Red Cross: Israel's Gaza blockade breaks international law

[dre]

Sadly,I think that's the case...

I suspect our crazy,little,anti-Semitic,Shi'ite mouthpiece in Tehran might be the one who fires the first shot...

It's instructive that even Saudi Arabia is interested in getting the Iranian position forcebly changed...

I agree... I see a broader regional conflict as almost inevitable, although the increased scarcity of water is a much bigger factor than direct security issues. The water table is receding, and this makes a political solution to the conflict almost impossible because Israel gets about 1/3 of its water from the moutain aquifiers in the west bank. And the water in the Kinneret basin is also receding.

[M.Dancer]

I agree,and I suspect the real reason for rejecting Oslo was that it,while Arafat might have been able to see the benefits of that agreement,it was entirely unsellable to the Palestinian populous at large because peace is not what they want.Their position is the same as Iran's and Syria's,and the Hamas Manifesto...

Speaking of Arab opinion ...

Al-Qaeda

Only one question directly polled attitudes towards Al-Qaeda, but the responses are revealing:

When you think About Al Qaeda, what aspect of the organization, if any, do you sympathize with most?

30% – That it confronts the US.

21% – I do not sympathize at all with this organization.

18% – It stands for Muslim causes such as Palestine.

10% – Its methods of operation.

07% – It seeks to create a Taliban-style Islamic state

http://insurgencyresearchgroup.wordpress.com/2008/04/19/arab-public-opinion-al-qaeda-the-long-war/

[Bob]

The PLO never recognized Israel. You're still lying and not acknowledging the subjectivity of 242. The PLO charter was never adjusted to remove clauses that reject Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state or endorsing terrorism, contrary to the promises laid out in a letter from Arafat to Rabin in your link.

Hamas has stated in a couple of interviews that it would offer a truce based on unacceptable conditions (a warped interpretation of 242), primarily demanding the ethnic cleansing of half-a-million Jews from Judea/Samaria and EJ. Of course Hamas knows this is impossible. In many more interviews and public pronouncements Hamas has called for Israel's destruction - you conveniently ignore these statements - and their actions.. Only an idiot would see Hamas' actions as not being completely in line with their violent promises.

Israel will not allow its enemies to gain more territory in order to continue their agenda of murder and terrorism that they embarked on in the late 19th century. They must be kept as far away from Israeli population centres as possible. "Land for peace" is a fallacy. The conflict is ideological, not territorial.

Keep the lies coming, naomiglover.

For you to even suggest that Palestinians want peace, while Israel wants conflict is BEYOND absurd. How can you look at yourself in the mirror? Is your family disgusted with your hate and lies? It is shocking to me how pathological your lies are.

Edited June 16, 2010 by Bob

[GostHacked]

Hostilities against Jews began long before there was ever even the concept of a "Palestinian" national identity.

You can say it was even before there was an Israeli national identity. Which is smack dab in the middle of a Palestinian national identity that is seems to be in question.

[Jack Weber]

I agree... I see a broader regional conflict as almost inevitable, although the increased scarcity of water is a much bigger factor than direct security issues. The water table is receding, and this makes a political solution to the conflict almost impossible because Israel gets about 1/3 of its water from the moutain aquifiers in the west bank. And the water in the Kinneret basin is also receding.

I think the water shortage issue is a side issue...

I think this is really the front line is a potential civilizational battle between Islamofascism and Western values where the Israel/Palestinian issue is a perfect cover and/or excuse for such a thing.

[Bob]

You can say it was even before there was an Israeli national identity. Which is smack dab in the middle of a Palestinian national identity that is seems to be in question.

There's a Jewish identity which precedes Israeli identity. Perhaps you're forgotten that.

[dre]

The PLO never recognized Israel. You're still lying and not acknowledging the subjectivity of 242. The PLO charter was never adjusted to remove clauses that reject Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state or endorsing terrorism, contrary to the promises laid out in a letter from Arafat to Rabin in your link.

Hamas has stated in a couple of interviews that it would offer a truce based on unacceptable conditions (a warped interpretation of 242), primarily demanding the ethnic cleansing of half-a-million Jews from Judea/Samaria and EJ. Of course Hamas knows this is impossible. In many more interviews and public pronouncements Hamas has called for Israel's destruction - you conveniently ignore these statements - and their actions.. Only an idiot would see Hamas' actions as not being completely in line with their violent promises.

Israel will not allow its enemies to gain more territory in order to continue their agenda of murder and terrorism that they embarked on in the late 19th century. They must be kept as far away from Israeli population centres as possible. "Land for peace" is a fallacy. The conflict is ideological, not territorial.

Keep the lies coming, naomiglover.

For you to even suggest that Palestinians want peace, while Israel wants conflict is BEYOND absurd. How can you look at yourself in the mirror? Is your family disgusted with your hate and lies? It is shocking to me how pathological your lies are.

Youre still ignoring how UNSC resolutions work. 242 affirmed the securities councils position on the integrity of state borders, and laided out a number of recommendations and a framework for peace.

The UNSC cant promise that anyone will recognize anybody. All it can do is state the position of member states which if the resolution then passes become legally binding. Beyond that it can advocate certain courses of actions but it cant guarantee they will be followed unless its able to actually initiate enforcement. In the case of Israel the UN has tried to do this dozens of times but the US has used its veto each time.

Anyhow... your suggestion that 242 is null and void because some parties didnt accept it is patently false. It carries full force of law like every other UNSC resolution that passes.

[dre]

I think the water shortage issue is a side issue...

I think this is really the front line is a potential civilizational battle between Islamofascism and Western values where the Israel/Palestinian issue is a perfect cover and/or excuse for such a thing.

Its not a side issue at all, its the core issue in the conflict and always has been. The first major hostilities in the conflict were over control of the River Jordans headwaters, and hostilities and incidents related to water are what precipitated the 1967 war in the first place.

The water issue also makes it virtually impossible for ISrael to withdraw from the territories which basically scuttles the entire concept of a political solution. Israel threatened to invade Lebanon in 2003 over lebanon pumping water out of its own rivers.

Its far from a side issue.

[Guest American Woman]

American Woman, on 15 June 2010 - 05:42 PM, said: And I'm done wasting time with you again.

You said the same thing the last few times when you couldn't respond to facts.

Yep, that's it. I "couldn't" respond to your "facts." It has nothing to do with your inability to control your childish impulse to resort to some form of your "now you're babbling" response, which anyone over the mental age of 12 would find a complete waste of time to respond to. It's because your posts are so filled with irrefutable facts.

:lol:

[GostHacked]

There's a Jewish identity which precedes Israeli identity. Perhaps you're forgotten that.

I guess we can't forget it the way people cry about it.

[Jack Weber]

Its not a side issue at all, its the core issue in the conflict and always has been. The first major hostilities in the conflict were over control of the River Jordans headwaters, and hostilities and incidents related to water are what precipitated the 1967 war in the first place.

The water issue also makes it virtually impossible for ISrael to withdraw from the territories which basically scuttles the entire concept of a political solution. Israel threatened to invade Lebanon in 2003 over lebanon pumping water out of its own rivers.

Its far from a side issue.

If I'm not mistaken,one of the reasons for Israel taking the Golan Heights was the issue of who would control the high ground and the water supply.

However,I don't think the water issue is at the heart of Tehran's threats,or Hamas bluster,or Al Quaeda's threats...It's the fact that Israel exists at all..

Edited June 16, 2010 by Jack Weber

[Bob]

Youre still ignoring how UNSC resolutions work. 242 affirmed the securities councils position on the integrity of state borders, and laided out a number of recommendations and a framework for peace.

The UNSC cant promise that anyone will recognize anybody. All it can do is state the position of member states which if the resolution then passes become legally binding. Beyond that it can advocate certain courses of actions but it cant guarantee they will be followed unless its able to actually initiate enforcement. In the case of Israel the UN has tried to do this dozens of times but the US has used its veto each time.

Anyhow... your suggestion that 242 is null and void because some parties didnt accept it is patently false. It carries full force of law like every other UNSC resolution that passes.

242 is subjective. How to implement its tenets is up for debate. If you want to claim that Israel didn't fulfill its obligations of 242, then you need to mention that the PLO never ceased terrorism or incitement.

The USA vetoing anti-semitic resolutions is irrelevant to this discussion. It doesn't even matter, anyways, very little of this legalistic mumbo-jumbo means anythings, and it certainly doesn't support the Palestinian cause - they're broken every commitment they ever made, both public and private, bilateral and multilateral.

At the end of the day, the rejection of Arabs and Muslims to Jewish self-determination is the primary driver of this conflict. The conflict didn't start in '67, and it certainly won't end upon a relinquishing of Israeli territory to its enemies whoa re sworn to its destruction. You can't sign a piece of paper in a room in NYC promising to recognize Israel based on impossible preconditions and then teach children in Ramallah that the Holocaust is a fraud - and expect to be seen a true advocate for peace.

Edited June 16, 2010 by Bob

[Remiel]

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.

What I am suggesting is that it would not be incomprehensible that they could have won even if most people in Quebec did not want the violence. Did the Sponsorship Scandal in some ways not seem like a betrayal to the average Quebecer? Who votes for people who have just betrayed them?

And as for Germany... Do you think blockading them in 30s would have led to them eschewing the Nazis in favour of some pro-Allies party? Come on, get real.

[Bob]

What I am suggesting is that it would not be incomprehensible that they could have won even if most people in Quebec did not want the violence. Did the Sponsorship Scandal in some ways not seem like a betrayal to the average Quebecer? Who votes for people who have just betrayed them?

And as for Germany... Do you think blockading them in 30s would have led to them eschewing the Nazis in favour of some pro-Allies party? Come on, get real.

So basically, Israel is between a rock and a hard place. It has a priority - security of its citizens. This is an immediate need, and cannot be compromised in some gambling attempt at a social experiment. Do you suppose that Israel should not blockade an openly hostile (not just words, but actions - MURDERS of Israelis) territory because it might make the population more angry and hate-filled than it already is? Israel must choose between a hate-filled group of people sworn to its destruction and a REALLY ANGRY hate-filled group of people sworn to its destruction? What a wonderful choice to make.

Edited June 16, 2010 by Bob

[segnosaur]

Youre still ignoring how UNSC resolutions work. 242 affirmed the securities councils position on the integrity of state borders, and laided out a number of recommendations and a framework for peace.

...

Anyhow... your suggestion that 242 is null and void because some parties didnt accept it is patently false. It carries full force of law like every other UNSC resolution that passes.

There are actually different types of Security Council resolutions... Chapter 6 resolutions (of which 242 is one) is considered 'non-binding'. It is basically a recommendation, and carries no actual 'weight' in law. (And there is some truth to the idea that such resolutions must be accepted and acted upon by all parties. The fact that the Palestinians didn't recognize Israel does make the issue null and void, since no group is required to react unilaterally to Chapter 6 resolutions.)

There are also Chapter 7 resolutions. These resolutions are binding, and can require unilateral action. For example, several of the resolutions against Iraq under Saddam were Chapter 7 resolutions.

[WIP]

The evidence I have about Hamas shows that their actions are also keeping supplies/aid from reaching the civilians you refer to. Why you dismiss their actions is difficult to understand. It doesn't matter whether they are the ones controlling the blockade or not, their actions hurt them just the same. As do those in charge of the tunnels, who don't want the blockade to end as they would no longer make millions.

It does matter who's in control of the blockade. The Israeli Government is deliberately denying medicines and a variety of foods through the blockade. If they were really concerned about interference from Hamas, do you really think they wouldn't be able to circumvent Hamas?

You also overlook the fact that shooting rockets into Israel affects Israeli citizens. That should be self-evident. Hamas has also clearly violated Israeli human rights, as killing women and children with suicide bombs is as clear a violation of human rights as you can get. As long as Israel is being thus threatened, it's a two-way street, and Israel is not the blame for conditions in Gaza.

The question: do two wrongs make a right? needs to be asked here. If Israel does not claim to be a democracy or support human rights for all, then they have no special obligation to uphold a higher standard than Hamas does. But if they are claiming to uphold a higher standard than Hamas, they cannot use the ends-justify-the-means as a defense of state-sponsored terror.

But for Hamas being elected into power, but for the actions of Hamas, the blockade would not have been put into existence. And but for the rockets being fired into Israel whenever there's talk of lifting the blockade, the blockade may have already been lifted. But if rockets are fired into Israel in response to the possibility of lifting the blockade, who do you blame for the blockade staying in place?

Hamas wouldn't be here now if it wasn't created by the Mossad to weaken Yasser Arafat's PLO. Then, when the monster they created won the election, they tried to stop it from taking power by supporting the PA's attempt to remain in government. A blockade is an act of war, and the Israelis started the blockade as soon as Hamas seized control. So the whole ugly chain of events has its source in the backfired strategy Israel devised to manipulate Gaza.

[segnosaur]

The question: do two wrongs make a right? needs to be asked here. If Israel does not claim to be a democracy or support human rights for all, then they have no special obligation to uphold a higher standard than Hamas does. But if they are claiming to uphold a higher standard than Hamas, they cannot use the ends-justify-the-means as a defense of state-sponsored terror.

The problem with that argument is that you seem to be assuming its an all-or-nothing situation.

Israel is a democracy, and usually it treats Palestinians with more regard than Hamas. (Remember, during the Gaza invasion Hamas was willing to use schools as cover for launching attacks, and its members infiltrated hospitals. Not to mention Hamas' actions to seize aid and kill dissenters. Israel's record is not perfect by a long shot, but

Hamas wouldn't be here now if it wasn't created by the Mossad...

The myth that "Mossad created Hamas" is one that seems to get passed around with no critical examination. The fact is, Mossad did not create Hamas. It was actually founded by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.

Now, it was true that Israel allowed the organization to continue without interference in its early years. But in those years, the group was non-violent. They provided social services to the population. That should be the type of activity that Israel should support. (Its not like they hired a bunch of religious fanatics, gave them guns, and let them loose.)

Then, when the monster they created won the election, they tried to stop it from taking power by supporting the PA's attempt to remain in government.

Uhh... keep in mind that the 'monster' that won the Gaza elections was not the same organization that was primarily concerned with building hospitals and schools back in the 80s (when Israel was supposedly "supporting" them.) Hamas changed (in their actions, if not their intent).

A blockade is an act of war, and the Israelis started the blockade as soon as Hamas seized control.

Nope, they didn't.

Hamas won the legislative elections in January 2006. They named their cabinet in March of 2006.

Israel did not start its blockade until September 2007, over a year since Hamas first won the elections and many months after Hamas managed to consolidate power (and only after they had been subject to numerous rocket attacks from Gaza.)

Note: here are some links giving the dates when these events happened. (They are from Wikipedia, which I don't usually use as a source, but we're just looking at dates here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza%E2%80%93Israel_conflict

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Hamas#2007_takeover_of_Gaza_Strip

[bloodyminded]

Israel did not start its blockade until September 2007, over a year since Hamas first won the elections and many months after Hamas managed to consolidate power (and only after they had been subject to numerous rocket attacks from Gaza.)

But nobody (well, except for drooling fanatics) believes that rocket attacks were the reason for the blockade.

Just as we know that rocket attacks weren't the reason for Operation Cast Lead; leaving aside the inconvenient fact that Israel has admitted this, it's also Israel, not Hamas, who broke the cease-fire.

[Keepitsimple]

How would you like living next door to a country or entity that refuses to recognize your right to exist and wants nothing more than your complete destruction? Compound that with the fact they have been sending rockets in to Israel for years and are financed by Iran - a country led by religious zeolots whose President has also called for Israel to be wiped off the map. Hamas could - if they so desired - opt for peace and take one single step - recognize the right of Israel to exist. All the rest is just semantics - sheer noise that belies the simple fact that they do not want peace - they are driven by sheer hatred. As Golda Meir said "There will be no peace until they learn to love their children more than they hate ours".

Edited June 17, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[bloodyminded]

How would you like living next door to a country or entity that refuses to recognize your right to exist and wants nothing more than your complete destruction? Compound that with the fact they have been sending rockets in to Israel for years and are financed by Iran - a country led by religious zeolots whose President has also called for Israel to be wiped off the map. Hamas could - if they so desired - opt for peace and take one single step - recognize the right of Israel to exist. All the rest is just semantics - sheer noise that belies the simple fact that they do not want peace - they are driven by sheer hatred. As Golda Meir said "There will be no peace until they learn to love their children more than they hate ours".

There is no obligation--ever, by anybody, in any circumstances--to "recognize a country's right to exist." that is simply not an enshrined principle.

As a neighbouring, historically hostile nation...now, matters are quite different. If Palestine becomes an official state, there may be some obligations, I'm not sure.

At any rate, how would you like to live next door to a country that refuses to recognize your right to exist, and which has acted as military aggressor after breaking a ceasefire?

Edited June 17, 2010 by bloodyminded

[WIP]

The problem with that argument is that you seem to be assuming its an all-or-nothing situation.

Israel is a democracy, and usually it treats Palestinians with more regard than Hamas. (Remember, during the Gaza invasion Hamas was willing to use schools as cover for launching attacks, and its members infiltrated hospitals. Not to mention Hamas' actions to seize aid and kill dissenters. Israel's record is not perfect by a long shot, but

This is not a valid argument since the same argument was offered up during apartheid South Africa that despite 2nd class citizenship, blacks were still better off there than in other African nations.

The myth that "Mossad created Hamas" is one that seems to get passed around with no critical examination. The fact is, Mossad did not create Hamas. It was actually founded by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.

Now, it was true that Israel allowed the organization to continue without interference in its early years. But in those years, the group was non-violent. They provided social services to the population. That should be the type of activity that Israel should support. (Its not like they hired a bunch of religious fanatics, gave them guns, and let them loose.)

I did not intend to give the impression that Mossad took Sheikh Yassin aside and told him to create an Islamist movement in Palestine. My point is that Israel was well aware of Hamas in those early years, but decided that it would serve their purposes to have two Palestinian groups fighting each other.

Uhh... keep in mind that the 'monster' that won the Gaza elections was not the same organization that was primarily concerned with building hospitals and schools back in the 80s (when Israel was supposedly "supporting" them.) Hamas changed (in their actions, if not their intent).

The rhetoric of Hamas was no different then, than it is now. The only difference is that the Israelis didn't contemplate what would happen if the group they favoured and encouraged at the expense of Fatah, would end up in power. So it is ironic that they are raising the alarm bells about Islamic theocracy and trying to maintain the conflicts the U.S. has with the Muslim nations, when they encouraged the rise to power of Hamas.

[Bob]

Stop lying. Israel never supported or encouraged Hamas. You think you can spread your lies in here without anyone calling you on your bullshit?

[segnosaur]

I did not intend to give the impression that Mossad took Sheikh Yassin aside and told him to create an Islamist movement in Palestine."

Then why did you, in post 116, use the phrase "Hamas wouldn't be here now if it wasn't created by the Mossad"? Sounds like you're talking about creation to me...

My point is that Israel was well aware of Hamas in those early years, but decided that it would serve their purposes to have two Palestinian groups fighting each other.

Ummm, "fighting"? I've already pointed out that in those early years Hamas was not engaging in violence.

Don't you think that non-violent groups should be, you know, encouraged?

The rhetoric of Hamas was no different then, than it is now. The only difference is that the Israelis didn't contemplate what would happen if the group they favoured and encouraged at the expense of Fatah, would end up in power.

No, the difference is that, back when Hamas first existed, they were not launching rockets at Israel and kidnapping its citizens.

[WIP]

Stop lying. Israel never supported or encouraged Hamas. You think you can spread your lies in here without anyone calling you on your bullshit?

Hamas is a Creation of Mossad

Ahmed Yassin, the spiritual leader of the Islamist movement in Palestine, returning from Cairo in the seventies, established an Islamic charity association. Prime Minister Golda Meir, saw this as a an opportunity to counterbalance the rise of Arafat’s Fatah movement. .According to the Israeli weekly Koteret Rashit (October 1987), "The Islamic associations as well as the university had been supported and encouraged by the Israeli military authority" in charge of the (civilian) administration of the West Bank and Gaza. "They [the Islamic associations and the university] were authorized to receive money payments from abroad."

The Islamists set up orphanages and health clinics, as well as a network of schools, workshops which created employment for women as well as system of financial aid to the poor. And in 1978, they created an "Islamic University" in Gaza. "The military authority was convinced that these activities would weaken both the PLO and the leftist organizations in Gaza." At the end of 1992, there were six hundred mosques in Gaza. Thanks to Israel’s intelligence agency Mossad (Israel’s Institute for Intelligence and Special Tasks) , the Islamists were allowed to reinforce their presence in the occupied territories. Meanwhile, the members of Fatah (Movement for the National Liberation of Palestine) and the Palestinian Left were subjected to the most brutal form of repression.

Ahmed Yassin was in prison when, the Oslo accords (Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government) were signed in September 1993. The Hamas had rejected Oslo outright. But at that time, 70% of Palestinians had condemned the attacks on Israeli civilians. Yassin did everything in his power to undermine the Oslo accords. Even prior to Prime Minister Rabin’s death, he had the support of the Israeli government. The latter was very reluctant to implement the peace agreement.

The Hamas then launched a carefully timed campaign of attacks against civilians, one day before the meeting between Palestinian and Israeli negotiators, regarding the formal recognition of Israel by the National Palestinian Council. These events were largely instrumental in the formation of a Right wing Israeli government following the May 1996 elections.

Quite unexpectedly, Prime Minister Netanyahu ordered Sheik Ahmed Yassin to be released from prison ("on humanitarian grounds") where he was serving a life sentence. Meanwhile, Netanyahu, together with President Bill Clinton, was putting pressure on Arafat to control the Hamas. In fact, Netanyahu knew that he could rely, once more, on the Islamists to sabotage the Oslo accords. Worse still: after having expelled Yassin to Jordan, Prime Minister Netanyahu allowed him to return to Gaza, where he was welcomed triumphantly as a hero in October 1997.

Now, speaking of bullshit, if your government was as justified banning almost everything from entering Gaza during the blockade, as you and the other koolaid drinkers maintain, why are they now lifting the ban except on weapons: Israel lifts ban on most civilian goods into Gaza .....all that arguing and making excuses for nothing!

[WIP]

Then why did you, in post 116, use the phrase "Hamas wouldn't be here now if it wasn't created by the Mossad"? Sounds like you're talking about creation to me...

And in post 117, why did you use the phrase:"But in those years, the group was non-violent." when referring to Hamas. Were you unaware of the assassinations and terrorist attacks that Hamas conducted earlier, or were you just talking out of your ass?