US/Israel: Bush Should Press for End to Gaza Closure

Israel’s control over Gaza’s borders, airspace, territorial waters, tax collection, and population registry means it still bears legal obligations as the occupying power under international humanitarian law.

Oh man, this is getting ridiculous. I would love to see this law. Because according to the Geneva conventions, Israel isn't an occupying power unless it fulfills the function of government, which it clearly isn't doing.

...the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation, to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory...

Neither is it one according to the Hague Conventions...

Art. 42.
Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

So what is this mysterious "international humanitarian law" anyway, and where is it written down? The topper is that Israel does not even have control over all of Gaza's borders, such as with Egypt, which Egypt has recently begun opening again. This is so ridiculous. They are complaining about the siege and how Israel controls the borders... one of which Egypt has already actually opened! One last thing...

“Israel’s stranglehold on supplies of fuel and other necessities has crippled transportation and other essential services,” said Hadas Ziv, executive director of Physicians for Human Rights – Israel. “Palestinian attacks on the border crossings have aggravated the impact of the shortages, but the main cause remains Israel’s drastic reductions in supplies allowed into Gaza.”

Uh-huh. Well maybe supplies have been drastically reduced because of those Palestinian attacks you mentioned. So HRW is actually arguing that Israel is responsible for bringing fuel and supplies into Gaza while the elected government there has been attacking the supply trucks? This is surreal. Black is white! Day is night! Cats and dogs living together... it's madness! Seriously, this kind of reminds me of when a bunch of Palestinians in Hebron, angry over the Danish cartoon scandal, formed a mob and attacked the European guards who had been stationed there to protect the Palestinians from violent settlers. I wonder if HRW complained when they left immediately after that incident?

explaining why the position of these human rights groups is so ridiculous.

Opposing collective punishment probably isn't high on his list of priorities either.

Then three human rights groups AND myself will have wasted an hour and a stamp.

I honestly can't think of a bigger waste of time. I mean, at least when I waste my time posting that same information here I know at least one person is guaranteed to actually read the thing.

Here's something I don't understand though. Maybe you can help me. I think it's pretty clear that everything I wrote is accurate, yet it doesn't seem to matter to certain people at all. Now I can understand still supporting Israel ending the sanctions, that's a matter of opinion. But doesn't it bother you a little bit that these three human rights groups are so lax when it comes to being truthful? I mean, some of the things they wrote are just flat out not true. Does that have any effect on your faith in their accuracy or their ethics?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

man's work?

snip.....
In his latest film, "The Hostages of Hatred" Pierre Rehov sets out to tell us the real story of those men, women and children, who have been shamefully used as mere pawns for over 50 years, by Arab leaders at first, by Palestinian leaders later on and until this very day but also by the United Nations' body that was specially created to supposedly take care of them: the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, UNWRA.

To tell the real story of these people Pierre Rehov has sent teams to film actual refugees in refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon, the Gaza Strip and he has shot footage himself in the West Bank. As in all his films, he exposes thus nuggets of truth hidden among the well-rehearsed propaganda speeches. We see the poverty the refugees are deliberately kept in, we see the pain, we see the nurtured hatred, we see the false hopes those people are raised on. But we also see the same hatred combined with a wealth you would not expect.

And, as usual too, Pierre Rehov mixes these first-hand testimonies with the counterpoint of extremely well-researched and enlightening documents, in-depth analyses form historians and politicians like Shlomo Ben Ami, former Israeli Foreign Minister, or the Congressman Eric Cantor. And also a Palestinian Oslo negotiator, an advisor to Arab leaders or a Palestinian Human Rights Activist.
http://www.pierrerehov.com/hostages.htm

I am going to find more reading on this fellow.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'm seeing a few responses and comments going on about "accuracy", "facts", and "truth".

So let us get down to it then, shall we?

You wrote above:


but you seem to have conveniently left out the rest of the sentence:

"...by the provisions of the following Articles of the present Convention: I to 12, 27, 29 to 34, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 59, 61 to 77, and 143."

Oh - wait a minute. That changes things up a bit, doesn't it. In fact, there goes your point entirely. If we were to take your post at face value, we would be led to believe that the Geneva Conventions don't apply at all unless the occupying power exercises the functions of government in the territory in question. But when we read the rest of the sentence, we find that was actually in reference to specific Articles - which of course leaves the rest of the Articles still under obligation. And with this understanding, are not the human rights groups you call 'ridiculous' actually correct all along, for example when HRW posts:



Note, they didn't say all Geneva Convention articles apply - they say "still bears legal obligations". In other words, we still have plenty of articles left to oblige to. If you want to read specifically through the rest of the Articles, by all means look it up

So, leaving aside the preposterous notion (I hope you'll agree) that it may still be somehow morally acceptable to collectively punish and harm innocent civilians even when technically there may be no legal obligations, we find that legal obligations still do apply under Geneva.

What I don't understand is why there is so much resistance to accepting the facts. Even if one makes a case for this technical loophole through which Israel can escape from some legal obligations, the rest of the legal obligations still do apply. And of course the question remains - what about the moral obligations? Are there technical loopholes for those too? Human Rights Watch is right. You are wrong.

since hamas has made it clear that they will attack israeli supply trucks, fuel depots etc....why isnt there any pressure on the supplies and fuel to come via egypt?

seems to me that is the safer route for those bringing in the supplies? isnt that the more "moral" route to take?

. . even though it is not occupying Gaza as your post admits. That's all you are saying, anyway.

If you think Israel is violating the Convention in its operations to defend itself from attack (which you have stated often) - then you need to make a case for that proposition (which you have failed to do just as often).

Since you are not a lawyer and don't have access to international conflict lawyers you might start by showing where all the current cases are that have been brought against Israel by Hamas, IJ, HRW, ISM, etc. and explain why there have been no convictions (as far as I know) of Israel. Could it be because Israel is conducting its obviously defensive operations in a more humane way than any Western power in recent history faced with aggression from a foreign power?

What makes you so sure I am not a lawyer

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

at the Hague. The decision concerned the fence, however

http://www.adl.org/Israel/court_of_justice.asp


As to war crimes we have also discussed this, an entire country or organization to date has not been charged, as that would be collective punishment, but individuals have been charged with war crimes. Your argument as to why has Israel not been charged is disingenuous, at best.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Nobody is under any moral obligations, both sides can do whatever they please?

What moral obligations are there when the other side is doing treacherous things? That's it? Therefore 'my side' can do anything they want to people on the other side?

Talk about crazy upside down world.

Sorry, but yes there are moral obligations.

The moral obligation not to punish innocent civilians. The moral obligation to not commit war crimes. The moral obligation to not recklessly bomb away at civilian neighborhoods. The moral obligation to not steal the land of the native population.

Of course, as well as the moral obligation to not rocket attack 70 year old women or commit terrorist acts at a religious seminary.

BOTH sides are under certain moral obligations. Why is it SO difficult to accept that? :shrug:

to deliver fuel/food to a society that attempts to kill me ... especially when there are safer alternatives....

what is so difficult to understand?

or perhaps you think i should risk my life to deliver supplies to a society that is actively trying to kill me while i am delivering the supplies?...would you do that?

And it no doubt explains the reason for the collective punishment.

"no moral obligation ... to a society that attempts to kill me"

Because "they" - "the society" - are all out to kill you.

Thanks for sharing your interesting views about Palestinian society. It certainly clarifies things.

it certainly is the intention of Hamas.

They believe that suicide attacks and violence are the way to go.

A new poll has found that the number of Palestinians who support attacks against Israelis continues to rise and more than half of them favor suicide bombings. The poll, published this weekend, held over April 8-13 and conducted by the Palestinian Arab, eastern-Jerusalem based Jerusalem Media & Communications Center (JMCC), covered 1,190 Palestinians from Judea, Samaria and Gaza, shows that the percentage of Palestinians who support "resistance operations" against Israeli targets rose from 43.1% in September 2006 to 49.5% at present. Palestinians who support bombing attacks against Israeli civilians rose from 44.8% in June 2006 to 48% in September 2006 and to 50.7% now. (Khaled Abu Toameh, 'Palestinians' backing for terror rises,' Jerusalem Post, April 21, 2008).



Several past polls indicate that Palestinian past support for terror has, at least on occasion, been higher in the past than the 43.1% in September 2006 that the JMCC cited here, including according to its own September 2006 poll (cited below in bold):



· March 2008: Palestinian Center for Policy & Survey Research: 64% of Palestinians support rocket attacks upon Israeli cities.

· September 2006: Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the PCPSR: 57% of Palestinian Arabs support terrorist attacks upon Israeli civilians.

· September 2006: JMCC: Nearly half of all Palestinian Arabs (48%) support suicide bombings against Israeli civilians.

· September 2006: Center for Opinion Polls and Survey Studies at An-Najah University: 61.3% of Palestinian Arabs support terrorist attacks upon Israeli civilians; 52.5% support rocket attacks upon Israeli population centers.

· July 2006: JMCC: 60.4% support the ongoing barrage of rocket attacks upon Israel from northern Gaza.

· June 2006: Palestinian Center for Policy & Survey Research: 56% of Palestinians support terrorist attacks upon Israeli civilians.

· March 2006: Palestinian Center for Policy & Survey Research: 52% support terrorist attacks upon Israeli civilians.

Please spell out exactly what it is your are attempting to defend. Thanks.

pelsar's meaning is pretty clear, isn't it? What's with this need to turn it around and deliberately misinterpret it just to accuse him of being racist?

I think everyone here realizes that every single Palestinian is not a bloodthirsty anti-semite. Surely, most of them are not. However some clearly are.

Which makes pelsar's point a valid one. Even if he was a racist it wouldn't invalidate his question one iota. Why don't you try answering it instead of using these cheap avoidance techniques?

Actually, I'm curious. If the question fell to you, would you be willing to drive a supply truck to bring gas and food to Gaza?

Those words:

"no moral obligation ... to a society that attempts to kill me"

Anyone here can freely come to their own conclusions on that statement.

But speaking of misinterpretations - since when does quoting what someone said suddenly become a "cheap avoidance technique"? How is it a "deliberate misinterpretation" to quote word for word exactly what was said?

Interesting that you decide to spend your time interpreting and defending the point as somehow being a "valid one". Might want to reconsider that. I'm sorry to have decimated your arguments above (regarding what the Geneva Conventions covers), but please - take it out on someone else.

Might want to reconsider that. I'm sorry to have decimated your arguments above (regarding what the Geneva Conventions covers), but please - take it out on someone else.

Looks like someone's very excited to be on the winning side of an argument for once. How's it feel? Feel good?

Well, sorry to bust your bubble, but the sad fact of the matter is that we were both mistaken on the meaning of that Geneva quote. I'll type it up a little later tonight. Sufficed to say, none of your counter-argument survived, so you might want to return your streamers while you've still got the receipt. Sorry dude. You'll get 'em next time.

I can't wait to read this brilliant counter argument you're conjuring. Must be a real doozy!

I'll get to writing it up soon. But remember, it wasn't just you, we both got the Geneva quote wrong. So I can't give you too hard a time over it.

I'm still interested in hearing your response to my question though. Since Hamas is attacking the Israelis who bring in the aid, it means that for Israel to provide supplies it must ask its people to risk their necks to deliver it. Being against collective punishment is one thing, asking Israelis to risk their lives to deliver the aid is another. I can understand their reluctance to risk their lives bringing aid to the very people who are trying to kill them for doing so. So I'm asking you to put yourself in their place...

Pretend that you are Israeli for a moment. Would you be willing to risk your own life by driving a supply truck into Gaza to deliver aid to the Palestinians? Because it seems unfair to expect someone else to make a sacrifice that you wouldn't be willing to make yourself, were you in their shoes.

You know, taking a look at the development of this discussion, there are 5 replies to my comment quoting what Pelsar wrote. And from those replies a few sub-threads have spawned. However, among those replies - you are the only one to seem to have at least recognized the inherent problems with making that kind of statement. You know what I am saying?

You at least had that recognition. The others responses didn't -- just take a look at the other replies. You have participants here actually attempting to defend the actual statement. Not just re-interpret and try to explain the way you did. But trying to make a case for the legitimacy of the actual quote! Tell me - do you think that's ok? No, I see that you are better than that. You detected the problem and you didn't try to defend it, instead you sort of re-interpreted it to fit a separate point being made. Unfortunately - you were the only one that did so. Whereas the other posts just tried to defend the point. That is rather sad, don't you think?

It's easy when you're coming from a place like the US, which has a proud liberal tradition of eschewing any argument that seems like it may utilize racism as its core, to criticize any argument that smacks of ethnic generalization. When you're trying to describe a conflict that is split down ethnic/religious/national lines like the IP one though, the rules and motivations are a lot less clear. I have seen a lot of accusations of racism going both ways here. It almost seems to be a game to catch someone out in a statement that shows a bias against Israel because it is "Jewish" or that admits that the Israeli animosity towards Palestinians is rooted in ethno-centrism. For the most part they are ill founded. Not always though.

In pelsar's case, after reading a year+ of his posts I am confident that bigotry is not responsible for his opinions on Palestine. His problem with Israel delivering supplies while Hamas is attacking the crossings was pretty clear to me. But in terms of everyone else's responses and their support of the notion that Palestinian society was trying to kill Israelis, this isn't something that I feel falls into the American understanding of racism, even though it can seem that way sometimes.

Again I would ask you to put yourself into the average Israeli's shoes on this one. There has been 100 years or so of such unvarnished hatred of their state's existence from all over the Arab world, I don't think it is unreasonable to say that Palestinian society wants to kill Israelis. Sure, not every Palestinian supports the rocket attacks or suicide bombing. But it is undeniable that a culture of violent anti-Zionism runs through their entire society where it encounters various degrees of support which, though it may rise and fall over time, is always pervasive.

Ultimately I don't think it matters whether Palestine's ENTIRE society supports Qassam attacks. In any war it is unlikely that 100% of either population wants to destroy the other. I think that getting caught up in the details of pelsar's statement isn't productive; it doesn't matter if every Palestinian supports Hamas because for all practical purposes to the supply truck driver entering Gaza, the danger he faces is exactly the same. pelsar could have asked why he should risk his life to deliver supplies to a society that elected a government whose main goal is Israel's destruction, and you probably wouldn't have had as much a problem with it. All I did was focus on the specific issue and rephrased it so you would focus on the problem, as I saw it.

Whew. That said... what WOULD you do, in that same situation? Would you drive that supply truck?

Oh, BTW, I answered your Geneva post above.

Sorry for the delay; I've been busy.

The first thing I'd like to address is on your point that it "seems to be a game to catch someone out in a statement that shows a bias". What I would suggest is - isn't that almost how it should be around here? Shouldn't we be calling others out for making broad negative characterizations of a group of people as a whole? Of course it shouldn't be a 'game' and the accusations shouldn't be unfounded. However, just imagine if it was the opposite - where people could post negative stereotypes, broad characterizations, and even racist comments, without any consequence and nobody calling them on it. We wouldn't want that, would we?

IMO pelsar's comment that a "society" is trying to kill me is one that should be questioned, don't you think? IMO I don't see much room for debate on that point. It's not unreasonable to argue that you just can't paint an entire "society" as trying to kill you without someone here demanding a little clarification. At the minimum, some red flags should be raised from a statement like that. Again, it's not the same as playing some kind of game where post after post is scrutinized to try to 'catch' someone, just waiting to pounce on the slightest objectionable sentence or phrase, with an agenda of tarnishing that person's reputation.

But what troubles me the most with your post is you seem to want to distinguish between an 'American' understanding of racism, vs the understanding of racism held by Israelis. Asking me to put myself in their shoes, as if doing so might somehow alter the reality of the nature of racism itself. No, I don't agree there. Racism doesn't change on a basis of how much hatred one has experienced in their life -- it is what it is; it is definable and not subject to change IMO.

Here's the question that I always ask: Is it fair to reflect the same question or statement back on both societies? (And in any topic of debate, for that matter). For example, you write above that there is an "always pervasive" "culture of violent anti-Zionism (running) through their entire society". I suggest you reflect that question back on Israeli society. So would it be fair to write that "there is a pervasive culture of violent anti-Palestinian self-determination running throughout Israeli society". Is that seriously a fair question to ask? Do you think someone here might call out the person that made such a statement? The point is not whether there is or if there isn't. The point is that it's unfair to describe an entire nation or an entire society of people with negative characterizations. That doesn't necessarily mean the statement is racist or bigoted, either. But it certainly doesn't make it right.

I think these are basic, and obvious rules of engagement that should apply to everyone. Either you agree with those standards or you don't. The standard itself is pretty simple though, and it's also in the I/P rules: "Do not make over-sweeping or stereotypical generalizations of any group or individual." Note, there is not one rule for Americans, and another rule for Israelis.

lets make it simpler and in fact you can try to "reflect it back"..and you will see the difference.

if i was to drive an aid truck in to gaza...be stationed at erez (again), .....i am very much aware that there is a good chance that there will be an attempt upon my life: it may be taxi driver, it maybe the "pregnant women" it may be the 16yr mentally retarded kid, it may be the car that suddenly comes out of nowhere, it may be the donkey, the bicycle on the side...in short i have no idea where the attack will come from, but i have no doubt that it may from someone, somewhere within gaza from citizens or the militia or both......attacks from gaza have been happening daily.

now reverse it....the Palestinian day laborer, the hospital out patient, the aid truck driver, etc enters israel.....unlike me, he is sure that he is not going to be attacked. As he enters he will go through a security check, that is non life threatening and continue on his way.....

thats the difference.....

And no-one accused him of being racist, btw...

Anyway, as yr saying Pelsar's meaning is pretty clear, can you or Pelsar explain to me what society Pelsar was referring to if it wasn't Palestinian society? Because if it was a reference to Palestinian society, then the comment is every bit as bigoted as making negative generalisations about Israeli society...

hamas is the governing body which makes them responsible for the actions of the "gazans".....

when settlers build settlements dont we refer to the govt of israel as being responsible (which it is in my eyes). When the IDF attacks the govt of israel is responsable...so when hamas attacks israel shall we say the "gaza" attacks (as in israel attacks?)

surely its not "hamas" that is attacking, that would describe a militia and not the elected governing body that had a coup.......and is now responsable for the welfare of the gazans.....

so i chose "society" perhaps not the best description....but i am open for suggestions.

It's just that society is a term that when used to describe a national group encompasses the entire nationality. When it comes to government, I do think the government should be held responsible, whether it's Hamas being responsibility for attacks on Israel or the Israeli government being responsible for the actions of settlers...

hamas controls gaza, the govt, elected, hamas and others (islamic jihad) daily, attempts to kill israelis.....its the present govt?.....i admit to not knowing the individual names of those who are shooting the rockets and ambushing the trucks bringing in supplies, but those actions are sanctioned by the govt of gaza....

that defines those actions as the society in general. As in israel there will be elements who disagree with the hamas govts actions, however just one can complain about the israel and the settlement policy one can mention gaza and rockets.

though i suspect you will avoid this.....

i think i've asked but never received a real answer...you dont like the collective punishment, fair enough, so what is your suggestion for israel to implement in the next few days that will stop or reduce the kassams/katushas/mortars etc on the israeli cities, border posts, etc

i never seem to get a list of "action" items that can be implemented tomorrow that will have an affect within a few days....got any?
(here i'll save you some bandwidth, in the past when israel didnt react to the kassams...there was no change from hamas.....)

The most depressing thing about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is how incredibly easy it would be for the Israelis to end it.

Witness the ceasefire that preceded the Camp David Accords, when the Palestinians were mislead into believing that Barak might actually be serious about making peace.

The Israelis could make a near-total (probably not total, but they can reduce those resorting to violence from political movements with the support of their society to isolated individuals) peace any time they want to.

What Israel will never be able to have is peace and occupation at the same time, and the tragedy of the Middle East is that the Israelis continually elect governments who choose occupation rather than peace.

It really is that simple.

in Gaza. And look what they got in return. Rockets and now Grad (basically Katyusha) missiles. These rockets and missiles did not start after Israel imposed a siege on Gaza. The siege followed the rockets and missiles.

So, like Pelsar says, help us out here. What is it that Israel can or should do without getting condemned by the oh-so-progressive liberals like people on this board. It seems that whatever they do is wrong.

Furthermore, it needs to be stated and stressed, the PLO and its murderous terrorist methods, the forerunners of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, began way back in 1964, long before Israel dared to dream of "expansion" or settlements. Israel then was a tiny narrow strip of land. So what caused the Palestinians to demand liberation at that time? It couldn't possibly have been the actual existence of a Jewish state in their region? Could it? Naaah. Surely not possible. :sarcasm:

Israel has many times made offers to reduce but continue the occupation.

What it needs to do is to end it, and to withdraw to its own territory.

by whos definition...may i remind you of lebanon? israel withdrew to the acknowledged border, sanctioned by the UN and guess what it got in return?

katushas, sniping, kidnapping.......

_____

and if when israel withdraws from the westbank...do you really believe they're wont be kassams and mortars on jersualem?
______

anyway you didnt answer my question..the question pertains to today, tomorrow or even next week?....what should israel do about the incoming rockets today?

When Israel withdrew from Lebanon, it continued occupying Palestinian territories. A partial end to the occupation will not satisfy Israel's enemies, as I've repeatedly said already.

Ending the occupation of Lebanon but continuing to occupy Gaza and the West Bank won't achieve peace. Ending the occupation of Gaza and continuing to occupy the West Bank won't achieve peace. Ending the occupation of the West bank and continuing to occupy the parts of Jerusalem outside the Green Line won't achieve peace. Ending the occupation will achieve peace.

As to what Israel should do today? Offer peace, including the end of the occupation. Demonstrate that this time, at last, it's really serious about peace by making clear that if the Palestinians and their allies meet it's demands for an end to violence, it's willing to finally withdraw to its own borders. Refrain from killing innocent Palestinian civilians, even if it means Palestinian militants get away unpunished.

If, as you appear to be suggesting, Israel holds out for a total unilateral cessation of violence from the Palestinian side before agreeing to negotiate an end to its own violence - which is literally several orders of magnitude worse (deaths between the start of this year and the last count I saw a few days ago were 6 soldiers and 6 civilians on the Israeli side, and 319 - more than half of them civilians, and many children - on the Palestinian side) - then it will never have peace.

kassams on jerusalem after the withdrawl?...and what about tomorrow?......(do you believe israel should do nothing about the kassams being launched right now?)

what was the withdrawl from gaza if not a serious attempt to test the waters?- we saw it as such...withdrawl equals peace has been the mantra...doesnt seem so.

and btw what withdrawl is acceptable?...67? 48?....67 + land swaps?....does hamas, islamic jihad, fatah, al aska brigages all agree on the definition of this withdrawl?

and if some of them dont and continue to shoot...then what?
____

btw hizballa isnt interested in withdrawl...they want conquest.
__

my suggestion is simple: first gaza, the Palestinian govt over there should concentrate on their own population and quit trying to murder israelis daily.

There was no chance of it being enough to bring peace, and (I suspect) the Israeli government knew that and didn't intend it to, but it was enough to make most of the international community continue to lay all the blame for the conflict on the Palestinians.

In answer to your question about "the rockets being launched now", I think that Israel should:

:-Immediately offer a full withdrawal on a short, definitive timescale if/once the Palestinians stop violence.
:-Make it clear that the clock on that timescale will not start ticking until there is a near-total cessation of Palestinian violence(a total is not viable for another generation), but, crucially, that it will once there is.
:-In the interim, use military action to prevent Palestinian violence where it is possible to do so without killing large numbers of innocent civilians.
:-Endure Palestinian violence when it is not possible to do so without killing large numbers of innocent civilians - I am aware that you & most Israelis feel that the lives of Palestinians are worth less than the lives of Israelis, but I do not think that this is a justifiable position, and the consequence - more generations of Palestinians with cause to hate Israel - is counterproductive even for Israel.
:-Do as much as it can to alleviate the humanitarian catastrophe it has caused among the Palestinians.

Will this result in a total end to Palestinian killing of Israelis? No, of course not. Will it result in fewer Palestinian killings of Israelis than any other possible course of action? Yes, I think it will.

Can you see any set of policies the Israelis could follow that will result in fewer total expected Israeli deaths? What would you do if you were prime minister of Israel?

nothing turns out as planned.

the great 67 war lead to the disaster of the settlements

the near disaster and near humiliation of 73 lead to peace with egypt

removing the PLO from lebanon led to hizballa

withdrawl from gaza (not a pr move from the israeli perspective but a testing of the grounds) led to hamas and missiles on cities

bringing in arafat and his cronies led to the removal of the grass roots leaders of intifada i and the disaster of intifada II

etc.

your plan?....doesnt have a snowballs chance in hell....at every turn some group will overturn it
______

my plan?....freeze the settlements close off gaza and force them to work with the egyptians and wait....wait until until the kassams stop, wait until gazans decide its better to build up their own society rather than attack israel. Let that be the first step in turning the mind set of attacking israel. For the first time in Palestinian history let them build something, create a working society not based on israel.....and then we can move from there. The decision is for the Palestinians in gaza to take their situation and make the best of it, no matter how shitty it is.....the westbank will have to wait...a mistake there will be even more disastrous for the Palestinians.

there are not always solutions to political problems.....

The Palestinians won't stop armed struggle against Israel while the occupation continues, and nor should they have to (although they should stop targetting civilians & settlers).

Or do you deny that that's what the certain results of your plan would be?

is based on the fact that the two groups do not trust each other...its also based on the principle that each should do what is in its own best interests.....Coordinated Reciprocal Unilateral Action

......disputants may sometimes find it easier to make a particular concession unilaterally, on the grounds that it serves their self-interest, than to make the same concession in the context of bilateral negotiation

http://www.pij.org/details.php?id=818
________________

no grand gestures will work....leaving gaza was a huge "break the cycle, do something dramatic, etc...and just read how you defined it: a PR exercise...just because the Palestinians didnt know or couldnt take advantage of israel leaving is very significant..but whats more is the way its been belittled by the "progressives"

was essentially the Oslo Accords. Back in 1993 Israel followed a plan that was very similar to the one you put forward here. And what was the reaction? Hamas and Islamic Jihad publicly denounced any plan that was not based on full Palestinian autonomy over the whole of historic Palestine and immediately began increased terrorist attacks within Israel. Bearing that in mind, along with the similar reaction whenever Israel has done something along the lines of what you suggest, what makes you think that your idea would result in anything different?

As far as the withdrawal from gaza being a PR exercise, I don't think that it was viewed as such at all by anyone prior to its execution. Not in the least, and certainly not in Israel or by the Palestinians. But if it was, as you seem to think, then surely a great deal of articles, op-eds and public statements by human rights groups and politicians exists from before the withdrawal took place. Do you think you'd be able to find a few of these to support your position?

It seems rather convenient that this grand gesture on Israel's part has suddenly become labeled a mere PR exercise after the Palestinians failed to take advantage of the opportunity they had, don't you think? Prove me wrong. Point out some pre-withdrawal opinions who labeled it a PR effort and nothing more. An Israeli one would really carry some weight, if you can find such a thing.

and I just don't think you are so naive,

There will be no peace, even if Israel cleared out from all the settlements and occupied not an inch of land beyond the green line.

Because after all, the violence and terrorism really isn't about occupation at all.

Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as the religious leaders, tell us daily what this is all about.

It isn't about occupation, but about Arabs wanting every square inch of what is now Israel.

I am surprised you buy the party line that the terrorism has a thing to do with occupation.

Don't listen to me; Read the words of the leaders in Gaza.

The Arabs attack Israel because a) it makes them suffer and b) they view it as their enemy.

Ending the occupation would largely, albeit not totally, remove a). That's the simple part of the occupation.

The complicated thing is that to end b) an end to the occupation would have to be presented as a break with the past, and whether or not it succeeded would depend on how and when it was done. It would have to be done with humility, and with admission of wrongdoing, and in such a way that it was clear that it was not being done as a result of violence or pressure but because the Israeli's realised that they had been wrong to occupy in the first place.

Undoubtedly, many Arabs would be willing to accept that, and some wouldn't; there would inevitably be some individuals who continued violence against Israel for a generation. However, if it were done right, or even half-right, it would be enough to gain the support for peace of the large majority of Arabs, and to break the vicious circle, I think.

You insist there will be no peace. You insist that the Palestinian population is full of hatred. And you insist that the violence isn't anything to do with occupation and all to do with religion. So holding, those views, I find the much rarer claims of yrs that yr opposed to the settlements and support a two-state solution to be in conflict with those other views you hold. So, can you explain exactly why you support a two-state solution and are opposed to the settlements?

There are many people who are opposed to the settlements and support a two-state solution.

I would say most of the posters here are of that point of view.

My point is that is that there will be no peace as long as Israel has no negotiating partner.

Hamas does not want peace. It does not want to negotiate with Israel.

I want what all sane people want, which is two independent states.

Unfortunately, the Palestinian leadership seems unwilling or unable to embrace the goals of peace.

There is nothing at all unusual or rare about my claims.

The Israelis could easily bring the Palestinians to the table and negotiate a settlement with them, *if* they first made it clear that they were willing to make the concessions that settlement would take. But they're not, and the Palestinians - perferctly reasonably - aren't interested in "peace" on the only terms Israel is willing to offer.

The Israelis do have a partner for peace. The Palestinians haven't since Rabin died.

that will please the Palestinians, because the Palestinian leadership has made it clear that it will make no concessions at all.

No negotiation.

No settlement.

Just obliterating Israel and taking it back as an Arab land.

They want ALL of Israel, don't you see that?

Hamas makes it clear every day. Why don't you believe them?

Sorry if you don't see why the Israelis will not be suicidal enough to make those unreasonable concessions.

most accurate analysis of the situation I have seen since I joined DU.
You got it all in a nutshell, plain and simple.

Hamas is clearly the problem, not Israel, not Egypt but Hamas.

And according to Israel and its 'supporters' in the US, no matter who leads the Palestinians there will never be a 'partner in peace' (ignoring the fact that there's been long periods in Israel's history where the Palestinians haven't had a 'partner in peace')...

While Vegasaurus didn't even attempt to answer the question I asked her, I'm glad you found her incredibly simplistic view of things so 'accurate'. Can I ask why you view things as being one where blame only falls on one side?

I see Hamas as the main stumbling block for peace for the Palestinian people.
However I also believe that neither side is blameless, especially re the settlements.

I asked you to tell me *why* you claim yr opposed to the settlements and support a Palestinian state. How about answering that question. I don't see what's so difficult about the question...

If it helps, go back and read my post. That should explain to you very clearly why I'm asking you and I'm not asking most other posters in this forum...

why don't you understand it?

The odder answer would be to support two states AND support the settlements.

Not supporting settlements but supporting a two state solution is the response you would get from most posters here.

Stop following me around and asking me the same questions that I have already answered.

...and support the creation of a Palestinian state. If you have explained that and how you feel it doesn't conflict with yr other views, it must have happened in an earlier thread while I haven't been here, as it most certainly wasn't answered in this thread....

Asking you to answer what should be an easy question to answer isn't 'following you around', btw. Last time I checked this is a discussion forum and if you don't want to discuss issues or answer questions, then all you have to do is say so...

What do you propose be done with the settlers? Should they be forcibly expelled or should they have the option of remaining where they are living now, under a new Palestinian government, obviously?

And are willing to give up their Israeli citizenship in exchange for Palestinian citizenship and permission to remain where they are?

Seriously. No-one gives a shit what Palestinians want, so why should Israeli settlers be any different?

Some of these settlements are communities that have existed for quite some time. How is expelling the settlers based on their ethnicity any different than expelling Palestinians from Jewish areas of East Jerusalem?

The reason for their removal would be because the settlements are illegal under international law....

Many of them are on land that was previously purchased and inhabited by Jewish communities. Or are areas that have always been Jewish, such as the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, but were ethnically cleansed of Jews in '48.

So would you consider the Palestinians who "settled" in east Jerusalem after 1948 to be illegal settlers as well? Should they be expelled now?

There's no maybe about it. It doesn't matter what the ethnicity of the settler is, the fact that they're Israeli citizens who were moved into occupied territory is what it's about...

When it comes to claims that some area or other had Jews in it years ago, I'll use the same level of sympathy used for Palestinians who lived in areas in what is now Israel that were always Arab villages and towns, and that's Tough Shit...

I didn't realise the Palestinians were carrying out an occupation of East Jerusalem, Shakti.

I didn't realise the Palestinians were carrying out an occupation of East Jerusalem, Shakti.

They aren't. But the Jordanians were. And they moved Jordanian citizens in to areas that were ethnically cleansed of Jews who had been living there for thousands of years. Less than 20 years later Jews began moving back to those areas. Now, if you are arguing that those Jews have no right to remain there because they settled on occupied land, then the same must go for any Palestinians who moved onto Jordanian occupied land, correct?

I actually have serious doubts that Geneva was meant to restrict ethnically cleansed people from moving back to their land a few years after being thrown off. But since there has yet to be any kind of authoritative court ruling on the matter, it is a matter of opinion.

Regardless I am surprised to hear that your opinion is that a people can lose any right to land they own or have lived on because they have were ethnically cleansed from it a few years previously. So you don't agree that Palestinians deserve compensation for the nakba at all either? Surprising.

There's no maybe about it. It doesn't matter what the ethnicity of the settler is, the fact that they're Israeli citizens who were moved into occupied territory is what it's about...

Actually, that's not true. Israel didn't move them. They moved themselves, of their own free will. An important distinction when it comes to Geneva if I recall. And while Geneva says that the act of moving them is illegal, it doesn't say anything about what to do once they are already there. Should Israel leave without taking the settlers, then the settlements would cease to be illegal, no? Either way that would put them in the same boat as the Palestinians who inhabit previously Jewish areas of E.J. like the Jewish quarter. If you think that their presence would still be illegal and that they should be evicted, then the same should be currently said of the Palestinians who settled earlier in E.J.

Lastly, aside from the fact that the settlers could possibly legally be evicted, Palestine would have the choice not to. And even if they have the right to evict them it would still constitute ethnic cleansing. Just because you can legally cleanse an entire ethnicity from your state does not mean that it isn't ethnic cleansing, you know. And does it truly have nothing to do with ethnicity? For instance, there's those Jordanian Palestinians who illegally settled E.J. Unless Palestine also evicts them from their homes it would appear that the issue is not once of illegal settlement but one of ethnicity.

I've never seen anything about Jordan moving Jordanian citizens into areas of East Jerusalem. Do you have anything I can read that doesn't come from one of those propaganda ridden sites that riddle the internet?

Don't you see that the argument yr putting up in some sort of attempt to claim that Israeli settlers in the West Bank should be allowed to stay should also be applied to Palestinians who lost their homes when Israel was created? If I supported the physical right of return of all Palestinian refugees, then I'd have some sympathy for yr argument, but I don't and I flatly refuse to have a different set of standards for Israelis than I do for Palestinians. Who gives a toss who lived where for how many hundred of years? That doesn't give the Hebron extremists any claim on Hebron, for example. People demand that the Palestinians drop their yearning for destroyed towns and villages that are now inside Israel, so why should Israelis in the Occupied Territories be treated any differently?

Actually, that's not true. Israel didn't move them. They moved themselves, of their own free will. An important distinction when it comes to Geneva if I recall. And while Geneva says that the act of moving them is illegal, it doesn't say anything about what to do once they are already there.

Sorry, but it is true, and it's been discussed here with you more than once, if i remember correctly. Israel has encouraged movement of its own civilians into the Occupied Territories with subsidies and supplies the infrastructure needed for the settlements. There was a very good thread from quite a few years back where Jack Rabbit and a pro-Israel poster called Dove Turned Hawk explained to someone exactly why the settlements are illegal and why Israel was responsible for the movement of Israeli civilians into the Occupied Territories. my computer suffered a big hard-drive hissyfit the other day and I've lost all my bookmarks, but I'll dig it up for you to read through tonight or tomorrow...

Just an out of left field question here, but do you agree with my view that the expulsion and flight of Palestinians in the 1940's was ethnic cleansing?

Sorry so late, been busy with clients & work.



I've never seen anything about Jordan moving Jordanian citizens into areas of East Jerusalem. Do you have anything I can read that doesn't come from one of those propaganda ridden sites that riddle the internet?

To clarify, Jordan moved Jordanians to EJ in very much the same manner that Israel moved settlers into the WB, they allowed them to move there. Let's look at the Jewish Quarter for instance. Around 2000 Jews fled in 48-49. Subsequently, around 2000 Palestinian refugees moved in to the area, primarily people who had lost their homes in the nakba... all of whom were granted Jordanian citizenship. Jordan razed around a third of the buildings and replaced them with gas stations and parking lots. I don't see why you need me to verify this information. You know the WB Palestinians became Jordanians following the war and that they moved into EJ and that Jordan facilitated the process... right?

Don't you see that the argument yr putting up in some sort of attempt to claim that Israeli settlers in the West Bank should be allowed to stay should also be applied to Palestinians who lost their homes when Israel was created? If I supported the physical right of return of all Palestinian refugees, then I'd have some sympathy for yr argument, but I don't and I flatly refuse to have a different set of standards for Israelis than I do for Palestinians.

Yes, I do see that. In fact, it is my point. I am obviously not actually arguing in favor of having the Arabs of EJ expelled or of allowing settlements to remain as part of Palestine. I am using them to argue that you DO have a different set of standards that fluctuates depending on your opinion of "who should get what." There's very little difference between what Jordan did and what Israel did. Basically, when Jerusalem was under Jordanian occupation and Jordan let its citizens move in they were legally in the same boat as the settlers are. The difference is that you clearly think that those "settlers" should not be evicted but the Israeli ones who moved there 19 years later should be. (Jordanian Palestinians living in EJ were allowed to stay there and were offered Israeli citizenship should they desire. So why can't Israeli settlers have the same opportunity?)

More importantly, even if expelling them is legal, doesn't that just mean that it is legal ethnic cleansing in this case? The only reason that the settlements are illegal is because all the Jews were already ethnically cleansed from there, right? So to now say, "No, we're only removing ALL the Jews from the WB now (again) because these ones are here illegally" is a pretty flimsy defense. Whether you think it is right or wrong, legal or not is irrelevant... it is ethnic cleansing. (Just like evicting Arabs from EJ would be ethnic cleansing, regardless of its legality.)

Just an out of left field question here, but do you agree with my view that the expulsion and flight of Palestinians in the 1940's was ethnic cleansing?

To some extent, yes. Regardless of whether expulsion and flight qualify, I think that not allowing the Palestinians back in after the war was certainly ethnic cleansing. And I believe it was necessary. Just as I recognize that evicting the settlers is also ethnic cleansing but support that.

Blockades are legitimate tactics of war and are under no obligation to supply anything. It is not collective punishment. In any case its not really a blockade because they can use Egypt.

As Prof. Michael Krauss of George Mason University Law School points out

Michael I. Krauss is professor of law at George Mason University School of Law. J. Peter Pham is director of the Nelson Institute for International and Public Affairs at James Madison University. Both are adjunct fellows of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.


Feeding the Hand that Bites You

snip


full


In short, notwithstanding the outraged houls from the external enablers of Hamas, there is no basis in international humanitarian law for claiming any belligerent is obliged to supply energy to territory occupied by the enemy, conventional or otherwise.


Is Israel Bound by International Law to

Supply Utilities, Goods, and Services to Gaza?

Abraham Bell





full

And anything that has the words 'anti-Israel pundits...' and 'Gaza is now Judenrein' in it is merely propaganda and no-one in their right mind would be inclined to believe it over what human rights groups like HRW say....

Also, Israel isn't at war. If it is, where's the declaration of war, where's the POW's? The blockade is illegal under international law as it's aimed at civilians, which is what makes it an act of collective punishment. The Israeli govt itself has stated that the intention of the blockade was to make Palestinian civilians turn on Hamas, so there's no disputing it...

If you want to try to argue that Gaza isn't occupied, as someone who's not decided on whether it's still an occupation or not, can I suggest that you look for information from non-partisan sites without an agenda to peddle? I enjoy reading stuff on the international law side of things, but some of the stuff linked to from this forum is complete drool...

who also served for five years on Québec's Human Rights Commission and countless other accomplishments. If he is giving propaganda it should be easy for you to refute rather than attack him. He has a spotless reputation and writes for many publications. Joe Stork from HRW on the other hand has no where near the credentials or experience as Krauss. Stork has a Master's Degree in International Affairs/Middle East Studies from Columbia University compared to a Yale Law degree. He is a radical anti Israel activist who acts with an agenda and bias rather than objectivity


Joe Stork HRW

Before joining HRW, Stork was a highly visible and radical anti-Israel political activist and ex-editor of Middle East Report. After the 1972 Munich Olympic massacre, this organization urged socialists to "comprehend the achievements" of the atrocity. ("Who Are the Terrorists," MERIP Reports, No. 12, September-October, 1972, pp12-13) Similarly, after a Palestinian terror attack on an Israeli school, Stork’s organization declared that "all Israeli settlers are potential targets of the Palestinian resistance" ("Ma'alot: an Account and an Evaluation," MERIP Reports, No. 29, (June 1974), pp21-3. Since coming to HRW, Stork’s biases have shaped this organization’s activities and its credibility.

full
http://ngo-monitor.org/editions/v2n09/v2n09-7.htm



Professor Michael I. Krauss

In 1994, PROFESSOR OF LAW MICHAEL I. KRAUSS became the law school's first recipient of the university's "Teacher of the Year" award for his engaging and challenging approach in the classroom. Born in the United States but raised in Canada, Professor Krauss speaks legalese in two languages. He earned his B.A. cum laude from Carleton University, his LL.B. summa cum laude from the Université de Sherbrooke, and his LL.M. from Yale Law School, where he was a Commonwealth Scholar. He was Columbia University's Law and Economics Fellow in 1981. He has been teaching at George Mason since 1987 and also has taught at the law schools of Seattle University, the University of Toronto, and the Université de Sherbrooke.


Hired as a law clerk by Justice Louis-Philippe Pigeon of Canada's Supreme Court, Professor Krauss practiced law for Quebec City's largest law firm before entering academia. He also served for five years on Québec's Human Rights Commission. A Salvatori Fellow of the Heritage Foundation and an academic fellow of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, Professor Krauss sits on the advisory boards of several think tanks. He served as president of the Virginia Association of Scholars and on the Board of Governors of the Education Section of the Virginia State Bar, and is currently a member of the Board of Governors of the National Association of Scholars.

Professor Krauss teaches Torts, Legal Ethics and Jurisprudence, and has a strong interest in national security issues. His research on torts and ethics is nationally known. He co-authored the first edition of Legal Ethics in a Nutshell in May 2003. This book digests the Model Rules in an engaging and often critical fashion. The second edition was published in 2006. Professor Krauss is now under contract with West Publications to produce an innovative textbook on Products Liability in late 2008.

http://classweb.gmu.edu/mkrauss/






Yes they are just as anyone you are in a conflict is such as Japan and the US in WW2. This crap that only the Government in a conflict is the enemy but civilians are not is absolutly moronic. While there are laws regarding treatment of civilians and actions that effect them it does not mean they are not the enemy nor do you have a equal responsibility to them as to your own citizens it does not require Israel to supply Gaza with fuel or electricity or any other materials, goods, or services. Israel has a greater responsibility to protect its own citizens.





That is a crock. Judenrein is an apt way to describe the Joy to Hamas it gives. As I said above Krauss has much more experience and credibility than Stork including not to mention he is a legal expert and has 5 years on Québec's Human Rights Commission. Stork, even more so than HRW as a whole, is of questionable credibility and has a habit of making up facts, exaggeration and inserting his radical anti Israel bias. .

HRW’s Gaza Statement: Moral Muddle and False Allegations

The statement written by Joe Stork of Human Rights Watch (HRW) condemning Israel’s response to rocket bombardment from Gaza exploits and distorts international law.
Of the 34 paragraphs, Stork only mentions the hundreds of rocket attacks against Israel in two sentences, demonstrating the double standards in this invective.
HRW’s claim that Gaza remains “occupied” is a politically based fiction designed to negate Israel’s legal and moral right to self-defense.
There is no legal or moral precedent for a country to be forced to provide a hostile neighbor with the means to continue attacks on its territory and against its civilians.
HRW’s statement is a moral muddle that further undermines the universality of human rights.


snip
Stork Invents “Facts”
Stork also gets the facts wrong, including the false implication that Israel cut off electricity supplies to Gaza.3 In reality, Israel decreased fuel supplies but maintained its provision of electricity to Gaza. HRW’s statement also omits the fact that Israel supplied Gaza with cooking gas, 500,000 liters of diesel fuel for generators, primarily for hospitals, 2.2 million liters of industrial fuel for power plants, and 50 trucks of humanitarian aid.

While many journalists acknowledged that Hamas manipulated and manufactured this “humanitarian crisis”, including ordering bakery owners to keep their stores closed, this was inconsistent with Stork’s objective. He also ignored evidence that fuel intended for a European hospital in Gaza was diverted to supply the “Hamas-affiliated Executive Force.” HRW’s portrayal of the mass exodus through the border with Egypt as an act of desperation in response to the Israeli “blockade” is also misleading, in the light of the televisions and other luxury goods purchased by the Palestinians. They were clearly not starving, or in the middle of a life-threatening crisis.

HRW’s Own Word Games

As in most of HRW’s reporting on the Israeli-Arab conflict, this statement includes numerous misstatements and distortions of international law.4 Following Palestinian claims, HRW asserts that since Israel “still controls Gaza’s airspace, territorial waters, and land borders”, it is an “occupier”, but fails to cite any provision of the Geneva or Hague Conventions – the international treaties that establish the law of occupation. In contrast, Article 6of the Fourth Geneva Convention on the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War states that a foreign power is only considered an occupier "to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory." Since 1995, and certainly since Israel’s disengagement in 2005, Gaza's Palestinian population has been under Palestinian Authority jurisdiction.5 And Stork’s “facts” to the contrary, Gaza’s southern border is controlled by Egypt (and not only for “this week”, in Stork’s version.)

snip
Minimizing Palestinian Terror
Stork’s ideology-based analysis also minimizes the context of terror, making only passing reference to the barrage of rocket attacks launched from Gaza on Israeli civilians. Between January 16 and 21, 2008, more than 225 rockets have been launched from Hamas-controlled Gaza against Israeli towns. From June to December 2007, the totals were 475 missiles and 631 mortar bombs. In addition, HRW fails to ascribe responsibility for these attacks to the Hamas government but rather only to “Palestinian armed groups” and “militants”.

Following HRW’s long-established pattern of ignoring the human rights of Israelis under daily bombardment from Gaza, Stork claims Israel’s real security concerns are merely a pretext to “arbitrarily block<...>, delay<...> and harass<...> people with emergency medical problems who need to leave Gaza for urgent care” or to prevent “6,000 people with foreign citizenship, permanent foreign residency, work permits, student visas, or university admissions abroad,” from leaving Gaza. In this case, as well HRW is very selective with factual claims, omitting several instances where Palestinians have exploited Israel’s humanitarian policies to carry out terror attacks. In May 2007, for instance, a pregnant woman and her niece, who had been granted permission to seek medical treatment in Ramallah, were arrested for planning to carry out a double suicide attack in Tel Aviv and Netanya. In another incident four weeks ago, terrorists attempted to smuggle in explosives materials into Gaza hidden in sacks of sugar marked as European Union aid.

The result is a moral muddle and double standards that undermine universal human rights. As in many of its previous campaigns, such as “Razing Rafah” (October 2004), the flood of biased condemnations in the 2006 Lebanon War, the so-called “Gaza beach incident” (June 2006), false charges of war crimes in Jenin (2002), etc. HRW misuses and exploits international law to further political campaigns against Israel.

full
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article.php?viewall=yes&id=1782


NGO accuses HRW of Israel obsession

Human Rights Watch has systematically condemned Israel for "collective punishment" in the Gaza Strip, undermining its stated agenda of promoting human rights universally, according to a report released this week by the Jerusalem-based watchdog NGO Monitor.

The report, which provides a detailed analysis of HRW's publications and statements in 2007, compares the group's coverage of Israel with the way it treats other countries in similar situations, and concludes that its continued condemnations of Israeli actions are disproportionate and reflect a "clear, identifiable political bias."

"This report shows, yet again, that any claim of even-handedness by Human Rights Watch is hollow," said NGO Monitor's executive director, Bar-Ilan University Prof. Gerald Steinberg. "Their exclusive condemnation of Israeli 'collective punishment' is discriminatory, and should end immediately. HRW's continued disproportionate focus on Israel is not only an injustice, but it also allows some of the worst human rights abusers in the Middle East, countries like Syria and Libya, to escape serious scrutiny."

"The idea that we exclusively condemn Israel is absurd," said HRW Middle East Division Deputy Director Joe Stork. "We do criticize the Israeli blockade of Gaza as collective punishment, and solidly so. But I haven't seen this report from Mr. Steinberg, and he seldom has anything useful or truthful to say - you can quote me on that."

But citing Russia's 1999 policy of denying power, water, food or any humanitarian assistance to Chechnya - an action NGO Monitor says was far more widespread than Israel's blockade of Gaza - the report says that situation was not described as "collective punishment" by Human Rights Watch. Furthermore, the report points out that Azerbaijan's 1994 blockade of Armenia was supported by HRW, on the grounds that Armenia was "financing a war."

The report also mentions that while HRW condemns IDF actions against Hamas-sponsored rocket attacks from Gaza, the attacks themselves are labeled as "retaliatory," thus faulting Israel for the violence on both sides.



cont
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1209626989868&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

More
Human Rights Watch: Continuing the Anti-Israel Campaign
Summary: By employing long-time radical anti-Israeli extremist Joe Stork as its Middle East Director, HRW has highlighted its core political agenda, which is also the focus of a series of recent oped analyses.
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article.php?id=988



HRW Anti-Israel Bias Now A Mathematical Certainty
http://www.mererhetoric.com/archives/11274767.html

Human Rights Watch shows a disturbing disparity in its treatment of Israel and China.
http://www.spme.net/cgi-bin/articles.cgi?ID=602





There does not need to be a declaration of war.Did you even read the articles or the relevent GC conventions cited.

Its actually not even a blockade as Egypt has borders. In any case Israel is under no obligation to provide anything. "Siege and blockade of a hostile territory is a legitimate tactic of war, used in declared and undeclared". International law does not require Israel to supply Gaza with fuel or electricity or any other materials, goods, or services. Just repeating false statements that its against international law does not make it true. I have shown specific evidence from legal experts citing the relevent GC articles but you just make baseless statements. Show me where its Israels responsibility to supply Gaza with fuel or electricity or, indeed, with any other materials, goods, or services. Israel is complying with international law but groups like HRW and the anti Israel types try to hold Israel to double standards and standards no one else is or ever has been.

btw, You cant ban me here just because you cant refute the argument and evidence I present like you did at the other place. I also got banned at your enemies "semite" site. Both sites are cut from the same "intolerant to any disagreement" cloth unlike here where reasonable(it could be more but I understand) disagreement is tolerated.

from my article

Siege and blockade of a hostile territory is a legitimate tactic of war, used in declared and undeclared (e.g., Cuban) conflicts and explicitly recognized by the 1949 Geneva Conventions. The Conventions' sole limitation is that there be "free passage of all consignments of food-stuffs, clothing and tonics intended for children under fifteen, expectant mothers, and maternity cases" (Fourth Convention, art. 23) — and even this exception was conditioned on there being "no reasons for fearing... hat a definite advantage may accrue to the military efforts or economy of the enemy" (for example, if resources destined for humanitarian aid will be commandeered by the enemy). Israel has carefully respected this requirement.





Article 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention permits states like Israel to cut off fuel supplies and electricity to territories like Gaza. It only requires Israel to permit passage of food, clothing, and medicines intended for children under fifteen, expectant mothers, and maternity cases. Moreover, Israel would be under no obligation to provide anything itself, just not to interfere with such consignments sent by others. Article 70 of the First Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1977 creates a slightly broader duty regarding the provision of essential supplies, but it does not list fuel and electricity as items for which passage must be permitted.

Dependence on foreign supply - whether it be Gazan dependence on Israeli electricity or European dependence on Arab oil - does not create a legal duty to continue the supply. Absent specific treaty requirements, countries may cut off oil sales to other countries at any time. In addition, neither Israel nor any other country is required to supply goods in response to its foes' resource mismanagement or lack of natural bounty.

You seriously expect to convince anyone who's not in the *Israel Can Do No Wrong* choir that HRW are anti-Israel blah blah by posting from a site that insists that any NGO that dares to be the slightest bit critical of Israel is anti-Israel? Why is it so hard to avoid using incredibly partisan sites that are lacking in credibility?

I find it very disturbing that you view Palestinian civilians as the enemy. The I/P conflict isn't the total war that WWII was, so trying to tie it into that, where civilians on both sides were killed with blatant disregard, is very wrong.

That is a crock. Judenrein is an apt way to describe the Joy to Hamas it gives.

What's a load of crock is people thinking that using Nazi terminology isn't totally over the top and moronic.

As I said above Krauss has much more experience and credibility than Stork including not to mention he is a legal expert and has 5 years on Québec's Human Rights Commission. Stork, even more so than HRW as a whole, is of questionable credibility and has a habit of making up facts, exaggeration and inserting his radical anti Israel bias.

You can keep on saying it and posting yr links to biased sites lacking in credibility all you like. It doesn't change the fact that someone carrying on with the zealoted language like that one did is operating on emotion. Do you understand that bias and propaganda are tools used on both sides of the conflict, not just one? I don't understand why you post links to biased pro-Israeli sites and don't go looking for information that comes from credible sources that aren't partisan ones. Surely you see that sites like NGO Monitor are incredibly partisan sites that need to be taken with a grain of salt?

Its actually not even a blockade as Egypt has borders. In any case Israel is under no obligation to provide anything. "Siege and blockade of a hostile territory is a legitimate tactic of war, used in declared and undeclared". International law does not require Israel to supply Gaza with fuel or electricity or any other materials, goods, or services. Just repeating false statements that its against international law does not make it true. I have shown specific evidence from legal experts citing the relevent GC articles but you just make baseless statements. Show me where its Israels responsibility to supply Gaza with fuel or electricity or, indeed, with any other materials, goods, or services. Israel is complying with international law but groups like HRW and the anti Israel types try to hold Israel to double standards and standards no one else is or ever has been.

It's a blockade. Even the Israeli govt has called it that. It doesn't matter how many pro-Israeli'legal experts' ranting about Judenrein and how anti-Israel anyone who dares to criticise Israel is that you can find on the internets, what you need to do is find information that is balanced, and after reading you call Human Rights Watch 'anti Israel types', I don't think you understand what balance or objectivity is when it comes to this conflict.

And I'm soo sorry if my opinion that I'm undecided about whether Gaza is still considered occupied or not is seen by you as a baseless statement. I'd rather be honest and admit I'm not certain when something's not clear to me. Something that's very clear to me is that yr interpretation of international law is clumsily tailored to suit yr stance where Israel isn't responsible for anything at all.And rather than waste my time reading the nasty character assassinations of HRW's experts, and given that HRW are by far more objective and balanced in their treatment of the conflict, I'll pay more heed to what they say than what you and yr gaggle of zealoted 'experts' have to say...

btw, You cant ban me here just because you cant refute the argument and evidence I present like you did at the other place.

What are you babbling about now? I didn't ban you. And I don't recall you actually arguing anything when you did post. Let's focus on yr post I'm replying to, okay? Why would you think anyone should need to try to refute anything from NGO Monitor? It'd be like demanding that someone refute CounterPunch...

I have two kinds of things to say: (1) you've successfully gutted a plaid shirt stuffed with straw, something obvious unless you aren't a native speaker of English or are being intentionally uncooperative; (2) your argument doesn't entail what you think it entails.

First, (1).

When somebody says the GCs don't apply, they have a context in mind. Even the GCs play that kind of discourse-pragmatic game. Early on (Article 6) they say they only apply in the event of the outset of war or occupation--but some of the latter provisions are of general applicability, and apply because Article 2 is part of the verbal context. Article 2 is explicitly invoked, because it's assumed that lawyers and hostile demonstrating their hostility and lack of cooperativeness will be using them.

The context speaker have in mind can be physical, legal, verbal (or of other kinds). When somebody says the GCs apply to occupied Gaza, and somebody responds that they don't apply, native speakers fill in what's ellipted if there's even a modicum of cooperativeness: "The provisions dealing with occupation don't apply to Israel as far as Gaza is concerned."

That you don't fill in the gaps is, I think, not due to your not being a native speaker of English--speakers of the other languages I know have pretty similar kinds of ellipsis-completing rules--but due to willful uncooperativeness, a willful desire not to understand what is meant but to insist that your interpretation must be the one intended. No, that was not a compliment. Hostility is seldom a virtue, and should be stated at the outset.

For (2), let's quote more:

(Art. 6) "The present Convention shall apply from the outset of any conflict or occupation mentioned in Article 2.

"In the territory of Parties to the conflict, the application of the present Convention shall cease on the general close of military operations.

"In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; however, the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation, to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory, by the provisions of the following Articles of the present Convention: I to 12, 27, 29 to 34, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 59, 61 to 77, and 143."

The Conventions apply during conflict and for one year after the end of conflict; and they apply during an occupation.

There are two kinds of territory covered: Occupied territory--with the Occupying Power not bound over territories it doesn't control, whether by stipulation as quoted or in the text of the article itself (some of those not included in the list of articles above include language saying they're not applicable except to Occupying Powers); and "territory of Parties to the conflict".

For the GCs to have any applicability between Israel and Gaza, one of two things must obtain: There is conflict between Israel and Gaza or Gaza is occupied.

Now, you're conceding that Gaza isn't occupied, as far as I can tell. Otherwise you wouldn't argue that there are still other portions of the GCs that *do* apply--you let the actual argument I'd expect you to be arguing against unchallenged. It's fairly obvious that while Israel *does* fulfil some roles of government--at least on paper (does anybody really think that Israel is currently maintaining the birth/death registry in Gaza, or collecting income taxes there, or could stop Hamas from doing so?)--it obviously doesn't actually have any government ministries or exert any of the power in Gaza that, say, the Houston city government exerts in Houston. It's easy to point to something on paper and confuse it with reality on the ground. It's stupid and foolish to do so, but nobody said stupidity or foolishness were difficult achievements.

As for controlling the borders, most countries do that. For many years the only way in or out of Israel was by sea--all the borders were sealed, Israel was blockaded more on land then than Gaza is now--and nobody said that Israel was occupied, nobody got bent out of shape apart from some defenders of Israel (oh, and Israel itself). International trade through another country's territory isn't a human right, if there are alternatives. We can strike that as a talking point just as most of the others are shown to be irrelevant.

As for interdicting trade by sea and any air travel--that's a blockade, and should be called by its proper name. It's a hostile act, and indicates conflict: It's the one patent legal justification for Israel's preemptive strike in '67.


Now, since you want the other parts of the GC to apply--and you've read them, right?--that means you must be saying there's a conflict. (Good, we agree.) Otherwise those *other* articles wouldn't apply, as the GC itself says.

If there's a conflict, a number of unpalatable articles come into play--Israel must convey any orphans out of Gaza to a culturally similar neutral country; Israel shall ensure that food and fuel get through (with no requirement to provide them), *unless* there's risk of their being intercepted by the "enemy" or helping the enemy to wage war. If Israel takes over part of the Gaza strip and wants to set up a hospital to help Palestinians and wounded IDF, then the Red Crescent is obligated to assist. It means that parts concerning internees come into play. Personally, I think this is a very large step backwards from occupation. Personally, I think this is a better description of the actual state of affairs than "occupation". On the other hand, it's a conflict that's barely waged; that doesn't stop all of Gaza, and part of S. Israel, from effectively being a war zone.

Moral obligations in wartime are few: The first is to protect your territory and population, to avoid war crimes (although that's also a legal one). Seiges are part of war. In fact, war can be seen as a void in which morality seems to largely fail. The GCs were a way of codifying the kinds of morality that Western countries deemed essential to protect in wartime: The legal loopholes are there to reflect moral loopholes.

Take for example the injunction to make sure food and fuel get through: There's a loophole--if the food and fuel is under risk of being intercepted or will help the enemy fight, you don't need to let it through. The enemy has a choice: It can ensure that the food helps the civilian population, and the troops have their own supplies; or it can withdraw. Otherwise it, at a minimum, shares culpability. But there's nothing moral about taking food from civilians, so the enemy troops incur culpability for that. And note that it's not immoral for the enemy to kill your soldiers or vice-versa, but it *is* immoral to help the enemy kill your own soldiers. Preventing the enemy fighters from killing your soldiers and civilians is a moral virtue--it's one that's lost on many, who consider others (usually apart from themselves) to be expendable if they're not ideologically or ethnically preferred. What appears to be a moral loophole actually reflects a sense of morality. So it is with many other of the other "loopholes" that are, given the details of the I/P mess, considered unpalatable. They simply reflect a different morality, not a lack of morality.

The appropriateness of the GC's underlying morality can be discussed. But if it's found wanting, then all that's left is saying, "I think ...".

Then again, seeing that point would require cooperativeness and the desire to understand.

I don't think I've ever seen you post on this topic, so I'm just wondering if you believe that the Geneva Conventions apply to the West Bank....

about those who write accusatory, contemptuous comments towards those they are certain are not "native speakers of English".

I would like to be able to explain the insistence on conjuring up that specific distinction. Perhaps as humanity evolves, we all have certain apprehensions and aversions.

But that is another post for another topic forum.

Article 2
In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.


Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

Gaza is not a party and neither do they accept and apply the GC



Article 4
Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

Turns out we were both wrong. If we look at the beginning of the quote...

In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; however, the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation, to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory, by the provisions of the following Articles of the present Convention: 1 to 12, 27, 29 to 34, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 59, 61 to 77, 143.

So this only comes into effect a year after the close of military operations, when the convention ceases to be applicable, EXCEPT for the named articles. So in terms of Gaza, it doesn't apply at all. Which means we are left with the Hague Conventions, quoted above. I did some research and found an article from HRW confirming that that is the standard they are using.

“Under international law, the test for determining whether an occupation exists is effective control by a hostile army, not the positioning of troops,” Whitson said. “Whether the Israeli army is inside Gaza or redeployed around its periphery and restricting entrance and exit, it remains in control.”

Under international law, the duties of an occupying power are detailed in the Fourth Geneva Convention and The Hague Regulations. According to The Hague Regulations, a “territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.”

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/10/29/isrlpa9577.htm

So what we are left with is the question of whether Israel is placing Gaza under its authority. Since the Hague clearly states that "The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised" it comes down to whether Israel's control of only some of the borders plus the airspace and seacoast is enough to qualify all of Gaza as under the authority of Israel. I can't think of any examples in the past where this limited amount of control was enough for the country in question to be considered "occupied." I honestly don't see how one could consider Israel to have established authority that can be exercised throughout the entire Gaza strip. It certainly has an impact on Gaza, its actions deeply affect Gaza's situation, but Israel has no established authority within the strip at all and no authority over its border with Egypt either. Given these standards I don't think it is reasonable to claim that Israel is still occupying Gaza in any legal sense of the word.

Unless I'm misunderstanding your argument?

I don't. That article is only applicable to territory that has been under occupation for over a year after military operations have ended. I am saying that the occupation of Gaza ended when Israel withdrew. So while the military operations have continued, the occupation has ended. So that article has no application to the present situation at all, it can be discarded for the purposes of our debate. We are only interested in whether Israel qualifies as an occupying power over Gaza, a distinction which isn't covered in that article at all.

Military operations don't have to end in Gaza for the occupation to end.

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our second quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Whatever you do, do not click the link below!