150 Palestinian prisoners in return for these soldiers. After this, the military drafted a secret field order to prevent future kidnappings. It was called the "Hannibal Directive." The directive gets its name from the Carthaginian general who chose to poison himself rather than allow himself to be captured alive by the romans. In 2003, strangely enough on October 7th 2003, three Israeli soldiers were taken hostage and brought into Lebanon. Following the activation of the Hannibal Directive, IDF attack helicopters fired indiscriminately on 26 vehicles thus ensuring the death of their own soldiers and therefore robbing Lebanese militants of the ability to demand Israel make concessions. The Last known application of the Hannibal Directive was in 2014. In Rafah. Hamas fighters managed to capture an Israeli soldier, Lt. Hadar Goldin. Instead of allowing the lieutenant to be used as leverage by Hamas, the military killed him. Dropping bombs, missiles and shells on the area he was being held, killing the soldier and also over 100 Palestinian civilians. The scale of the Hannibal Directive on October 7th was entirely different from those of the past. A retired Israeli air force general, Nof Erez, described it during a podcast with Haaretz, an Israeli newspaper saying “The Hannibal Directive was apparently applied at a certain stage, because at the moment they understand there is a kidnapping, they immediately say, ‘Guys, this is Hannibal.’ But the Hannibal we trained for all of the last twenty years, is for a vehicle we know at what point of the fence it enters, on what side it drives, and maybe even on which road it drives. This was a Mass Hannibal.” We know the Hannibal Directive means to kill your own, so what does “mass Hannibal” mean? A large mainstream Israeli media outlet reported: “In the week after Black Shabbat, October 7th, soldiers of elite units, at the initiative of the Southern Command, checked about 70 vehicles that remained in the area between the Otaf settlements and the Gaza Strip. These are vehicles that did not reach Gaza, because on the way they were shot by a combat helicopter, an anti-tank missile or a tank, and at least in some cases everyone in the vehicle was killed.” 70 vehicles and in some cases, everyone in the vehicle was killed. These are Israelis killed by Israel. Again, only reported on in the Israeli media. Tuval Escapa, is a member of the security team for Kibbutz Be’eri. He set up a hotline so kibbutz residents could communicate with the Israeli army. He told Haaretz that “the commanders in the field made difficult decisions, including shelling houses on their occupants” in order to eliminate would-be hostages as well the terrorists. They shelled entire houses. Do we hear this in the American mainstream media? That the Israeli military targeted and destroyed over 70 cars with hellfire missiles that were filled with Israelis and that they decimated entire Israeli homes with tank shells? A report in Haaretz on October 20th notes that the Israeli military also carried out an airstrike on their own military base, the Erez crossing. That base was filled with Israeli Civil Administration officers and soldiers at the time. An Israeli woman named Yasmin Porat gave an interview with Israel Radio that the military “undoubtedly” killed numerous Israeli hostages during gun battles with Hamas militants. IDF General Barak Hiram, prevented hundreds of troops from entering Kibbutz Be’eri for hours on October 7th, when he finally allowed the IDF to go in, he ordered tanks to fire on multiple homes. The tank shells killed at least 12 Israeli hostages and 3 children. Recently the UN published an investigation confirming several of these facts, namely, that the IDF had in fact activated the Hannibal Directive on October 7th stating “The Commission is aware of allegations that Israeli Special Forces used the “Hannibal Directive” to prevent the capture of Israeli civilians and their transfer to Gaza, even at the cost of killing them" The Commission documented one statement by an ISF tank crew, confirming that the crew had applied the Hannibal Directive. The Israeli military, Israeli civilians and the United Nations all admit to the IDF purposely killing their own on October 7th. How many? It’s hard to know the exact number, but the imagery of charred bodies and incinerated cars and homes are still being used to this day to manufacture consent and support for Israel’s ongoing assault of the Gaza Strip, where more than 47,000 Palestinians have been killed including 15,000 innocent children. ISRAEL'S FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR HAMAS: Israel and Netanyahu helped funnel over $1 Billion dollars to Hamas in order to keep Palestine from being recognized as a State. It was Netanyahu and Israel who helped create Hamas thinking that they could control them and would be able to use Hamas as an excuse for their continued military operations and occupation in Gaza. ISRAEL'S SECRET NUCLEAR WEAPONS: The front lines of the war between Israel and Hamas are expanding and moving beyond Gaza. Yemen’s Houthis intensified their involvement, going from simply attacking Israeli bound cargo ships to now navigating an armed drone over 1,200 miles, evading Israel’s Iron Dome defense system and managed to strike inside Tel Aviv causing a massive explosions. In addition to their ongoing war in Gaza, Israel has attacked or been attacked by Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Iran. Meanwhile, the U.S. continues to promise Israel unconditional and limitless support. But has anyone even asked if this support is LEGAL? According to the 1976 Symington and Glenn Amendments of the Armed Foreign Assistance Act, which is now a part of the Arms Export Control Act, the United States cannot give foreign aid, whether that’s economic or military, to any nuclear armed state that is not a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, or the NPT, but the United States gives billions of dollars every year to Israel and according to all international arms organizations, Israel has anywhere from 90 to 400 nuclear warheads and Israel has not signed the NPT. So how does this legally happen? The United States and Israel simply pretend Israel does not have nuclear weapons, literally, that’s what’s done. It is called “Nuclear Ambiguity.” This nuclear ambiguity, which allows Israel to continue to receive billions from the U.S. and also operate and maintain their nuclear arsenal with absolutely no international oversight and zero regulation, is maintained and preserved through the threat of force. Due to a previously Top Secret gag order, all U.S. government agency employees and contractors are forbidden from discussing Israel’s nuclear weapons program. Even insinuating or mentioning information that’s already in the public domain is forbidden for all federal employees and contractors. It sounds hard to believe but let’s give an example: James Doyle used to work at Los Alamos National Laboratory as a nuclear security specialist. He violated this gag order. Doyle wrote an academic article arguing that Nuclear weapons do not do a good job at deterring countries from attacking one another, he wrote: “Nuclear weapons did not deter Egypt and Syria from attacking Israel in 1973, Argentina from attacking British territory in 1982 or Iraq from attacking Israel during the 1991 Gulf War.” A clear reference to Israel’s nuclear weapons. Doyle’s security clearance was promptly withdrawn, his home was raided, his computers were seized and he was fired from the Department of Energy. So apparently that’s how it works. In 2018, The New Yorker published a stunning report in which they discuss another way Israel’s nuclear ambiguity is enforced: secret presidential letters. According to former U.S. officials and former Israeli officials, every recent US administration since Clinton in 1993 has performed the same ritual as it came into office. They all agreed to undermine U.S. law by signing secret letters, brought to them by hand by their Israeli counterparts stipulating that they’ll never acknowledge what everyone knows: that Israel indeed has nuclear weapons. The National Archives is currently refusing to release the letters, arguing that even confirming their existence would violate the secrecy pact. So there’s a gag order that stops all federal employees and contractors from simply acknowledging Israel’s nuclear weapons and U.S. presidents sign secret letters promising not to acknowledge or pressure Israel to do anything relating to their proliferation status. That means asking questions like these are entirely off limits enforced by the threat of government violence or law fare. But all of this information leads to a series of questions: Where does Israel dispose of the toxic waste its program generates? Are Israel’s nuclear weapons ever used to coerce the U.S. into making adverse policy decisions? How about our allies? Besides apartheid South Africa, has Israel offered any of its nuclear weapons for sale to other foreign countries? To U.S. adversaries? Has Israel mounted nuclear weapons onto its German supplied Dolphin class submarines? Or their American supplied F-35 jets? No questions are allowed and what is the cost, the dollar amount, for Americans, of this “nuclear ambiguity” policy? To be exact, almost $240 billion dollars of military and economic aid has gone from the U.S. taxpayer since the passing of the Symington and Glenn Amendments. That’s far more than the United States spent rebuilding Europe under the Marshall Plan. And none of that quarter of a trillion dollars should have been allowed under U.S. law. That’s the price of keeping Israel’s secret. A quarter trillion and yet where is the International Atomic Energy Agency and international nuclear inspectors? The same ones who monitor every other nuclear armed country in the world? DOES ISRAEL PERSECUTE CHRISTIANS? Before the war, Israel’s Christian minority were already being targeted with dispossession and violence. In Jerusalem’s Old City, narrow streets line the ancient neighborhood and Jewish Israeli civilians spitting on and attacking Christian clergy members is commonplace in Israel. Evidence of this shows a video from a few days before October 7th of Christians in the Old City of Jerusalem carrying a cross while a group of Orthodox Jewish Israelis many of them children walk by and spit at the Christians. It’s become mainstream to believe Christians don’t belong in Israel and only Jewish people do. A few years ago, the mission, the Virgin Mary’s place of death, was attacked and vandalized by Israelis. The graffiti on the ancient walls read “Death to heretical Christians, the enemies of Israel,” and “May his name and memory be obliterated,” in reference to Jesus. According to Haaretz, at a Jewish school, the leader of an anti-assimilation group Bentzi Gopstien told students that it’s quote “mitzvah” or a “good deed” to burn and destroy Christian churches. Should Americans, especially Christian Americans be allowing billions of their tax dollars to be used to ethnically cleanse, attack and bomb Holy sites and Christian civilians? What has happened since Israel has launched its war against Hamas? Israel has displaced 2.4 million Palestinians in Gaza, 80% of the buildings and homes have been reduced to rubble, at least 45,000 Palestinians have been killed with 50% being women and children. In America, we’re told we should prioritize sending billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to Israel over dealing with our own issues here at home because Israel needs to be able defend itself. Well, it seems like what initially appeared as a defensive war, is appearing more like an offensive war with the expansionist goal of the permanent military occupation of the Gaza Strip. Did the Israeli military, the Israeli intelligence community, and the political leadership of Israel allow this terrible attack to happen to justify wiping out the population of Gaza, a genocide justified by an attack that Israel could have stopped had they wanted to.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1941665181420904891/amplify_video_thumb/1941627551786385409/img/gp24yzSPk-cDYjh4.jpg)
![#ZimElection2023 ZAMBIA-LED SADC ELECTION OBSERVATION MISSION OUT OF ORDER AS IT, AU AND COMMONWEALTH COUNTERPARTS RELEASE PRELIMINARY REPORTS ON ZIM ELECTION It is a good thing that three major international election observer missions have submitted their preliminary reports: The Commonwealth Election Observation Mission, the African Union (AU) Observation Mission and the Sadc Election Observation mission. The links to the three reports are indicated below: The Commonwealth Zim Election Observation Mission Report AU Zim Election Observation Mission Report Sadc Election Observation Preliminary Report Notably, and significantly so, the three preliminary reports echo an important sentiment expressed by CITE's Zenzele Ndebele (Zenzele) a few weeks ago on Newzroom Afrika – for which he was vilified and demonised by the usual quarters among self-proclaimed champions of democracy – that Zimbabwe’s 2023 harmonised general election “has been largely peaceful”, compared to previous editions characterised by widespread violence. A peaceful harmonised general election in Zimbabwe is no mean achievement. It is big ns, and a huge social and political relief. And to say the election has been largely peaceful is not to say there have been no skirmishes or worse, any loss of life even if it was of one person, as Ndebele pointed out to Newzroom Afrika on the attached video clip. Meanwhile, there are no matters arising from the preliminary reports by the Commonwealth and the AU election observers, pending the release of their final reports in two or so months. Otherwise, election observation mission reports are precisely that, namely, reports on what the relevant missions actually observed on the conduct of an election in question. But not so for the Sadc Election Mission Preliminary Statement on Zimbabwe’s 2023 harmonised general election. Led by former Zambian Vice President Nevers Mumba, appointed by Zambian President Hakainde Hichilema, who recently assumed the chairmanship of the Sadc Organ on Politics, Defence and Security. Unlike its African Union and Commonwealth counterparts, the Mumba Mission clearly, intentionally and scandalously wrote its report on the basis of what it heard, and not what it observed. Rather than making news about the election it ostensibly observed, the news is on the Sadc Election Observation for coming to Zimbabwe with an axe to grind, wielding it recklessly and shamelessly. It would be irresponsible to let the preliminary report of the Sadc Election Observation Mission go scot-free, unchallenged. The Mumba report is premised on this far reaching conclusion, which it is not competent to make: The Mission noted that some aspects of the Harmonised Elections, fell short of the requirements of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, the Electoral Act, and the SADC Principles and Guidelines Governing Democratic Elections. Writing under the rubric, “Constitutional and Legal Framework for the Elections,” Mumba and his colleagues make sweeping and opinionated statements and conclusions that are all based not on the direct observation of the election by the Mission but on hearsay with not a single thread of even desktop evidence. The sweeping statements and conclusions include an array of gratuitous comments based on hearsay about the voters roll; freedom of assembly in general and the Maintenance of Peace and Order Act (MOPA); freedom of expression in relation to the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act; the nomination of candidates; participation of women as candidates; alleged intimidation of voters; postal voting controversy; and coverage of the election by the state media. In the result, the main thrust of the report is pure and naked hearsay. In this connection, the report’s treatment of two key issues is telling: one is the delimitation of constituencies and the other is on the so-called Patriotic Act. Regarding the so-called Patriotic Act, the report makes the following conclusion based on untested hearsay submissions: The Mission noted that the Patriot Act is incompatible with the spirit of section 61(1) of the Constitution, and paragraph 4.1.2 of the SADC Principles and Guidelines Governing Democratic Elections which requires Member States to uphold, amongst others, the freedom of expression. This is utterly shocking. What jurisdiction, power and legal competence do Nevers Mumba and his colleagues in the Sadc Election Observation Mission on the Zimbabwean 2023 harmonised general election have to make such a judicial pronouncement? The pronouncement is manifest and gross interference with the rule of law in Zimbabwe under which such judicial findings are made by competent courts of law and, even worse, the pronouncement is an unacceptable violation of Zimbabwe’s sovereignty. Then there’s the report’s treatment of the delimitation of constituencies, about which it says: “The mission WAS INFORMED that the delimitation exercise that was conducted in 2022 by the ZEC was marred with controversy”. Without saying who informed it, the Sadc Observation Mission preliminary report makes the following scandalous statements and partisan conclusions on Zimbabwe’s delimitation exercise conducted by the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission in 202, which it is not entitled to make – as it lacks the jurisdiction, authority and competence to do so – and which statements and conclusions demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that its preliminary report is heavily opinionated hearsay that smacks of a malicious and predetermined hatchet job: "(i) In its Delimitation Report of 2022, the ZEC rightly states that, “the Constitution recognisesthe impracticability of having equal number of voters in each constituency by allowing the Commission to depart from this requirement within a stipulated margin. In this case the Constitution in section 161(6) stipulates that …“no constituency may have more than 20% more or fewer registered voters than other such constituencies”. The constitution in section 161(6)a-f also lists factors that need to be considered when delimiting since they are important during the exercise.” However, the ZEC goes on to also state that, “Based on the provision of section 161(6) the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission then calculated the 20% deviation from the national average voter registration expected in each constituency which was 27 640. This yielded a deviation of 5,528 voters. Since the average number of registered voters was regarded as a stable benchmark against which delimitation of constituencies was conducted, the deviation figure was added to the national average to determine the maximum number of registered voters that a constituency delimited would contain i.e., 33 168.” (ii) The Mission noted that the use of the average number voters per constituency is not consistent with the provision of section 161(6) of the newConstitution that was adopted in 2013. The word “average” appears in section 61A(6) of the old Constitution of Zimbabwe under which it was permissible to calculate the minimum and maximum permissible number of voter per constituency by using the national average as the baseline. That word “average” does not exist in section 161(6) of the new Constitution which deals with the same subject matter. The difference between section 61A(6) and section 161(6) of the old and the new constitutions respectively is far from being merely technical. (iii) In the new Constitution, and in the context of section 161(6), the maximum deviation is 20% of the voters registered in the constituencies. The new Constitution uses actual constituency by constituency registered voter population, not the national average number of constituency voter population to calculate the permissible deviation from the requirement that constituencies must have an equal number of voters. Mathematically, the two methods produce very different results and affect the equality of the vote with respect to the elections to parliament. On the other hand, since the country votes as a single constituency in the presidential election, the difference in the methods has no particular impact on the equality of the vote in that election. It was therefore not unexpected that ZEC would receive substantial criticism on this aspect of its latest Delimitation Report. (iv) The Mission noted that the use of the average number of voters per constituency is not consistent with the provision of section 161(6) of the new Constitution that was adopted in 2013. The word “average” appears in section 61A(6) of the old Constitution of Zimbabwe under which it was permissible to calculate the minimum and maximum permissible number of voter per constituency by using the national average as the baseline. That word “average” does not exist in section 161(6) of the new Constitution which deals with the same subject matter. The difference between section 61A(6) and section 161(6) of the old and the new constitutions respectively is far from being merely technical. (v) In the new Constitution, and in the context of section 161(6), the maximum deviation is 20% of the voters registered in the constituencies. The new Constitution uses actual constituency by constituency registered voter population, not the national average number of constituency voter population to calculate the permissible deviation from the requirement that constituencies must have an equal number of voters. Mathematically, the two methods produce very different results and affect the equality of the vote with respect to the elections to parliament. On the other hand, since the country votes as a single constituency in the presidential election, the difference in the methods has no particular impact on the equality of the vote in that election. It was therefore not unexpected that ZEC would receive substantial criticism on this aspect of its latest Delimitation Report." There are three things to highlight about what Mumba and his team say regarding the delimitation of constituencies. Firstly, everything they say is very familiar to Zimbabweans because the delimitation issue was widely, hotly and robustly debated. More specifically, the words used in the Mumba narrative about the delimitation report are familiar words that were used during the debate. It is disappointing that the familiar words have found their way, verbatim, into the Sadc Election Observation preliminary report. This alone is sad, and the less said about it, the better for everyone concerned. Secondly, ZEC’s delimitation exercise was challenged at the High Court of Zimbabwe and in the country’s apex court, the Constitutional Court. The views that the Sadc Election Observation Mission regurgitates as its own, when in fact they’re not, were argued in Zimbabwe’s courts, but no pronouncement or finding of the kind that the Mumba team goes to town about was made by any court of the land. What makes this even more egregious is the following statement in the Sadc Election Observer Mission’s report: In view of their significance in the event of legal challenges in the context of the electoral process, some stakeholders expressed the view that the judiciary is compromised by the Government. A key justification for this perception was information received from these stakeholders that the judiciary recently received large financial and material incentives which the stakeholders viewed as an attempt by the Government to buy the loyalty and allegiance of the judiciary. So, the Sadc Election Observation Mission on the 2023 harmonised general election in Zimbabwe “received information from…stakeholders that the judiciary recently received large financial and material incentives which the stakeholders viewed as an attempt by the Government to buy the loyalty and allegiance of the judiciary”. Why is the Sadc Election Observation Mission disrespecting Zimbabwe’s judiciary in this manner? The is outrageous, and for it to find expression in this report is shameless and unacceptable. In the interest of fairness, the Sadc Mission must be required by Sadc to share this information with everyone, particularly the Government of Zimbabwe which represents the Zimbabwean State, a member of Sadc. As already pointed out, the Sadc Observer Mission has no jurisdiction or competence to make any judicial pronouncements on Zimbabwean elections, not least because it is not a judicial inquiry; it is just and only an observation mission. This needs to be rectified by the Mission in its final report. That’s why it has been both important and necessary to engage the preliminary report at this stage. Thirdly, and last but not least, it is important to recall the Mission’s conclusion that is making news everywhere in order to show that it is politically opportunistic, and arguably is self-evident malice aforethought. The Sadc Election Observation Mission’s preliminary report has this running thread that ties everything in the report together, and which is effectively the essence of the report’s conclusion: The Mission noted that some aspects of the Harmonised Elections, fell short of the requirements of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, the Electoral Act, and the SADC Principles and Guidelines Governing Democratic Elections. Is this conclusion in any way linked to or an outcome of the observations that the preliminary report lists as the observations that were actually made by the Sadc Mission? The best way to unpack the question is by looking at the full list of the observations that the Mission says it made, and they are the following: "3. OBSERVATIONS ON ELECTION DAYS (23-24 AUGUST 2023) On the Election Days, the SADC Electoral Observation Mission observed the voting process in 10 Provinces of the Republic of Zimbabwe. The deployed observer teams covered 172 polling stations in their respective areas. The political contestants have continued to call for peace during this election period and after. The SEOM observed the following critical aspects at the 172 polling stations that we visited: (a) The environment at the polling stations was relatively calm and peaceful. (b) A number of voters expressed concern due to a lack of, or late arrival of ballot papers and poor administration at some polling stations. However, voters remained patient to exercise their constitutional right to vote. (c) Professional and attentive police presence enhanced the overall peace and secure environment in all the polling stations observed. (d) 64% of the voting stations observed opened on time, 36% did not open on time for the 07:00am stipulated opening time. Some polling stations opened more than 12 hours after the stipulated time. The reason provided by ZEC for this unprecedented development was the unavailability of ballot papers, particularly for the local authority elections, and also due to previous litigation. This challenge was, however specific to Harare and Bulawayo Provinces. Due to the delays, some voters left without casting their votes, while others opted to remain in the lengthy queues throughout the day and night. By 06:00am on 24 August 2023, some voters in these two provinces had still not voted. Consequently, these delays also had a knock-on effect as they dissuaded voters from voting in the first place. Against this observation we further note as follows: i. Section 52(1) of the Electoral Act provides that for any election, the ZEC shall ensure that every constituency elections officer is provided with polling booths or voting compartments and ballot boxes, and shall provide papers, including ballot papers. ii. Prior to election day, ZEC had assured our Mission and other stakeholders, that all necessary voting materials, including ballot papers, were available and ready for use before election day. This communication was made in the context of section 52A(2) of the Electoral Act which requires ZEC to provide information on the number of ballot papers and publication of details regarding them. On the basis of these two considerations, the subsequent information from ZEC that they did not have adequate ballot papers has the unfortunate effect of creating doubts about the credibility of this electoral process. (e) The voters roll was unavailable at 1% of the polling stations observed, and was therefore not displayed outside the polling stations for the convenience of the voters and verification by party/candidates agents. (f) During the voting period, and at 26% of the polling stations observed, not all voters who turned out could vote. The reasons advanced for this included: i. Voters were identified, but the names were not found on the voters’ roll; ii. It was not possible to establish the voter’s identity; iii. Voters were at the wrong polling station; and iv. Voters did not have a national identity card or passport, or due to the absence of an official witness confirming an elector’s identity. (g) 8% of the polling stations observed were not accessible to voters living with disabilities. (h) At 50% of the polling stations, voters living with disabilities, the elderly, and pregnant women were not given priority to vote. (i) In 3% of polling stations observed, indelible ink was not checked on the voters before allowing them to cast their vote. (j) At 97% of the polling stations observed, voting was free from irregularities. (k) Voting proceeded in an orderly manner at 95% of the polling stations observed. (l) Ballot boxes did not remain locked and/or sealed at 2% of the polling stations. (m) As a result of the excessive delays in the opening of polling stations in Harare and Bulawayo provinces, at least 36% of the voting stations observed did not close at the scheduled closing time of 1900hrs, while some had not even opened by that time. It was announced that voting would be extended to proceed into 24 August 2023 to compensate for the late opening. (n) In previous stakeholder consultations, a shadowy organisation referred to as Forever Associates Zimbabwe was accused of conducting a country-wide exercise of electoral intimidation. Our observers confirmed the existence of this group as its officials or agents were easily identifiable at some polling stations as they were dressed in regalia emblazoned with the FAZ name and were accredited local observers. These, and other unidentified persons who were not polling officials were also observed taking down the names of voters before they cast their votes. In some areas, voters were intimidated by actions of these individuals. (o) The Mission observed the closing and vote counting processes. A proper analysis of these two processes shall be provided as part of the final SEOM Report." CONCLUSION Three points to conclude: Firstly, it is notable that the actual observations made by the Sadc Election Observation Mission are given as a skeletal laundry list with little if any analysis. Yet the observations are at the core of how the actual polling or election was conducted on polling day. Secondly, there’s no connection between the preliminary report’s running theme that “the Mission noted that some aspects of the Harmonised Elections, fell short of the requirements of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, the Electoral Act, and the SADC Principles and Guidelines Governing Democratic Elections”. Surely, to sustain the theme, it has to be connected with the actual observations made by the Mission. But the preliminary report makes no connection, not least because the connection is contrived, based on hearsay and therefore has no factual foundation. Thirdly, one of the observations that proves malice in the preliminary report is the following [number “m” on the laundry list of observations]: As a result of the excessive delays in the opening of polling stations in Harare and Bulawayo provinces, at least 36% of the voting stations observed did not close at the scheduled closing time of 1900hrs, while some had not even opened by that time. It was announced that voting would be extended to proceed into 24 August 2023 to compensate for the late opening. It is an unfortunate falsehood that there is any polling station that had not opened by 1900hrs on polling day, 23 August 2023. It’s a shame that such a falsehood found itself in a report of this stature and implication. Otherwise, if the report was based on good faith, the name and location of polling stations that had not opened by 1900hrs on polling day should have been specified for purposes of verification and rectification. Fourthly, right upfront the preliminary report says: The Mission was informed that a further proclamation was issued rendering 24 August 2023 as a polling day in view of the delays experienced at certain polling stations. Furthermore, President Mnangagwa also proclaimed 2 October 2023 for the run-off election to the office of president if such a poll becomes necessary. Two points about this. One is that the mind boggles at why the Mission had to be “informed” about this, and why the Mission did not get a copy of the proclamation for itself. Was this out of laziness or what? The other point is why does the preliminary report fail to see and understand that “the further proclamation” was the specific solution to the litany of what the Mission lists in its preliminary report as its observations regarding the delayed opening of polling stations on polling day and the shortage of ballot papers and related issues? An impression, a false one at that, is created to the effect that the litany of observations of problems that beset polling stations that opened late or opened without some or all ballot papers for the three elections were left unattended to. If truth be told, the Sadc Election Observation Mission’s preliminary report leaves a distinct and disturbing impression that the Mission had a sinister and a not so hidden mission against the people of Zimbabwe and the Republic of Zimbabwe, abi nitio. That’s unfortunate because the impression is palpable!](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1695221640085319951/ext_tw_video_thumb/1695221134877224960/pu/img/n9BHbNRA3hxjG-tI.jpg)
