naomiglover

You still respond to my threads with the usual misinformation and justifications for human rights violations. It really is sad to see people who put their nationalistic views above human rights. There shouldn't be any room for arguments on whether or not it's okay to violate human rights. Certainly not in the Western world where we pride ourselves for protecting human rights.

Colonization was once accepted in the West, just like slavery was. Just because some things were practiced in the past, it doesn't make it okay. What a weak and desperate argument some of you are trying to make. We have also created and have become signatories to international laws, some of which came into effect after the genocide of Jews and the creation of Israel. There is no question where the border lies and there is no question that East Jerusalem is not part of Israel. No country recognizes Israel annexation and everyone, including Israel's strongest allies believe the settlements and annexation to be illegal. The demolishing of Palestinian homes are a violation of international law and anyone who tries to dispute this, believes Israel is somehow above international law.

If you think it's spam, why do you respond? Why are you so sensitive about questioning Israel's actions?

Who cares what Israel thinks. Legally, under international law, it does not belong to Israel. Even U.S., Israel's closest ally acknowledges that East Jerusalem does not belong to Israel.

This documentary looks into a subject that is discussed regularly on this forum; Anti-semitism. Intent on shaking up the ultimate 'sacred cow' for Jews, Israeli director Yoav Shamir embarks on a provocative - and at times irreverent - quest to answer the question, "What is anti-Semitism today?" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpLJS1pIsQY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFSMAekIbRU

It's not for Israel to decide whether they are legal or illegal. The Palestinian homes were in East Jerusalem, which does not belong to Israel.

No one cares if Israel builds the wall on its own land. The ICJ has ruled that the wall both inside the Palestinian territory which includes East Jerusalem are illegal. It doesn't get any simpler than that. Here is the ruling: The construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, and its associated régime, are contrary to international law So the Hamas rockets and the suicide attacks are not illegal because the ICJ has not ruled on it? Israel's supreme court did not comply with the ICJ. The wall inside the Palestinian territory is still illegal. So Israel is still violating international law. Cite this declining number of checkpoints. Israel had also said that settlements that started decades ago were temporary measure. My question is, WHY build on Palestinian land? Why not just build it on Israeli land? Again, why not build the security wall on Israeli land. The answer is, because Israel wants to annex more Palestinian land.

Suicide attacks are wrong and illegal. Killing civilians indiscriminatory with military weapons is also wrong and illegal. I support neither. Why do you support one? You've used this same type of empty statement many times even after being reminded how it makes no sense. Israel following international law does not jeopardize its security.

I'm drawing attention to a state's policy that violates human rights and in which the west supports. Do you have something against drawing attention to something like this?

How is that? Care to explain?

He seems like a jerk, but it's still hard for me to take anything you say seriously. You're like a light switch that turns on when he sees something that is wrong in the Democrat party, but when the Republicans engage in questionable behaviour, you're either silent or you're trying to justify them.

The Red Cross, Goldstone Report and many other human rights organizations are not in the business of slander. They're professionals and experts in international law and have covered other violations across the world with the same professionalism. By the way, how has Israel responded to ICJ's conclusion on the wall? Here is a more detailed version of it: "Insufficient progress toward a comprehensive Middle East peace. The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the AOR [CentCom Area of Responsibility]. Israeli-Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large-scale armed confrontations. The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support. The conflict also gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas." Senate Hearing There is nothing new there. Everyone already knows this. It's just that it's rare to see someone in the U.S. administration being truthful about what U.S.' favouritism and what seems to be unconditional support for Israel. As Patraeus said: "The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world." The aid that Israel receives yearly is above what the neighbours (Egypt and Jordan) receive to cooperate with Israel's policies. Mobarak, a dictator for many decades and hated by his own people is also to be blamed for participating in the blockade. How is Egypt's cooperation any help to the U.S.? This policy is also a negative to Americans. Not really. Many see the comparison. Here is some intellectual honesty for you: Israelis have always been horrified at the idea of parallels between their country, a democracy risen from the ashes of genocide, and the racist system that ruled the old South Africa. Yet even within Israel itself, accusations persist that the web of controls affecting every aspect of Palestinian life bears a disturbing resemblance to apartheid. After four years reporting from Jerusalem and more than a decade from Johannesburg before that, the Guardian's award-winning Middle East correspondent Chris McGreal is exceptionally well placed to assess this explosive comparison. Here we publish the first part of his two-day special report The Guardian - Part 1 The Guardian - Part 2

I meant Iran. Most countries have imposed sanctions on Iran for decades in different degrees. Recently, more sanctions have been initiated through the UN. The latest sanctions focus more on the people in power which includes their bank accounts and financial dealings outside of Iran. You're right. I find myself repeating a lot of the same things. For example; I believe all sides should follow international law. Despite this, I get accused of supporting Hamas by mostly those who believe Israel is above following international law. I agree. That can be started by taking away the $3 billion a year the U.S. taxpayers pays Israel every year. Most in congress do not want to lose the funding they receive from groups like AIPAC, so they will continue to put U.S' interests second to Israel's. The only way for it to happen is if there is a movement amongst the Americans and they, first, realize that they're paying Israel $3 billion a year, and second, realize that, as General David Pateaus has said, this support for Israel is not in the best interest of U.S. It started with boycotts by people around the world. It eventually got big enough that governments who once supported Apartheid South Africa were forced to withdraw their support. More and more countries began to boycott South Africa as well and the regime finally fell. We're starting to see a similar movement towards Israel.

More demolitions. East Jerusalem homes demolished The Israeli authorities have used bulldozers to demolish three buildings in occupied East Jerusalem. Israeli officials said the action was taken to enforce court orders against - what they called - illegal and unpopulated structures. But residents say two of the buildings were inhabited by Palestinian families, while the third was a warehouse. Israel has been under international pressure to stop demolitions in the area. The US has described such actions as damaging to peace efforts. Palestinians accuse Israel of discriminatory planning practices which deny them building permits, often leaving them no choice but to build illegally and risk demolition. "I have to express my deep concern about the latest developments in East Jerusalem," European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said. Mr Barroso was speaking at a news conference attended by Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad in Brussels. "These are counterproductive developments. Settlements and demolition of houses are illegal, they are against international law, they constitute an obstacle to peace and threaten to make a two state solution impossible," said Mr Barroso. Mr Fayyad said Israel's actions were "inconsistent with the need to continue to have the concept of viability for a two state solution". The demolitions came a day after Israeli authorities approved the construction of 32 new homes in a Jewish settlement in East Jerusalem. Israel has occupied East Jerusalem since 1967. It annexed the area in 1981 and sees it as its exclusive domain. Under international law the area is occupied territory. BBC

So you're unable to admit that Israel violates international law. That's fine. Put yourself on the same list as others like Dancer, Bonam, jbg and other war crimes apologists.

Okay. You were given an opportunity but you failed to wash the hypocrisy and Israeli apologist label you have created for yourself.

You keep missing or you keep avoiding the simple point here. No western government (or anyone on this board) has tried to justify or minimize violations committed by Hamas or any other Palestinian group. Hamas who has violated international law has been branded a terrorist group by several key western countries and has been marginalized. However, Israel receives very little to no condemnation and does not have to face any consequences both politically and financially for continuously violating Palestinians' Human Rights and international law. Show me that you are not a hypocrite and an apologist by acknowledging and condemning Israel's violations.

Economic pressure from other governments. Look at the sanctions imposed on Iran for failing to meet IAEA. Israel's economy would not be able to handle any such sanctions as their economy relies heavily on the western countries. I think Hamas has been held accountable and pressure has changed their tactics. Hamas seems to have abandoned suicide attacks and they have even talked about accepting Israel within the 1967 border. They have initiated and accepted several truce. One was actually in place right before Operation Cast Lead. I have mentioned this before that I believe the ball is in Israel's court. Israel has the power to change the direction of this mess. Most of what is happening around this situation is more of a reaction to Israel's inability to recognize the rights of the Palestinians which has been going on for well over 4 decades. Now that we recognize that they and the western governments are not willing to do anything constructive about it, we must respond the same way we responded to Apartheid South Africa. The BDS movement continues to get bigger and larger and I believe that will be the trigger that will change Israel's treatment of Palestinians. http://bdsmovement.net/ http://www.bigcampaign.org/ BDS campaign wants Israel to abide by international law Boycott Divestment and Sanctions strategy arises from realisation that the occupation will not end unless Israelis understand it has a price Guardian

The blockade started before Bibi got into power. It seems like it doesn't matter who is in power in Israel, the influence of the extremists and settler groups usually guide Israel's policy towards the occupied territories. Bibi needs to keep the coalition happy and that means he needs to respond to extremists like Lieberman's Yisrael Beiteinu party and Shas, the ultra conservative religious party. It's clear that the current political environment in Israel will not allow for any real progress towards a just peace. The western governments have also shown that they're unwilling to touch this issue. Much like in Apartheid South Africa, international pressure, which starts from non-governmental organizations seems to be the only solution to this. Boycotting Israel is picking up steam and looks to be what will pressure Israel into abandoning being a rogue state and will push it to follow international law.

Israel has been violating international law since well before 1967. Hamas has been in the scene for less than a couple of decades. The number of violations committed by Israel is so much more than what Hamas or any Palestinian group has done. Then there is also the fact that no one (at least not here) contests Hamas' violations. Everyone agrees that Hamas has violated international law by their past suicide attacks and the recent rocket attacks. There is also a universal agreement that Hamas is violating Shalit's rights by not following the standard law when it comes to prisoners. There is no question that Hamas has violated international law in these instances. However, the many violations that Israel has committed which considerably out number anyone else's in this conflict, never receive the same response from Israeli apologists. Apologists such as yourself, Dancer and Bonam who will go to any length to try to justify them.

If the question is whether or not Israel is violating international law, the answer is clear; Israel is violator of International Law. On top of what ICJ has ruled, what the Red Cross has said, what the Goldstone Report concluded and many expert human rights organizations have concluded, there are several UN resolutions that Israel has failed to recognize and follow.

How is it vague? The ICJ has concluded that the barrier is illegal and the occupation of East Jerusalem is illegal (this was not in the bit I posted). It has not ruled on the other violations but the violations have been investigated by many other organizations. The Red Cross and other organizations who are experts in international law and have covered other human rights violations all over the world for decades have repeatedly concluded that Israel (and Hamas in some instances) have violated international law. There are UN resolutions that have outlined the legality of the occupation and how international law applies to different situations. Your failure to show respect for international law does not change the fact that Israel has repeatedly violated it.

Sure. The Court draws a distinction between the legal consequences of these violations for Israel and those for other States. In regard to the former, the Court finds that Israel must respect the right of the Palestinian people to self‑determination and its obligations under humanitarian law and human rights law. Israel must also put an end to the violation of its international obligations flowing from the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and must accordingly cease forthwith the works of construction of the wall, dismantle forthwith those parts of that structure situated within the Occupied Palestinian Territory and forthwith repeal or render ineffective all legislative and regulatory acts adopted with a view to construction of the wall and establishment of its associated régime, except in so far as such acts may continue to be relevant for compliance by Israel with its obligations in regard to reparation. Israel must further make reparation for all damage suffered by all natural or legal persons affected by the wall’s construction. As regards the legal consequences for other States, the Court finds that all States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction. The Court further finds that it is for all States, while respecting the United Nations Charter and international law, to see to it that any impediment, resulting from the construction of the wall, in the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self‑determination is brought to an end. In addition, all States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention are under an obligation, while respecting the Charter and international law, to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in that Convention. Finally, the Court is of the view that the United Nations, and especially the General Assembly and the Security Council, should consider what further action is required to bring to an end the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and its associated régime, taking due account of the present Advisory Opinion. The Court concludes by stating that the construction of the wall must be placed in a more general context. In this regard, the Court notes that Israel and Palestine are “under an obligation scrupulously to observe the rules of international humanitarian law”. ICJ

The ICJ has concluded that Israel has violated international law.

Posting about Israel's violations of international law does not always have to be balanced out with feel good stories from Israel. In fact, I have a hard time finding any feel good stories in relations to the Israeli government and the Palestinian people. Israel has been violating the Palestinians' human rights for decades and there are no signs that Israel is willing to make a real effort to change this. The Israeli government has had its chance to make it right and they have failed. Unfortunately, the Israeli government is heavily influenced by the extremists and those who can only accept Greater Israel. When the prime minister's party has repeatedly vowed to never allow a Palestinian State, what real hope is there? Israel will not voluntarily do the right thing. This is why Israel must be pressured into giving Palestinians their rights just like Apartheid South Africa was.