Red Cross: Israel's Gaza blockade breaks international law

[naomiglover]

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

[Bob]

The point remains - nobody is starving is Gaza. Living uncomfortably isn't the same thing as a humanitarian crisis.

From the article: 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.

This statement is false. Gazans elected Hamas, an openly hostile group to power. Hamas not only states its anti-semitic and anti-Israel positions for all to see, but acts upon them for all to see. The accountability for Gaza becoming a hostile belligerent towards Israel and a threat to its security may not lie with all Gazans, but it lies with enough of them. Not only is the Israeli blockade legally justified, it is necessary.

Do sanctions against Iran or the former Saddam-controlled Iraq constitute collective punishment, and therefore become illegal? How can the ICRC expect a state to supply another (or in this case, a territory) with all the goods and services it needs when they are in the midst of war/hostilities?

Nowhere in this article is there even ONE mention about the reasons for the blockade. How can this organization expect to be taken seriously with respect to this issue if they ignore the entire context of Gazan aggression to Israel via Hamas and other terrorist groups that lead to the closure of its borders with Israel the Mediterranean? The ICRC has no credibility on this issue when it ignores the legitimate security concerns of Israel. Israel, like any other nation has a moral obligation to defend itself and its people from hostilities.

Edited June 14, 2010 by Bob

[naomiglover]

The point remains - nobody is starving is Gaza. Living uncomfortably isn't the same thing as a humanitarian crisis.

From the article: 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.

This statement is false. Gazans elected Hamas, an openly hostile group to power. Hamas not only states its anti-semitic and anti-Israel positions for all to see, but acts upon them for all to see. The accountability for Gaza becoming a hostile belligerent towards Israel and a threat to its security may not lie with all Gazans, but it lies with enough of them.

Nowhere in this article is there even ONE mention about the reasons for the blockade. How can this organization expect to be taken seriously with respect to this issue if they ignore the entire context of Gazan aggression to Israel via Hamas and other terrorist groups that lead to the closure of its borders with Israel the Mediterranean? The ICRC has no credibility on this issue when it ignores the legitimate security concerns of Israel. Israel, like any other nation has a moral obligation to defend itself and its people from hostilities.

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.

[Bob]

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.

So because the ICRC says so, it must be true? There's no room for disputing this matter, as the ICRC has the final say on what is and isn't legal? Get real. Beyond that, what's right, and wrong, moral and immoral, these concepts transcend legalities and pieces of paper. I care about right and wrong more than I care about the positions of an individual (legal expert or otherwise) in a some office.

You need to drop your obsession with the term "international law". It's as if you can't wait to use it in every thread you get involved in, you fetishize the term so much, without ever acknowledging its subjectivity and frequent shortcomings. Nevermind the fact that international law is broken on a daily basis in Palestinian territories.

Let's talk to one another as normal people, and examine issues as they are, and not constantly appeal to the positions of others that support our prejudices. You don't paint a positive picture of yourself when you constantly circle the anti-Israel bandwagon waving your "international law" flag.

[eyeball]

Nowhere in this article is there even ONE mention about the reasons for the blockade. How can this organization expect to be taken seriously with respect to this issue if they ignore the entire context of Gazan aggression to Israel via Hamas and other terrorist groups that lead to the closure of its borders with Israel the Mediterranean? The ICRC has no credibility on this issue when it ignores the legitimate security concerns of Israel. Israel, like any other nation has a moral obligation to defend itself and its people from hostilities.

By the same token you should have little reason not to support a blockade against Israel given the entire context of the conflict.

Palestine and portions thereof, like Israel has the same moral obligation's for the same reasons.

[Bob]

By the same token you should have little reason not to support a blockade against Israel given the entire context of the conflict.

Palestine and portions thereof, like Israel has the same moral obligation's for the same reasons.

Care to elaborate? Your post makes no sense to me.

[eyeball]

Care to elaborate? Your post makes no sense to me.

There's not much to elaborate on. Perhaps your inability to make sense of it lies with you.

The Red Cross is not obliged to look at the context of the conflict because they are neutral. This way they can be there to help both sides if need be. Those of us outside the conflict should take a cue from that.

[naomiglover]

So because the ICRC says so, it must be true?

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?

[Bob]

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?

I certainly do not take anyone's word for it "just because". The concept that somehow the ICRC is to be trusted more than an involved party simply because they are "neutral" holds no water. This is a complicated conflict, and from much of the important (but not very well-known) information regarding this conflict, specifically with respect to the blockade on Gaza, is absent from this ICRC position. There is not a single acknowledgement of legitimate Israeli security needs. If there is no acknowledgement of these Israeli needs, given the thousands of rockets shot into Israel from Gaza only in the last few years (forget about the past century of anti-Jewish/anti-Israeli hostility from Arabs and Muslims in the region and abroad), then this report in effect is one-sided and ignores relevant context. Call the ICRC "neutral" as much as you want, this report you've presented from their website is anything but neutral.

Edited June 14, 2010 by Bob

[dre]

This statement is false. Gazans elected Hamas, an openly hostile group to power. Hamas not only states its anti-semitic and anti-Israel positions for all to see, but acts upon them for all to see. The accountability for Gaza becoming a hostile belligerent towards Israel and a threat to its security may not lie with all Gazans, but it lies with enough of them. Not only is the Israeli blockade legally justified, it is necessary.

The problem is that the blockade goes way beyond the scope of security. If all Israel was doing was searching for arms, and removing them from the shipments I think the world would look at it differently.

But the blockade goes way beyond security which is why many look at it as collective punishment. Medical shipments have been turned away, there are quotas and restrictions on fishing, there has been a virtual halt to agricultural exports, and at various times restrictions on the flow of aid workers to gaza and refugees leaving gaza, and especially on commercial imports and exports.

The blockade places severe restrictions on ALL sectors of the economy. Its goes way beyond weapons and security.

[Bob]

The problem is that the blockade goes way beyond the scope of security. If all Israel was doing was searching for arms, and removing them from the shipments I think the world would look at it differently.

But the blockade goes way beyond security which is why many look at it as collective punishment. Medical shipments have been turned away, there are quotas and restrictions on fishing, there has been a virtual halt to agricultural exports, and at various times restrictions on the flow of aid workers to gaza and refugees leaving gaza, and especially on commercial imports and exports.

The blockade places severe restrictions on ALL sectors of the economy. Its goes way beyond weapons and security.

Clearly it's never occurred to you that Israel needs to take upon itself the responsibility and costs for inspecting what travels into and out of Gaza. Given the very real threat of hostility from Gaza, the looser the restrictions on movement of goods and people into and out of the strip, the greater the responsibility and costs borne by Israel. As the list of permissible goods into Gaza grows, for instance, so do the resources required to inspect this greater volume of items. The risk of something being overlooked or a mistake being made also grows with looser restrictions, increasing the risk to Israel's security. I've said it before and I'll say it again, one cannot reasonably expect Israel to put imports of jam and chocolate into Gaza on its list of priorities, given Gaza's very real hostility to Israel.

Imagine if Canada was experiencing hostility from Quebec, and that Canada and Quebec were in a state of belligerency - would you be crying about Canada not permitting in chocolate and jam into Quebec? imagine that the majority of Quebec voted into power an anti-Canadian, violent political (terrorist) group responsible for, and vowing to continue, murdering Canadians. How would you feel about a blockade on Quebec for Canada's security?

[Bob]

I don't really know why I'm wasting my time talking to you, but if you're interested in this developing story (I doubt you are, as it's clear you'd rather just mold this story into your growing repertoire of false anti-Israel anecdotes), then you might want to read about talks between Israel and the EU, as well as Turkey, towards the end of loosening the restrictions of the blockade, while giving some degree of the responsibility of the monitoring of the transfer of goods and people into and out of Gaza in the hands of the EU and/or Turkey. If Israel can trust others to manage some of this blockade process, then it could alleviate a burden off of Israel - it's not easy or cheap to manage this blockade. Generally speaking, every way you slice it, Palestinians are a burden on Israel.

[dre]

Clearly it's never occurred to you that Israel needs to take upon itself the responsibility and costs for inspecting what travels into and out of Gaza. Given the very real threat of hostility from Gaza, the looser the restrictions on movement of goods and people into and out of the strip, the greater the responsibility and costs borne by Israel. As the list of permissible goods into Gaza grows, for instance, so do the resources required to inspect this greater volume of items. The risk of something being overlooked or a mistake being made also grows with looser restrictions, increasing the risk to Israel's security. I've said it before and I'll say it again, one cannot reasonably expect Israel to put imports of jam and chocolate into Gaza on its list of priorities, given Gaza's very real hostility to Israel.

Imagine if Canada was experiencing hostility from Quebec, and that Canada and Quebec were in a state of belligerency - would you be crying about Canada not permitting in chocolate and jam into Quebec? imagine that the majority of Quebec voted into power an anti-Canadian, violent political (terrorist) group responsible for, and vowing to continue, murdering Canadians. How would you feel about a blockade on Quebec for Canada's security?

Nice try, but we arent just talking about jam and chocolate. We are talking about severe restrictions on every sector of the Gaza economy.

And if we had a similar issue with Quebec there is absolutely no way I would support a blockade that deprived average people of common house hold items. Thats collective punishment. Its also counter productive... by doing this you would actually be EMPOWERING the belligerent government in quebec and giving them all kinds of ammunition to con their own people into thinking Canada was the enemy.

I don't really know why I'm wasting my time talking to you,

Nobody is forcing you... Nobody cares who you talk to.

but if you're interested in this developing story (I doubt you are, as it's clear you'd rather just mold this story into your growing repertoire of false anti-Israel anecdotes)

Ah yes my anti-Israel anecdotes

[eyeball]

Imagine if Canada was experiencing hostility from Quebec, and that Canada and Quebec were in a state of belligerency - would you be crying about Canada not permitting in chocolate and jam into Quebec? imagine that the majority of Quebec voted into power an anti-Canadian, violent political (terrorist) group responsible for, and vowing to continue, murdering Canadians. How would you feel about a blockade on Quebec for Canada's security?

First thing I'd want to know is what on Earth happened that caused so many Quebecers to be that pissed off at Canada?

[Remiel]

This statement is false. Gazans elected Hamas, an openly hostile group to power. Hamas not only states its anti-semitic and anti-Israel positions for all to see, but acts upon them for all to see. The accountability for Gaza becoming a hostile belligerent towards Israel and a threat to its security may not lie with all Gazans, but it lies with enough of them. Not only is the Israeli blockade legally justified, it is necessary.

That is a vast oversimplification of affairs. Yes, Gaza voted for Hamas, but being that the only other option was Fatah, which has a proven track record of being useless and corrupt, they were basically stuck with a choice between porridge flavoured bad and curry flavoured bad. Politics in every country is very much focused around results and alternatives. Hamas was able to come to power in Gaze democratically because it is the only alternative to Fatah.

Israel had a choice as well after the election of Hamas. They could have tried to exploit its newfound status as an elected government to try and change the dynamic of how the conflict between them was waged. Instead they attacked without ever having sent diplomats to try and tackle the problem first.

Lastly, saying that Gazans voting for Hamas makes them valid targets is akin to saying that Israeli Jews universal conscription makes them valid military targets; I am pretty sure you would not agree with the latter, though you seem to believe the former.

[eyeball]

I don't really know why I'm wasting my time talking to you, but if you're interested in this developing story (I doubt you are, as it's clear you'd rather just mold this story into your growing repertoire of false anti-Israel anecdotes), then you might want to read about talks between Israel and the EU, as well as Turkey, towards the end of loosening the restrictions of the blockade, while giving some degree of the responsibility of the monitoring of the transfer of goods and people into and out of Gaza in the hands of the EU and/or Turkey. If Israel can trust others to manage some of this blockade process, then it could alleviate a burden off of Israel - it's not easy or cheap to manage this blockade. Generally speaking, every way you slice it, Palestinians are a burden on Israel.

By the same token, if Palestine can trust others to apply sanctions against Israel...

Generally speaking, things should slice both ways.

[Remiel]

Imagine if Canada was experiencing hostility from Quebec, and that Canada and Quebec were in a state of belligerency - would you be crying about Canada not permitting in chocolate and jam into Quebec? imagine that the majority of Quebec voted into power an anti-Canadian, violent political (terrorist) group responsible for, and vowing to continue, murdering Canadians. How would you feel about a blockade on Quebec for Canada's security?

Funny, I was actually going to bring up an example like this in my previous post, but I decided against it. However, now that I have seen you try to use it...

Yes, imagine that Quebec had voted in the FLQ to be their government; a radical, violent terrorist organization with a hate on for English (and probably most non-French) Canadians. And now imagine the context: the only other party they could have voted for is the Liberals, and the Sponsorship Scandal just broke.

Edited June 14, 2010 by Remiel

[Bob]

First thing I'd want to know is what on Earth happened that caused so many Quebecers to be that pissed off at Canada?

Do you ever ask that question with respect to why there is animosity towards the Arab and Muslim world from Israel? Obviously you do not.

Either way, it's just another attempt from an amateur like yourself to dumb this conflict down to a "who started it" line-of-thinking. After the first grade, pointing the finger and proclaiming "he started it!" doesn't work anymore. It's an irrelevant question regardless of who you're asking it about: why is there resentment and mistrust between two sides is the honest question. Honesty isn't one of your strong suits, apparently....

[Bob]

By the same token, if Palestine can trust others to apply sanctions against Israel...

Generally speaking, things should slice both ways.

Another post that makes no sense. You're on a roll!

[eyeball]

Do you ever ask that question with respect to why there is animosity towards the Arab and Muslim world from Israel? Obviously you do not.

What's the point of asking such an obvious question? I fully understand where the Israeli resentment is coming from, all I'm saying is that it still take two to Tango.

why is there resentment and mistrust between two sides is the honest question. Honesty isn't one of your strong suits, apparently....

I've heard of inconvenient questions but never a dishonest one. You think wanting to know what on Earth happened that caused so many Quebecers to be that pissed off at Canada is a dishonest question? Don't forget you shifted the discussion to Quebec not me.

Another post that makes no sense. You're on a roll!

No, I'm on a keyboard actually.

[Bob]

That is a vast oversimplification of affairs. Yes, Gaza voted for Hamas, but being that the only other option was Fatah, which has a proven track record of being useless and corrupt, they were basically stuck with a choice between porridge flavoured bad and curry flavoured bad. Politics in every country is very much focused around results and alternatives. Hamas was able to come to power in Gaze democratically because it is the only alternative to Fatah.

Israel had a choice as well after the election of Hamas. They could have tried to exploit its newfound status as an elected government to try and change the dynamic of how the conflict between them was waged. Instead they attacked without ever having sent diplomats to try and tackle the problem first.

Lastly, saying that Gazans voting for Hamas makes them valid targets is akin to saying that Israeli Jews universal conscription makes them valid military targets; I am pretty sure you would not agree with the latter, though you seem to believe the former.

Well, Palestinian politics are far more complex and nuanced than I could ever understand. Of course I am oversimplifying greatly, but it's a necessity with such a complex issue in an online discussion forum. Still, responsibility lies with the population for the actions of its government. This applies to Gaza. Regardless of Fatah's ills an ineptitudes, Hamas is an openly hostile terrorist organization that isn't subtle about it's anti-Israeli and anti-semitic policies. Please do not pretend that Gazans do not bear large responsibility for the reaction of Israel towards this election, i.e. the blockade and the 2009 Gaza war. Hamas didn't promise one thing during its campaign and become something else after being elected - it's violent and hostile attitude was well-known to all observers, and it acted upon promises of resistance and violence. The hostilities of Hamas in recent years are not surprising to anyone, neither is the reaction of Israel. The fact that Gazans are in a tough spot doesn't absolve them of their responsibility for voting into power an organization such as Hamas. End of story.

Let's not pretend that Hamas and Gazans are two entirely separate entities, either. Hamas IS Gazan. There is a huge overlap, here. Of course not all Gazans support Hamas (I hope), but according to Jimmy Carter and many other, it was victorious is a legitimate election.

Israel always has a choice over whether or not to talk to Hamas. Although not directly talking to Hamas, indirect talks have been ongoing through third-parties, primarily Egypt. Still, what do you expect Israel to do? How can serious talks take place with a party such as Hamas? Only a person who knows nothing about Hamas could suggest that serious talks between it and Israel could likely yield anything positive.

I also never said that Gazans are all "valid targets". It seems to me that you're interpreting my position to be that Israel can legitimately attack all Gazans. This is certainly not my position nor is it Israel's position. I never said anything remotely resembling that. I have little sympathy, though, on a general level, towards the group of people in Gaza who elected an openly anti-semitic and anti-Israel organization. These people and their supporters hate me for who I am and make endless efforts to harm and murder other Jews in Israel and abroad. It's like asking a black person to feel significant compassion for a large group of underprivileged people that want to reinstate Jim Crow laws. I'm human, not Jesus. Israel fulfils a minimum level of influx of goods into Gaza, which is the softest blockade the world's ever seen from one belligerent to another - let's not forget that.

Edited June 14, 2010 by Bob

[Bob]

Funny, I was actually going to bring up an example like this in my previous post, but I decided against it. However, now that I have seen you try to use it...

Yes, imagine that Quebec had voted in the FLQ to be their government; a radical, violent terrorist organization with a hate on for English (and probably most non-French) Canadians. And now imagine the context: the only other party they could have voted for is the Liberals, and the Sponsorship Scandal just broke.

Are you suggesting that the FLQ is a viable alternative to the Liberal party in this hypothetical scenario? What's next, are we supposed to empathize with the supporters of Nazi Germany because they were undergoing a degree of economic hardship and hurt national pride at the time of their election of The National Socialist Party? Come on, get real.

[naomiglover]

I certainly do not take anyone's word for it "just because". The concept that somehow the ICRC is to be trusted more than an involved party simply because they are "neutral" holds no water.

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.

This is a complicated conflict, and from much of the important (but not very well-known) information regarding this conflict, specifically with respect to the blockade on Gaza, is absent from this ICRC position. There is not a single acknowledgement of legitimate Israeli security needs.

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.

[Oleg Bach]

It is illegal to break the spirit and health of a people...funny - Israel as I said hated the Nazi thing so much so and so long that it is probable THAT if you hate something long enough you might just become that thing you hate - Hate is weird that way - there is always a blow back. ONCE a force can generate hate in you - YOU have lost the battle.

[Bob]

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.

What does the Goldstone report have to do with Israel's blockade, let alone this discussion? Virtually nothing. Please stay on topic: you brought up this ICRC position, let's stay on this subject for a least a moment.

Let's examine this statement: Israel's right to deal with its legitimate security concerns must be balanced against the Palestinians' right to live normal, dignified lives.

Do you really consider this statement to balance the rest of the ICRC position? Where is the acknowledgement of Israeli casualties that have occurred as a result of rockets from Gaza? What about the obstruction of ordinary life and fear that results from thousands of attacks and constant running to bomb shelters? Since when is the well-being of Gazans a priority on Israel's agenda trumping the well-being of its own citizens?

Put succinctly, the ICRC cannot deride the entire blockade (which undoubtedly is saving Israeli lives and is morally and legally justified as a means to protect Israel from hostilities), and then in a single sentence make an "acknowledgement" of Israeli security needs. It's completely oxymoronic, as the vast majority of the report wails on about hardship in Gaza, what about the hardship in Israel resulting from the rocket attacks? In your warped world, naomiglover, does such a report constitute a balanced approach, with no mention of Israeli security needs and concerns, no mention of Israeli hardship, but a token statement regarding these matters and a reference to Gilad Shalit. It's reflects poorly on the ICRC and its ability to examine this situation objectively.

The statement might as well read, "Israeli lives must be balanced against the needs of Gazans for chocolate and jam". Israel does not need to apologize for prioritizing the safety of its citizens over the economic toll imposed by Gaza resulting from the blockade (which Hamas would've done, anyway, with respect to Israeli-Gazan commerce).

So before you go rant on and on about this organization or that, let's at least deal with one issue at a time. I think perhaps it is you with the need for help with your attention span.

Edited June 14, 2010 by Bob