Israel bows to pressure and agrees to ease Gaza blockade

[Guest American Woman]

Its definately true, and it IS often very hard to get an idea of what goes on as a result.

I listen to both sides lies, mix in whatever limited empirical facts might be available, and do my best to figure out what happened. In this case for example, the video of the protesters preparing for a confrontation came out, as did Israels admission it had doctored tapes. I also look at whos actively trying to hide stuff. In this case it came out that neither side was honest, but we still in the end were able to get a decent idea of the facts.

Some people get a decent idea of the facts, or at least think they do, but it's still based on "lies" if that's all both sides are doing. So really, I think one's views regarding what they hear, reflect their tendency to believe what they do in the first place. In other words, if one thinks rich, powerful nations are corrupt, and they believe poorer, less powerful nations are 'oppressed,' their tendency is to think that the rich, powerful nation was wrong. I also believe that if the oppressed nation rises and becomes more powerful, they will lose a certain amount of the support they enjoyed when they were 'oppressed.' And it'll be too late for the rich, powerful nation if they caved in to international criticism and ended up paying a price for it.

I think that's why, unless someone has 'walked a mile' in someone else's shoes, they really don't know what's right or wrong regarding another nation's actions. Let's face it. The rest of the world doesn't have Israel's best interests at heart, so why should Israel act on what they think? I do believe more nations have Palestine's best interest at heart because they are perceived as the underdog.

So that's why I believe in Israel's right to look out for Israel. If Israel doesn't do it, who is?

Im saying I didnt support elements of the sanctions against Iraq and I dont support elements of the blockade against Israel either. Sanctions should be carefully designed to harm the civilian population as little as possible and that wasnt done in either case. In any case its a poor comparison because the Israeli blockade was a lot more harsh and comprehensive than sanctions against Iraq.

I have to say that I really question that. I believe the Iraqis suffered every bit as much as the Palestinians in Gaza.

Define legitimate cause. They were running a blockade that ammounted to collective punishment. A blockade that not only stopped weapons from being brought into Gaza but lots of household items, food, and medicine as well, and it blocked commercial EXPORTS to boot. They deserved to be exposed in the way they were and I could care less if they got set up. Theyve definately done theyre share of setting up others.

It's as "legitimate a cause" as the UN sanctions against Iraq was. The purpose of the sanctions was to keep Saddam in check. The purpose of the blockade is to keep Hamas in check. Furthermore, Iraqis suffered the same losses as the Palestinians as a result of the sanctions. That's why I find it odd that Israel deserved to be exposed, yet the UN sanctions were good.

Who fell for it? What nations believed that the IDF just went down there and shot a bunch of peacefull protesters? I sure didnt think that.

And you hardly represent the world. A lot of people believed it. That's obvious.

This thing was obvious from the get go. It was a political statement, and attempt to raise awareness of the blockade.

Obvious to you and me, maybe. But not so obvious to others.

I think there was a miscalculation as well... the people on the ship probably thought there would at most be a minor skirmish. If they wanted to go to war with the IDF on that boat, why didnt they have AK47's? It wouldnt have been that hard to arm themselves properly.

I have no idea how difficult it would have been to "arm themselves properly." It sounds to me as if they thought they could just throw the Israeli soldiers overboard, into the sea. How "minor" that is depends on whether you're the one doing the throwing or the one being thrown.

Like I said. These people are in a conflict in which a key component is trying to get world opinion on their side. Both sides are perfectly fine with dishonesty and both sides have been caught in it lots of times.

And like I said, when one gets "world opinion on their side" through lies, I have a problem with that. And I'll repeat that the rest of the world should, too. People should object to and refuse to be taken in by lies and dishonesty, and perhaps we will get more truth; then the truth will be the main reasoning behind world opinion than lies are. "World Opinion" ultimately only matters if it's based on the truth. Being as it is, I can sure understand why nations would dismiss international opinion and not act on international opinion, since it's likely based on lies and which side/which lies too many people want to believe, based on their own 'ideals' and too little else.

Edited June 22, 2010 by American Woman

[dre]

Some people get a decent idea of the facts, or at least think they do, but it's still based on "lies" if that's all both sides are doing. So really, I think one's views regarding what they hear, reflect their tendency to believe what they do in the first place. In other words, if one thinks rich, powerful nations are corrupt, and they believe poorer, less powerful nations are 'oppressed,' their tendency is to think that the rich, powerful nation was wrong. I also believe that if the oppressed nation rises and becomes more powerful, they will lose a certain amount of the support they enjoyed when they were 'oppressed.' And it'll be too late for the rich, powerful nation if they caved in to international criticism and ended up paying a price for it.

I think that's why, unless someone has 'walked a mile' in someone else's shoes, they really don't know what's right or wrong regarding another nation's actions. Let's face it. The rest of the world doesn't have Israel's best interests at heart, so why should Israel act on what they think? I do believe more nations have Palestine's best interest at heart because they are perceived as the underdog.

So that's why I believe in Israel's right to look out for Israel. If Israel doesn't do it, who is?

I have to say that I really question that. I believe the Iraqis suffered every bit as much as the Palestinians in Gaza.

It's as "legitimate a cause" as the UN sanctions against Iraq was. The purpose of the sanctions was to keep Saddam in check. The purpose of the blockade is to keep Hamas in check. Furthermore, Iraqis suffered the same losses as the Palestinians as a result of the sanctions. That's why I find it odd that Israel deserved to be exposed, yet the UN sanctions were good.

And you hardly represent the world. A lot of people believed it. That's obvious.

Obvious to you and me, maybe. But not so obvious to others.

I have no idea how difficult it would have been to "arm themselves properly." It sounds to me as if they thought they could just throw the Israeli soldiers overboard, into the sea. How "minor" that is depends on whether you're the one doing the throwing or the one being thrown.

And like I said, when one gets "world opinion on their side" through lies, I have a problem with that. And I'll repeat that the rest of the world should, too. People should object to and refuse to be taken in by lies and dishonesty, and perhaps we will get more truth; then the truth will be the main reasoning behind world opinion than lies are. "World Opinion" ultimately only matters if it's based on the truth. Being as it is, I can sure understand why nations would dismiss international opinion and not act on international opinion, since it's likely based on lies and which side/which lies too many people want to believe, based on their own 'ideals' and too little else.

Some people get a decent idea of the facts, or at least think they do, but it's still based on "lies" if that's all both sides are doing. So really, I think one's views regarding what they hear, reflect their tendency to believe what they do in the first place. In other words, if one thinks rich, powerful nations are corrupt, and they believe poorer, less powerful nations are 'oppressed,' their tendency is to think that the rich, powerful nation was wrong.

I dont think thats the case here at all. People dont object to Israel being powerfull, they object to many of Israels actions. This isnt about poor nations VS rich nations, its about a brutal military occupation that has gone on since before you and I were born, and a whole host of dispicable actions carried out by both sides.

The rest of the world doesn't have Israel's best interests at heart, so why should Israel act on what they think?

I think most of the world has the interests of both sides at heart. Which is why they are trying to push both sides to end destructive policies, and urging both sides to stop undermining peace.

So that's why I believe in Israel's right to look out for Israel. If Israel doesn't do it, who is?

I believe in BOTH sides right to look out for themselves. That seems to be the difference. You could apply most of your arguments to EITHER side of the conflict, but you choose to apply them to only one. The problem is both sides have done a lot more than "look out for themselves". They have committed willfull atrocities against each other.

I have to say that I really question that. I believe the Iraqis suffered every bit as much as the Palestinians in Gaza.

I dont remember foods and medicines being included in sanctions against Iraq, nor do I remember the sanctions stopping all commercial exports effectively making it impossible for anyone to have a livelyhood. I could be wrong though, I admit I havent read up on the sanctions against Iraq for a long time.

Edited June 22, 2010 by dre

[bloodyminded]

Well, Im hoping this is a wakeup call for people in the occupied/blockaded territories, and they will realize that staging clashes like this against military assets is more productive than attacking civilians in Israel. Firing rockets or sending suicide bombers into Israel has accomplished nothing at all. This approach would probably be a lot more productive, and doesnt result in innocent civilians getting killed.

If I was them I would try to engineer hostilities to take the form of lightly armed civilians against the IDF... instead of attacks on Jewish civilians that piss off the whole world and actually generate support for the Israeli position.

You can see how differently the two tactics are viewed by the international community.

Sure. Whatever one's stance, the moral difference is clear; and I'm not a huge fan of delineating the "moral" from the "practical."

Suicide bombings and flinging rockets at civilian areas probably is not practical. But that's not the only problem I have with such things, to say the least.

[bloodyminded]

I dont remember foods and medicines being included in sanctions against Iraq, nor do I remember the sanctions stopping all commercial exports effectively making it impossible for anyone to have a livelyhood. I could be wrong though, I admit I havent read up on the sanctions against Iraq for a long time.

Apparently many of the same issues were at stake, such as bizarre, apparently arbitrary exemptions, which had an arguably cruel intent, and inarguably cruel effects.

[dre]

Apparently many of the same issues were at stake, such as bizarre, apparently arbitrary exemptions, which had an arguably cruel intent, and inarguably cruel effects.

Im willing to defer to your knowledge there and concede that point to A-Dub.

I would add though that one of the most damaging things with the Israeli blockade was the blocking of almost all commercial exports, and the subsquent decimation of employment. Dont remember if this happened in Iraq either.

[bloodyminded]

Im willing to defer to your knowledge there and concede that point to A-Dub.

I would add though that one of the most damaging things with the Israeli blockade was the blocking of almost all commercial exports, and the subsquent decimation of employment. Dont remember if this happened in Iraq either.

This much, I'm afraid I don't know.

[Guest American Woman]

Im willing to defer to your knowledge there and concede that point to A-Dub.

A-Dub appreciates the acknowledgement, and thanks bloodyminded for backing her up.

I would add though that one of the most damaging things with the Israeli blockade was the blocking of almost all commercial exports, and the subsquent decimation of employment. Dont remember if this happened in Iraq either.

This kind of reinforces what I've been saying. It doesn't really matter what the "most damaging" aspect of the Iraq sanctions was, whether it was the blocking of almost all commercial exports or not, if the results were the same. So it sounds to me as if you are somehow trying to justify/minimize the sanctions against Iraq, and the support it received as having "kept Saddam in check regarding WMD," ie: the sanctions worked so war wasn't necessary, and that's what I don't understand. You haven't come right out and said if you supported the sanctions or not, but it sounds to me as if you did.

The sanctions were crippling. They were hurting the Iraqi people every bit as much as, if not more than, the blockade has hurt Palestinians in Gaza. Yet the media wasn't in an uproar about that the way it is about the blockade. The UN wasn't blasted the way Israel is. It was seen as a workable alternative to war for keeping Saddam in check. Yet Israel is the devil incarnate for imposing the blockade, and that's what I don't understand. The double standard. The support for one and the condemnation of the other.

"We are waging a war through the United Nations on the people of Iraq. We're targeting civilians. Worse, we're targeting children . . . What is this all about?"

Halliday had been 34 years with the UN. As an international civil servant much respected in the field of "helping people, not harming them" [...]. "I am resigning," he wrote, "because the policy of economic sanctions is . . . destroying an entire society.

Halliday's successor, Hans von Sponeck, another assistant secretary general with more than 30 years' service, also resigned in protest. Jutta Burghardt, the head of the World Food Programme in Iraq, followed them, saying she could no longer tolerate what was being done to the Iraqi people.

Their collective action was unprecedented; yet it received only passing media attention. link

Edited June 22, 2010 by American Woman

[dre]

A-Dub appreciates the acknowledgement, and thanks bloodyminded for backing her up.

This kind of reinforces what I've been saying. It doesn't really matter what the "most damaging" aspect of the Iraq sanctions was, whether it was the blocking of almost all commercial exports or not, if the results were the same. So it sounds to me as if you are somehow trying to justify/minimize the sanctions against Iraq, and the support it received as having "kept Saddam in check regarding WMD," ie: the sanctions worked so war wasn't necessary, and that's what I don't understand. You haven't come right out and said if you supported the sanctions or not, but it sounds to me as if you did.

The sanctions were crippling. They were hurting the Iraqi people every bit as much as, if not more than, the blockade has hurt Palestinians in Gaza. Yet the media wasn't in an uproar about that the way it is about the blockade. The UN wasn't blasted the way Israel is. It was seen as a workable alternative to war for keeping Saddam in check. Yet Israel is the devil incarnate for imposing the blockade, and that's what I don't understand. The double standard. The support for one and the condemnation of the other.

"We are waging a war through the United Nations on the people of Iraq. We're targeting civilians. Worse, we're targeting children . . . What is this all about?"

Halliday had been 34 years with the UN. As an international civil servant much respected in the field of "helping people, not harming them" [...]. "I am resigning," he wrote, "because the policy of economic sanctions is . . . destroying an entire society.

Halliday's successor, Hans von Sponeck, another assistant secretary general with more than 30 years' service, also resigned in protest. Jutta Burghardt, the head of the World Food Programme in Iraq, followed them, saying she could no longer tolerate what was being done to the Iraqi people.

Their collective action was unprecedented; yet it received only passing media attention. link

The UN wasn't blasted the way Israel is. It was seen as a workable alternative to war for keeping Saddam in check. Yet Israel is the devil incarnate for imposing the blockade, and that's what I don't understand.

A lot of people DID blast the sanctions in Iraq. I remember an oft repeated narrative that they had killed a million people. And for whatever reason people bought the narrative that Saddam was a massive threat to the world and was bent on aquiring WMD' and Nukes. Do you think there would have been ANY support for those sanctions at ALL, if all Saddam Hussein had was crappy home-made rockets that you cant even aim, and almost never kill anyone? Youre trying to compare two completely different situations. Iraq became the object of internatonal sanctions, because he invaded a sovereign country, not because Iraqis were resisting a brutal military occupation or a blockade.

In any case A does not justify B, and whether or not theres a double standard does not in any way excuse Israels policy of collective punishment.

[naomiglover]

In any case A does not justify B, and whether or not theres a double standard does not in any way excuse Israels policy of collective punishment.

*Ding*

[Bonam]

While allowing more civilian goods into Gaza is a good thing, so long as proper supervision remains to make sure weapons are not allowed in, Israel should really have demanded something in return. Not necessarily anything major, but a minor concession from Hamas of some sort in exchange for an easing of the blockade would have been appropriate. Unfortunately, the world expects Israel to give give give and get nothing in return.

[M.Dancer]

While allowing more civilian goods into Gaza is a good thing, so long as proper supervision remains to make sure weapons are not allowed in, Israel should really have demanded something in return. Not necessarily anything major, but a minor concession from Hamas of some sort in exchange for an easing of the blockade would have been appropriate. Unfortunately, the world expects Israel to give give give and get nothing in return.

Like releasing the captured soldiers or demanding they release their stranglehold on their medieval thinking...

[Guest American Woman]

A lot of people DID blast the sanctions in Iraq. I remember an oft repeated narrative that they had killed a million people. And for whatever reason people bought the narrative that Saddam was a massive threat to the world and was bent on aquiring WMD' and Nukes. Do you think there would have been ANY support for those sanctions at ALL, if all Saddam Hussein had was crappy home-made rockets that you cant even aim, and almost never kill anyone? Youre trying to compare two completely different situations.

Yes, a lot of people did blast the sanctions. But the UN, which is now blasting Israel, held firm. And as I pointed out, many, many people who opposed the Iraq war pointed out that the sanctions "worked." That Saddam didn't have weapons because the sanctions worked. Saddam wasn't a threat because the sanctions worked. The sanctions effectively contained him. That's obviously what I'm referring to.

At any rate, it sounds as if you are justifying the Iraq sanctions; it's not the end result that makes such actions wrong, it's the reason for the end result that makes that determination. If the "crappy home-made rockets" killed more people, then it would be ok to impose a blockade. Justifiable. The reality that Hamas would be a bigger threat if they got their hands on more destructive weapons doesn't enter into it. It's all about the "crappy weapons" that "almost never kill anyone." Makes one wonder why Israel is even concerned about its well-being since so few people have been killed.

Iraq became the object of internatonal sanctions, because he invaded a sovereign country, not because Iraqis were resisting a brutal military occupation or a blockade.

So Israel has no justifiable reason to try to contain Hamas. Israel has no justifiable reason for trying to protect its citizens from Hamas.

In any case A does not justify B, and whether or not theres a double standard does not in any way excuse Israels policy of collective punishment.

If it's acceptable/works in one situation, it's difficult to understand why it's not acceptable as a workable solution in another. And that's a legitimate question.

As to whether or not there's a double standard, it's not Israel's behavior that's in question. It's the rest of the world's. The part of the world that said the sanctions worked, keeping Saddam contained. And that includes the UN.

And yes, if the UN/world finds it acceptable in one situation, then it most definitely does 'justify' Israel's behavior in that regard. If you're going to slap someone in your best interest, then what gives you the right to demonize and prevent others from doing it in their best interest? That's all I'm saying.

In effect you're saying, 'I'll do what I feel I need to do, but that doesn't justify your doing it.'

[dre]

Yes, a lot of people did blast the sanctions. But the UN, which is now blasting Israel, held firm. And as I pointed out, many, many people who opposed the Iraq war pointed out that the sanctions "worked." That Saddam didn't have weapons because the sanctions worked. Saddam wasn't a threat because the sanctions worked. The sanctions effectively contained him. That's obviously what I'm referring to.

At any rate, it sounds as if you are justifying the Iraq sanctions; it's not the end result that makes such actions wrong, it's the reason for the end result that makes that determination. If the "crappy home-made rockets" killed more people, then it would be ok to impose a blockade. Justifiable. The reality that Hamas would be a bigger threat if they got their hands on more destructive weapons doesn't enter into it. It's all about the "crappy weapons" that "almost never kill anyone." Makes one wonder why Israel is even concerned about its well-being since so few people have been killed.

So Israel has no justifiable reason to try to contain Hamas. Israel has no justifiable reason for trying to protect its citizens from Hamas.

If it's acceptable/works in one situation, it's difficult to understand why it's not acceptable as a workable solution in another. And that's a legitimate question.

As to whether or not there's a double standard, it's not Israel's behavior that's in question. It's the rest of the world's. The part of the world that said the sanctions worked, keeping Saddam contained. And that includes the UN.

And yes, if the UN/world finds it acceptable in one situation, then it most definitely does 'justify' Israel's behavior in that regard. If you're going to slap someone in your best interest, then what gives you the right to demonize and prevent others from doing it in their best interest? That's all I'm saying.

In effect you're saying, 'I'll do what I feel I need to do, but that doesn't justify your doing it.'

You missed my opinion on the Iraq sanctions. I wasnt trying to justify them, I was trying to illustration why its an apples and oranges comparison. The reality is that I feel the same way about both cases. Im ok with the parts of the sanctions/blockade that were really about security (weapons, parts for weapons, etc). In BOTH cases Im NOT ok with any materials/goods/services that were blocked for the purpose of collective punishment.

In effect you're saying, 'I'll do what I feel I need to do, but that doesn't justify your doing it.'

Sorta like that except for not at all

And yes, if the UN/world finds it acceptable in one situation, then it most definitely does 'justify' Israel's behavior in that regard. If you're going to slap someone in your best interest, then what gives you the right to demonize and prevent others from doing it in their best interest? That's all I'm saying.

Ok. Let me say this again in a way thats absolutely clear. I DONT SUPPORT COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT EVER, NO MATTER WHO IS DOING IT OR WHEN IT WAS DONE. If it was done against Iraq that sucks... I dont like it any more than what Israel is doing now.

As a matter of fact I dont like any actions or policies EVER that punish people for shit they didnt do.

[eyeball]

Unfortunately, the world expects Israel to give give give and get nothing in return.

Not counting the land their country is on?

[bud]

Unfortunately, the world expects Israel to give give give and get nothing in return.

israel sure has given a lot since the partition plan and since the unnatural state was established. not sure what all the fuss is about?!

[bud]

like, you know, they could have killed 600 children instead of 300 children, but they didn't! that's a gift to the palestinians and the world doesn't see it.

[bud]

Like releasing the captured soldiers or demanding they release their stranglehold on their medieval thinking...

like wtf! no kidding!

what are the palestinians thinking talking about over 10,000 nameless palestinian prisoners in israeli prisons? just release gilad already!

this is exactly what american woman is talking about when she talks about double standards in this world. you go sista. tell it like it is!

[M.Dancer]

what are the palestinians thinking talking about over 10,000 nameless palestinian prisoners in israeli prisons? just release gilad already!

Nameless? They all have names..published even....the difference between Gilead and palestinians in Israeli jails..the palestinians got there because of police work, they were arrested....they get visits from lawyers, their families....Gilead was kidnapped on Israeli territory...he has not been seen by any aid agency...he might even be dead.

It's this kind of mindless hyperbolic drivel that makes you so forgettable....which explain why the moderators haven't booted your sorry behind, Dub.

[bloodyminded]

Nameless? They all have names..published even....

Where is the full list of all the detained Palestinians? I mean, you wouldn't just...make this up?

the difference between Gilead and palestinians in Israeli jails..the palestinians got there because of police work, they were arrested

Often held without charges. That's not "arrested."

....they get visits from lawyers, their families.

Not all of them.

Edited June 23, 2010 by bloodyminded

[jbg]

Are all of your threads about Israel or the Jews, or Jewish influence?

[bloodyminded]

Are all of your threads about Israel or the Jews, or Jewish influence?

You might continue to preface this ongoing question with "naomi."

Otherwise, it appears you're talking to me...and so you already know the answer to the question.

[naomiglover]

Your Post to Lie ratio continues to get closer, Dancer.

Nameless? They all have names..published even....the difference between Gilead and palestinians in Israeli jails..the palestinians got there because of police work, they were arrested....they get visits from lawyers, their families....Gilead was kidnapped on Israeli territory...he has not been seen by any aid agency...he might even be dead.

It's this kind of mindless hyperbolic drivel that makes you so forgettable....which explain why the moderators haven't booted your sorry behind, Dub.

I began to scream; Salwa began to cry and shouted at me: 'Mother, don't let them take me!' But the soldiers shut me into an inside room and kidnapped her."

Only two months later did Siham finally see her daughter again, in the Damoun Prison near Haifa. There, she discovered that her 16-year-old cousin Sara had also been arrested. Both girls were being held in administrative detention, or detention without trial.

Good thing they got to see their daughter, who has not been charged, after 2 months.

Since then, four months have gone by. Last week, the girls' detentions were extended by another three months. But the Salah family still does not even know why their daughter was arrested, and all their efforts to find out have been in vain.

4 more months of imprisonment without charges and trial.

This is one of many examples, Dancer.

Why do you so blatantly lie all the time? Do you not have any integrity?

Altogether, some 600 Palestinians are in administrative detention in Israel, including about 15 minors who do not even know why they are being detained.

Haaretz

[M.Dancer]

Your Post to Lie ratio continues to get closer, Dancer.

If you are going to say I lie, at least have the decency to show where it is you think I am lying.

Nameless? They all have names..published even....the difference between Gilead and palestinians in Israeli jails..the palestinians got there because of police work, they were arrested....they get visits from lawyers, their families....Gilead was kidnapped on Israeli territory...he has not been seen by any aid agency...he might even be dead.

It's this kind of mindless hyperbolic drivel that makes you so forgettable....which explain why the moderators haven't booted your sorry behind, Dub.

Are you saying they don't get visits from families? Your post contradicts this, are you saying that Gilead has seen his family? no...of course you are not...

Please continue, you are amusing...not in the ha ha you made a joke funny..more like someone who stutters reading the poetry of Dr Suess funny...

Edited July 8, 2010 by M.Dancer

[naomiglover]

Then there is Camp 1391 which is compared to prison holes used by South American dictators. No access to lawyers or the Red Cross. Much like what Shalit is going through:

According to accounts of former captives, the detainees are led into the facility blindfolded, and kept in cells (most are 2 m × 2 m) with no natural light. Two smaller cells (1.25 m × 1.25 m) with heavy steel doors and black or red walls, and almost no light, are used for solitary confinement. Some of the cells do not have adequate toilet facilities and the guards control the running water.[5] Mustafa Dirani, a Hamas commander [7] who was captured by the Israelis in May 1994 and released in 2004 as part of a prisoner swap [8], has filed a suit in Tel Aviv's district court claiming he was sexually abused in the camp.[5] It has been acknowledged by the government of Israel that "within the framework of a military police investigation the suspicion arose that an interrogator who questioned the complainant threatened to perform a sexual act on the complainant". [3]

Inmates are not allowed visits at the facility from the Red Cross, nor is any other independent organization permitted to inspect the site.[6] The prisoners are not told where they are, nor are their families or lawyers.[5] In 2003, in response to a lawsuit, Israeli government lawyers said that while the location was secret, Palestinians who are incarcerated there have their rights safeguarded, and can meet with lawyers and Red Cross at an off-site location.[1] In May 2009, the United Nations Committee against Torture (CAT) questioned Israeli officials about the facility and expressed skepticism about this claim. The CAT stated that "Israeli security secretly detains and interrogates prisoners in an unknown location called 'Camp 1391' without granting access to the committee, the International Red Cross (ICRC), or the lawyers or relatives of the prisoners"[9], questioned why interrogations at Camp 1391 were not recorded, and stated that "600 complaints of alleged ill-treatment or torture were brought between 2001 and 2006, but none had been followed up".[10]

Israeli officials stated that Camp 1391 "is no longer used since 2006 to detain or interrogate suspects", but the Israeli Supreme Court has refused to allow an inquiry of the alleged abuses.

Wiki

[naomiglover]

Nameless? They all have names..published even....the difference between Gilead and palestinians in Israeli jails..

Lets look at your lies:

Lie #1

the palestinians got there because of police work, they were arrested....

In many cases, such as the arrest of the children above, no evidence is given for their arrests. Where is this police work you speak of?

Lie #2

they get visits from lawyers, their families....

Red Cross urges Israel to allow Palestinian prisoners family visits

The Israeli closure also effectively prevented Gazans from visiting family members jailed in Israel, which holds about 11,000 Palestinian prisoners, about 700 of them from the Gaza Strip.

Haaretz

Hypocrisy #231231223

Gilead was kidnapped on Israeli territory...he has not been seen by any aid agency...he might even be dead.

What about all the Palestinians who have been kidnapped from Palestinian territories, who remain in prisons without charge? What about the ones who have been in and are in Camp 1391?

We both agree with Red Cross and international law that Shalit should get visitation. Unfortunately, your hypocrisy comes in when you stay quiet when the Red Cross and international law require that Palestinians also receive fair and just treatment.