naomiglover

You didn't respond. How many more questions or valid points are you going to refuse to respond to?

Heh. Another gold star for the resident "radical leftist lawyer".

Of course, if someone did say that, it's anti-semitic. This person's alleged comments does not make everyone in the humanitarian effort an anti-semite. You are presenting a weak argument. It's like saying that all Jews or Pro-Israelis have the same view as IDF soldiers who like to wear tshirts that say "Pregnant Palestinian = 1 Shot 2 Kills"

There is no right to commit war crimes, unless if you're a rogue state that sees itself above the law.

Predictable. As Glenn Greenwald points out, people like Bob have "so abused, over-used, manipulated and exploited the "anti-semitism" and "anti-Israel" accusations for improper and nakedly political ends that those terms have become drained of their meaning, have almost entirely lost their sting, and have become trivialized virtually to the point of caricature. That behavior has produced serious harm. Their trivialization and misuse of those terms have severely diminished the ability to stigmatize and attack real anti-Semitism, because legitimate accusations of anti-Semitism are now conflated with and discredited by the neocons' cynical attempts to wield it as a cheap debating weapon."

A few Muslim groups have been using terrorism against Israel. It cannot be justified, far from it. However they see and the whole world sees these acts of terrorism as a respond to Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, which many call state terrorism. It's not honest to sit there and pretend that a major reason why Israel is viewed so poorly in the Muslim world is not because of how they have treated the Palestinians for many decades. The negative view of Israelis is increasing rapidly in other parts of the world as well. Just in a little over a year, the Muslim world and the whole world have seen a devastating attack on the Gazan people that left close to 1000 civilians dead, with over 300 of them children (confirmed by Red Cross), have brought in a blockade that brings nothing but a collective punishment and does not stop the flow of weapons to Hamas and more recently, a failed mission in international waters. The first two have already been confirmed as violating international law. Tell me if Israel's approach of aggression and military might have resulted in a favourable view of it by the international community and if it has improved security? The obvious answer is no. It has actually done the opposite. Instead of your blanket support for Israel, you may want to let go of your pride and admit to mistakes on all sides and condemn anyone who breaks the law. Not just the people on the other team.

I never suggested that they are dying as a result of the blockade. I quoted the lyrics from the song saying that: There is no people dying So the best we can do Is create The greatest bluff of all A little over a year ago, close to 1000 civilians were killed by the IDF. Over 300 of them children. Major organizations and the Goldstone report concluded that Israel violated international law when they attacked Gaza. This is what I was referring to. You then proceeded to say that Gazans are not 'starving', which is where I pointed out that you were wrong. There you go again, saying that these professional organizations are wrong and your word (IDF's word) is correct. I back up my claims by using reports and research by well-respected, professional and neutral organizations such as ICRC, Amnesty and Richard Goldstone. You, on the other hand, have yet to produce any investigation or proof of your claims. I acknowledge Israeli needs, however, unlike you, I do not believe anyone's needs trumps international law.

That's not the only reason. Since you keep missing the points (either on purpose or because you lack the attention span), I will list the reasons I've given you, plus more: 1 - The Red Cross is not the ONLY organizations that has came out with a report saying that Israel is breaking international law by having the blockade. You need to come to grips with this simple fact. 2 - All of the parties' neutrality, including Richard Goldstone, who went out of his way to include all parties in in his report (Including Hamas, which the UN did not want to include in its first mandate), is a major factor. When the IDF goes out its way to discount respected individuals like Richard Goldstone, then you have to take IDF's neutrality into consideration. 3 - Here is another reason why the IDF's credibility is in question; They never accept to participate in international inquiries. They deem all international inquiries biased before they even start. Take Goldstone's report for example. 4 - If you look at the reports, which you have not, you would see that most of these organizations have also criticized Hamas and even the PLO for their actions. Richard Goldstone has concluded that both Israel and Hamas have violated international law. Wrong. It is specifically written in the report: Israel's right to deal with its legitimate security concerns must be balanced against the Palestinians' right to live normal, dignified lives. They even mention Shalit in their report: Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit is about to enter his fifth year in captivity. Hamas has continued to rebuff the ICRC's requests to let it visit Gilad Shalit. In violation of international humanitarian law, it has also refused to allow him to get in touch with his family. So, again, you're wrong. There is always acknowledgment of Israel's need to protect itself. However, there are boundaries which have been set. The reason why this blockade is illegal is because it's not accomplishing weakening Hamas or reducing arms. Hamas will get what it needs by smuggling them through. The blockade is nothing but a collective punishment where the civilians become the victims. There are many unnecessary bans of goods that do not make sense unless Israel is doing this to collectively punish the Gazan population. If you want to criticize these reports from different organizations, the least you can do is to read them first.

The thing is that it's not 'just' the Red Cross. There are many other organizations who are reporting and coming to the same conclusion. That there is a humanitarian crisis in Gaza due to the blockade and that the blockade is a war crime. These organizations are there, in Gaza, witnessing and investigating the situation. Wouldn't you say that the International Red Cross has an upper hand when it comes to neutrality, professionalism and experience? Way more than, let's say, IDF or Hamas? So why do you prefer to take IDF's words over all these organizations?

Okay. Well, you keep posting your words against Amnesty, Red Cross and other professional organizations. I don't want to keep repeating what they are saying. Enjoy posting your Israeli propaganda, Bob and I'll continue advocating international law and justice.

An odd message with a terrible tone. I will dismiss your condescending tone as your inability to properly communicate. I'm not obsessed with Israel, but I am, you could say, extremely concerned with the situation in that region. My reasons are the following: - I grew up in Israel and grew up being fed the same old, us vs the Arabs. This constant pressure to view the situation this way came from the media, in the schools and relatives. So naturally, part of my concern about the situation is personal. - I started getting to know the situation once I entered university. By that time our family had moved to Canada. I studied political science so I began to understand the situation better from the legal perspective. - A major concern of mine is the West's governments' blind blanket support of the Israeli policies towards the Palestinians. Policies which violate numerous humanitarian laws. There are many atrocities around the world, but none receive the type of support Israel receives. - Lastly, there is a selfish reason behind this. The Zionist ideology continues to ruin the Jewish name. Many people are guilty of generalizing and this generalizing prevents them from knowing that there are millions of Jews who do not support majority of Israeli policies towards the Palestinians. I'm not the only one who sees the well-oiled Israeli propaganda machine, aka Hasbara. There needs to be a voice opposing the propaganda, half-truths and straight up lies. Every one of my posts receive responses with the same type of propaganda. It's your choice to want to engage in the same habits of other nationalists, who, for the sake of devotion and nationalism, will fight against truth and justice. Thanks.

WHO did not report on the shortage of food, but they did on the shortage of medicine and facilities to treat the sick. However, I did mention other organizations which you have not commented on. Amnesty International: "Mass unemployment, extreme poverty, food insecurity and food price rises caused by shortages left four in five Gazans dependent on humanitarian aid. The scope of the blockade and statements made by Israeli officials about its purpose showed that it was being imposed as a form of collective punishment of Gazans, a flagrant violation of international law," http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3894847,00.html You didn't respond: Amnesty International, UNCHR, HRW and the Red Cross are all anti-Israeli extremists? Because that is who I am repeating.

Amnesty International, UNCHR, HRW and the Red Cross are all anti-Israeli extremists? Because that is who I am repeating. You're shooting blanks, Bob.

Like which questions?

You don't care for international humanitarian law. Just come out and say it. If you don't agree with the following, then is there really a point in having a discussion with you? The closure therefore constitutes a collective punishment imposed in clear violation of Israel's obligations under international humanitarian law.

Israel has gone against what is required, which is an independent investigation into the raid on the ships. Below is an article written by Uri Avnery, one of the most popular of many Israeli peace activists: "If a real Commission of Inquiry had been set up (instead of the pathetic excuse for a commission), here are some of the questions it should have addressed: 1. What is the real aim of the Gaza Strip blockade? 2. If the aim is to prevent the flow of arms into the Strip, why are only 100 products allowed in (as compared to the more than 12 thousand products in an average Israeli supermarket)? 3. Why is it forbidden to bring in chocolate, toys, writing material, many kinds of fruits and vegetables (and why cinnamon but not coriander)? 4. What is the connection between the decision to forbid the import of construction materials for the replacement or repair of the thousands of buildings destroyed or damaged during the Cast Lead operation and the argument that they may serve Hamas for building bunkers – when more than enough materials for this purpose are brought into the Strip through the tunnels? 5. Is the real aim of the blockade to turn the lives of the 1.5 million human beings in the Strip into hell, in the hope of inducing them to overthrow the Hamas regime? 6. Since this has not happened, but – on the contrary – Hamas has become stronger during the three years of the blockade, did the government ever entertain second thoughts on this matter? 7. Has the blockade been imposed in the hope of freeing the captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit? 8. If so, has the blockade contributed anything to the realization of this aim, or has it been counter-productive? 9. Why does the Israeli government refuse to exchange Shalit for hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, when Hamas agrees to such a deal? 10. Is it true that the US government has imposed a veto on the exchange of prisoners, on the grounds that it would strengthen Hamas? 11. Has there been any discussion in our government about fulfilling its undertaking in the Oslo agreement - to enable and encourage the development of the Gaza port - in a way that would prevent the passage of arms? 12. Why does the Israeli government declare again and again that the territorial waters of the Gaza strip are part of Israel’s own territorial waters, and that ships entering them “infringe on Israeli sovereignty”, contrary to the fact that the Gaza Strip was never annexed to Israel and that Israel officially announced in 2006 that it had “separated” itself from it? 13. Why has the Attorney General’s office declared that the peace activists captured on the high seas, who had no intention whatsoever of entering Israel, had “tried to enter Israel illegally”, and brought them before a judge for the extension of their arrest under the law that concerns “illegal entry into Israel”? 14. Who is responsible for these contradictory legal claims, when the Israeli government argues one minute that Israel has “separated itself from the Gaza Strip” and that the “occupation there has come to an end” – and the next minute claims sovereignty over the coastal waters of the Strip? Question concerning the decision to attack the flotilla: 15. When did the preparation for this flotilla become known to the Israeli intelligence services? (Evidence on this may be heard in camera.) 16. When was this brought to the attention of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Defense, the Cabinet, the Committee of Seven (in charge of security matters) and the IDF Chief of Staff? (ditto) 17. What were the deliberations of these officials and institutions? (ditto) 18. What intelligence was submitted to each of them? (ditto) 19. When, by whom and how was the decision taken to stop the flotilla by force? 20. Is it true that the secretary of the cabinet, Tzvi Hauser, warned of the severe consequences of such action and advised letting the flotilla sail to Gaza? 21. Were there others who also advised doing so? 22. Was the Foreign Ministry a full partner in all the discussions? 23. If so, did the Foreign Ministry warn of the impact of such an action on our relations with Turkey and other countries? 24. In light of the fact that, prior to the incident, the Turkish government informed the Israeli Foreign Ministry that the flotilla was organized by a private organization which is not under the control of the government and does not violate any Turkish law – did the Foreign Ministry consider approaching the organization in order to try to reach an agreement to avoid violence? 25. Was due consideration given to the alternative of stopping the flotilla in territorial waters, inspecting the cargo for arms and letting it sail on? 26. Was the impact of the action on international public opinion considered? 27. Was the impact of the action on our relations with the US considered? 28. Was it taken into consideration that the action may actually strengthen Hamas? 29. Was it taken into consideration that the action may make the continuation of the blockade more difficult? Question concerning the planning of the action: 30. What intelligence was at the disposal of the planners? (Evidence may be heard in camera.) 31. Was it considered that the composition of the group of activists in this flotilla was different from that in earlier protest ships, because of the addition of the Turkish component? 32. Was it taken into consideration that contrary to the European peace activists, who believe in passive resistance, the Turkish activists may adopt a policy of active resistance to soldiers invading a Turkish ship? 33. Were alternative courses of action considered, such as blocking the progress of the flotilla with navy boats? 34. If so, what were the alternatives considered, and why were they rejected? 35. Who was responsible for the actual planning of the operation – the IDF Chief of Staff or the Commander of the Navy? 36. If it was the Navy Commander who decided on the method employed, was the decision approved by the Chief of Staff, the Minister of Defense and the Prime Minister? 37. How were the responsibilities for planning divided between these? 38. Why was the action undertaken outside of the territorial waters of Israel and the Gaza Strip? 39. Why was it executed in darkness? 40. Did anyone in the navy object to the idea of soldiers descending from helicopters onto the deck of the ship “Mavi Marmara”? 41. During the deliberations, did anyone bring up the similarity between the planned operation and the British action against the ship “Exodus 1947”, which ended in a political disaster for the British? Questions concerning the action itself: 42. Why was the flotilla cut off from any contact with the world throughout the operation, if there was nothing to hide? 43. Did anyone protest that the soldiers were actually being sent into a trap? 44. Was it taken into consideration that the plan adopted would place the soldiers for several critical minutes in a dangerously inferior position? 45. When exactly did the soldiers start to shoot live ammunition? 46. Which of the soldiers was the first to fire? 47. Was the shooting – all or part of it – justified? 48 Is it true that the soldiers started firing even before descending onto the deck, as asserted by the passengers? 49. Is it true that the fire continued even after the captain of the ship and the activists announced several times over loudspeakers that the ship had surrendered, and after they had actually hoisted white flags? 50. Is it true that five of the nine people killed were shot in the back, indicating that they were trying to get away from the soldiers and thus could not be endangering their lives? 51. Why was the killed man Ibrahim Bilgen, 61 years old and father of six and a candidate for mayor in his home town, described as a terrorist? 52. Why was the killed man Cetin Topcoglu, 54 years old, trainer of the Turkish national taekwondo (Korean martial arts) team, whose wife was also on the ship, described as a terrorist? 53. Why was the killed man Cevdet Kiliclar, a 38 year old journalist, described as a terrorist? 54. Why was the killed man Ali Haydar Bengi, father of four, graduate of the al-Azhar school for literature in Cairo, described as a terrorist? 55. Why were the killed men Necdet Yaldirim, 32 years old, father of a daughter; Fahri Yaldiz, 43 years old, father of four; Cengiz Songur, 47 years old, father of seven; and Cengiz Akyuz, 41 years old, father of three, described as terrorists? 56. Is it a lie that the activists took a pistol from a soldier and shot him with it, as described by the IDF, or is it true that the activists did in fact throw the pistol into the sea without using it? 57. Is it true, as stated by Jamal Elshayyal, a British subject, that the soldiers prevented treatment for the Turkish wounded for three hours, during which time several of them died? 58.. Is it true, as stated by this journalist, that he was handcuffed behind his back and forced to kneel for three hours in the blazing sun, that he was not allowed to go and urinate and told to “piss in his pants”, that he remained handcuffed for 24 hours without water, that his British passport was taken from him and not returned; that his laptop computer, three cellular telephones and 1500 dollars in cash were taken from him and not returned? 59. Did the IDF cut off the passengers from the world for 48 hours and confiscate all the cameras, films and cell phones of the journalists on board in order to suppress any information that did not conform to the IDF story? 60. Is it a standing procedure to keep the Prime Minister (or his acting deputy, Moshe Yaalon in this case) in the picture during an operation, was this procedure implemented, and was it implemented in previous cases, such as the Entebbe operation or the boarding of the ship “Karin A”? Questions concerning the behavior of the IDF Spokesman: 61. IS it true that the IDF Spokesman spread a series of fabrications during the first few hours, in order to justify the action in the eyes of both the Israeli and the international public? 62. Are the few minutes of film which have been shown hundreds of times on Israeli TV, from the first day on until now, a carefully edited clip, so that it is not seen what happened just before and just after? 63. What is the truth of the assertion that the soldiers who were taken by the activists into the interior of the ship were about to be “lynched”, when the photos clearly show that they were surrounded for a considerable time by dozens of activists without being harmed, and that a doctor or medic from among the activists even treated them? 64. What evidence is there for the assertion that the Turkish NGO called IHH has connections with al-Qaeda? 65. On what grounds was it stated again and again that it was a “terrorist organization”, though no evidence for this claim was offered? 66. Why was it asserted that the association was acting under the orders of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, when in fact it is close to an opposition party? 67. If it was in fact a terrorist organization known to the Israeli intelligence services, why was this not taken into account during the planning of the operation? 68. Why did the Israeli government not announce this before the attack on the flotilla? 69. Why were the words of one of the activists, who declared on his return that he wanted to be a “shahid”, translated by official propaganda in a manifestly dishonest manner, as if he had said that he wanted “to kill and be killed” (“shahid” means a person who sacrifices his life in order to testify to his belief in God, much like a Christian martyr)? 70. What is the source of the lie that the Turks called out “Go back to Auschwitz”? 71. Why were the Israeli doctors not called to inform the public at once about the character of the wounds of the injured soldiers, after it was announced that at least one of them was shot? 72. Who invented the story that there were arms on the ship, and that they had been thrown into the sea? 73. Who invented the story that the activists had brought with them deadly weapons – when the exhibition organized by the IDF Spokesman himself showed nothing but tools found on any ship, including binoculars, a blood infusion instrument, knives and axes, as well as decorative Arab daggers and kitchen knives that are to be found on every ship, even one not equipped for 1000 passengers? 74. Do all these items – coupled with the endless repetition of the word “terrorists” and the blocking of any contrary information – not constitute brainwashing? Questions concerning the inquiry: 75. Why does the Israeli government refuse to take part in an international board of inquiry, composed of neutral personalities acceptable to them? 76. Why have the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defense announced that they are ready to testify - but not to answer questions? 77. Where does the argument come from that soldiers must not be called to testify – when in all previous investigations senior officers, junior officers and enlisted men were indeed subjected to questioning? 78. Why does the government refuse to appoint a State Commission of Inquiry under the Israeli law that was enacted by the Knesset in 1966 for this very purpose, especially in view of the fact that such commissions were appointed after the Yom Kippur war, after the Sabra and Shatila massacre, after the podium of the al-Aqsa Mosque was set on fire by an insane Australian, as well as to investigate corruption in sport and the murder of the Zionist leader Chaim Arlosoroff (some fifty years after it occurred!)? 79. Does the government have something to fear from such a commission, whose members are appointed by the President of the Supreme Court, and which is empowered to summon witnesses and cross-examine them, demand the production of documents and determine the personal responsibility for mistakes and crimes? 80. Why was it decided in the end to appoint a pathetic committee, devoid of any legal powers, which will lack all credibility both in Israel and abroad? And, finally, the question of questions: 81. What is our political and military leadership trying to hide?" Link

Israeli apologists are working hard repeating the propaganda coming out of Israel in regards to the humanitarian crisis. The Red Cross has issued a clear statement. Israel's blockade of Gaza is a clear violation of international humanitarian law, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has said. In a statement, the ICRC describes the situation in Gaza as dire, saying the only sustainable solution is a lifting of the blockade. It says Israel is punishing the whole civilian population of Gaza. It also urges Hamas movement to allow ICRC delegates to visit a detained Israel soldier Gilad Shalit. Key message The ICRC, a traditionally neutral organisation, paints a bleak picture of conditions in Gaza: hospitals short of equipment, power cuts lasting hours each day, drinking water unfit for consumption. "The whole of Gaza's civilian population is being punished for acts for which they bear no responsibility. The closure therefore constitutes a collective punishment imposed in clear violation of Israel's obligations under international humanitarian law," the agency said in the statement. And the ICRC blames differences between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority for some of Gaza's shortages. But the key message from the body which rarely publicly criticises governments is that Israel's blockade of Gaza must be lifted. That message is yet another indication of growing international concern over conditions in Gaza - just last week US President Barack Obama called the situation there unsustainable. BBC Link

Instead of 'thinking' these things, why don't you go look at the reports and then come to an educated conclusion.

You are babbling Bob. You want everyone to believe that Amnesty International, Red Cross, HRW, UNHCR are all lying and there is no problem in Gaza. No one believes you Bob. Not even yourself.

What? The US is not paying these countries money? What exactly are you trying to say?

Really? Rarely? What do you call the numerous violations that occurred during the Gaza attack which included: "using certain weapons illegally", "using civilians as human shields", "discriminate killing of civilians", "targeting ambulances". These are not just rumors. These violations have been investigated and verified by professionals like Richard Goldstone, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Rockets and suicide bombings were done by those who are being occupied, not by the neighbouring countries. By the way, why does the capturing of Shalit (which Goldstone has called a war crime), get so much airwaves when there are thousands of Palestinians who have been kidnapped or arrested and are sitting in Israeli prisons with a real or democratic legal process?

Why do that when Israel can just stop violating international law and work with the internationally recognized 1967 border which the PLO officially accepts and Hamas informally accepts? The threat from the Arab neighbours ended close to 3 decades ago. No one buys it anymore.

The Sunnis and Shias have had their battles for centuries. But we all know that the US money that goes to these countries will keep their dictators in check and will buy the friendship with Israel. I bring it up to remind you about the hypocrisy of the Israeli apologist/propagandist who cry either "they want to drive us into the sea" whenever confronted with valid criticism of Israel.

They're not starving? You're basically saying that the World Health Organization, UNHCR, Amnesty International, HRW and numerous other professional organizations are all lying. Bob, you are trying to spread lies.

The type of people who find this funny are the type of people who found the foxnews that attempted at having a Daily Show like political satire, funny.There is no surprise that the show failed. Even foxnews viewers have a limit when it comes to being unfunny. This type of political satire usually tries to point to the truth and the hypocrisy of the people involved. Much like The Daily Show with Jon Stewart does. Unfortunately, pointing out to the truth and the hypocrisy would clash with the agenda and propaganda that these types of people are trying to spread. I mean, just look at how this desperate and unfunny propaganda starts: There is no people dying So the best we can do Is create The greatest bluff of all There is no people dying? Really? Haha? Way to start the song with a bang.