Israel bows to pressure and agrees to ease Gaza blockade

M.Dancer · July 8, 2010

Lets look at your lies:

Lie #1

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

That does not prove there was no investigations, keep trying...

Lie #2

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

Were they allowed before the blockade? Yes....Will they be allowed after they start abiding by the rules of civilised nations, yes. Are prisoners from the West Bank qllowed to have visits from their families? Yes. Another case of arabs shooting their own foot.

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?

Is this a They do it so we can do it argument?

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.

I think most Israelis would be happy if the vitims of Hamas received treatment equal to what the paelstinians are currently getting....sort of like..confirmation they are alive, lawyers, etc

naomiglover · July 8, 2010

That does not prove there was no investigations, keep trying...

Where is the evidence for the arrest? Keep failing, dishonest creature.

Were they allowed before the blockade? Yes....Will they be allowed after they start abiding by the rules of civilised nations, yes.

Israel's blockade and problems with Hamas does not trump international law. What if Hamas announces that Shalit will not receive visitation because of the illegal blockade and other such illegal actions by Israel. Then will you state that Israel has shot itself in the foot? Of course, not. Because you're a hypocrite.

Is this a They do it so we can do it argument?

No. This is a "you are a hypocrite" argument.

I think most Israelis would be happy if the vitims of Hamas received treatment equal to what the paelstinians are currently getting....sort of like..confirmation they are alive, lawyers, etc

You are a hypocrite.

M.Dancer · July 8, 2010

Israel's blockade and problems with Hamas does not trump international law. What if Hamas announces that Shalit will not receive visitation because of the illegal blockade and other such illegal actions by Israel. Then will you state that Israel has shot itself in the foot? Of course, not. Because you're a hypocrite.

So why didn't they allow visitations before the Blockade? Or medical visits?

You are a hypocrite.

So hoping that Hamas moves into the 21st century and meets Israel's standards for prisoners is me being hypocrite? You don't want parity in treatments? Afraid iy will be a major step towards normalcy?

Is this the official position of the Arab Terrorist Lobby?

bloodyminded · July 8, 2010

Why does M. Dancer refuse to answer the questions posed and the points that are raised? Getting trumped in a debate is not the end of the world.

jbg · July 8, 2010

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.

Oops. Clerical error. You at least post on many topics. Sometimes we agree, more often we disagree, but at least there is substance. There are some posters on the Israel, global warming and I'm sure other threads who are "one trick ponies".

bloodyminded · July 8, 2010

And I thank you, sir.

naomiglover · July 9, 2010

So why didn't they allow visitations before the Blockade? Or medical visits?

So hoping that Hamas moves into the 21st century and meets Israel's standards for prisoners is me being hypocrite? You don't want parity in treatments? Afraid iy will be a major step towards normalcy?

Is this the official position of the Arab Terrorist Lobby?

I will repeat, as I have before with no hopes of you acknowledging my stance.

I believe all parties should follow international law which does not make me a hypocrite. No one should be above international law.

Tell me when you believe the same thing. Then you can shake off the hypocrite label you've put on yourself.

M.Dancer · July 12, 2010

I will repeat, as I have before with no hopes of you acknowledging my stance.

I believe all parties should follow international law which does not make me a hypocrite. No one should be above international law.

Tell me when you believe the same thing. Then you can shake off the hypocrite label you've put on yourself.

So in effect you would rather have one side that has no interest in following any set of guildines and another that at bare minimum follows a prescribed set of legal guidelines....and having one side meet the bare minimum is of no interest to you.

I think that most here already know who the hypocrite is...the one who constantly hectors Israelis, who at bare minimum follow the law, while you only pay lip service to the real criminals..

Oleg Bach · July 12, 2010

Israel had better dump some of that blinding arrogance they have developed in the last 50 years - do they not realize that once the powers that be have no more use for the Jews they will burn them whole again..Israel has one blinding and suffering weekness. ...pride ..and artifical at that...America is already toying with the idea of setting thing in motion that will destroy this fledgling nation. There is talk of taking away their nukes...This is Shakespearian in nature - and as in The Merchant Of Venice...once the classic Jew has done his job...the anglo elite and others will deseminate anti-semitism..via their powerful propoganda manchine ---and they will lay low as the common Jew takes the blame for their fuck ups..this is usual fare -- History is getting close to repeating it self - I suggest to Israel to get rid of that blinding force that cripples them - Pride!

naomiglover · July 12, 2010

So in effect you would rather have one side that has no interest in following any set of guildines and another that at bare minimum follows

What part of "I believe all parties should follow international law which does not make me a hypocrite. No one should be above international law." did you not understand?

M.Dancer · July 12, 2010

What part of "I believe all parties should follow international law which does not make me a hypocrite. No one should be above international law." did you not understand?

I do not undewrstand why you imsist Israel, who follows a set guidlines, act in a way that benefits their enemies, who act in an ad hoc fashion.

I will ask you, not expecting honest answers.....

If hamas started treating their prisoners as well as the as the israelis treat theirs, would that be an improvement for their prisoners...? If not why?

If hamas started treating their prisoners in the same fashion as the israelis, would that be a step towards improving relations? If not why?

ToadBrother · July 12, 2010

What they might get in return, is this...

If Israeli allows Gazans access to the materials and goods they need to function, and build their economy, then Hamas no longer has a scapegoat to blame for their utter incompetency as an administrative body, and their failure to improve the lives of Gazans.

This hypothesis has never worked with Fatah, why would it work with Hamas?

ToadBrother · July 12, 2010

What part of "I believe all parties should follow international law which does not make me a hypocrite. No one should be above international law." did you not understand?

The biggest problem is that you don't seem to know what International Law means. You keep repeating it like it somehow had the same weight as, say, a nation's constitution. It doesn't, with the exception (generally) of Maritime Law.

naomiglover · July 12, 2010

The biggest problem is that you don't seem to know what International Law means. You keep repeating it like it somehow had the same weight as, say, a nation's constitution. It doesn't, with the exception (generally) of Maritime Law.

I understand international law quite well. I understand that Israel is a signatory to it. I also understand that Israel's constitution is not violated if it follows international law.

What do you understand?

I do not undewrstand why you imsist Israel, who follows a set guidlines, act in a way that benefits their enemies, who act in an ad hoc fashion.

Israel is signatory to international law. The set of guidelines that they follow must follow international law. There is no way around it.

I will ask you, not expecting honest answers.....
If hamas started treating their prisoners as well as the as the israelis treat theirs, would that be an improvement for their prisoners...? If not why?

If hamas started treating their prisoners in the same fashion as the israelis, would that be a step towards improving relations? If not why?

I have never questioned whether Hamas should or shouldn't follow international law. Of course they should. This means allowing the Red Cross to visit Shalit.

Both the state of Shalit and the rocket attacks were covered in the Goldstone Report. It was concluded that Hamas has violated international law on both accounts. Also in the Goldstone Report, it was concluded that Israel has violated international law in many instances.

For some reason, you agree with Goldstone when it comes to its conclusion of Hamas' violations, but when it comes to Israel, it's a different story. Suddenly, Richard Goldstone becomes the enemy. Tell me why you drip with such hypocrisy?

Why do you treat Israel like it is above international law and why do you justify their constant violations of international law?

Edited July 12, 2010 by naomiglover

jbg · July 13, 2010

I understand international law quite well. I understand that Israel is a signatory to it. I also understand that Israel's constitution is not violated if it follows international law.....Israel is signatory to international law. The set of guidelines that they follow must follow international law. There is no way around it.

Where is there a document called "international law"? Or is one of your grammatic idiocies or vacations from the truth?

I have never questioned whether Hamas should or shouldn't follow international law. Of course they should. This means allowing the Red Cross to visit Shalit.

Thank G-d Hamas is not a nation. They're leading their people to oblivion.

Both the state of Shalit and the rocket attacks were covered in the Goldstone Report. It was concluded that Hamas has violated international law on both accounts. Also in the Goldstone Report, it was concluded that Israel has violated international law in many instances.

That's wonderful.

For some reason, you agree with Goldstone when it comes to its conclusion of Hamas' violations, but when it comes to Israel, it's a different story. Suddenly, Richard Goldstone becomes the enemy. Tell me why you drip with such hypocrisy?

Why do you treat Israel like it is above international law and why do you justify their constant violations of international law?

Because Israel is struggling to survive attacks from totally lawless savages and tribesmen. Goldstone posits a spurious equality. Edited July 13, 2010 by jbg

Bonam · July 13, 2010

What is all this talk of Israel violating "international law" in the blockade? One is not guilty of having violated a law until the allegation is proven in a court of law. Not the media, not the UN general assembly, and no, not the Goldstone report, but a court of law, acting within its jurisdiction. You would think that naomi/dub, being such a strong proponent of international law, would know a few such basic facts about law in general...

naomiglover · July 13, 2010

The serious incidents that took place on 31 May between Israeli forces and activists on a flotilla heading for Gaza once again put the spotlight on the acute hardship faced by the population in the Gaza Strip.

As the ICRC has stressed repeatedly, the dire situation in Gaza cannot be resolved by providing humanitarian aid. The closure imposed on the Gaza Strip is about to enter its fourth year, choking off any real possibility of economic development. Gazans continue to suffer from unemployment, poverty and warfare, while the quality of Gaza's health care system has reached an all-time low.

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.

International Committee of the Red Cross

DogOnPorch · July 13, 2010

The whole of Gaza's civilian population is being punished for acts for which they bear no responsibility.

Civilian population, bah...Nasser stuffed the 7th and 20th divisions into Gaza during the months leading-up to the 6 Day War. Fatah had been raiding Israel for years. Plus, I'm sure you don't want to hear about the Nazi Grand Mufti and his #1 nephew yet again. The Palestinian Arabs got and still get (see: Hamas) exactly what they deserve.

dre · July 13, 2010

Where is there a document called "international law"? Or is one of your grammatic idiocies or vacations from the truth?

There is no document. Theres a patchwork of treaties and agreements, coupled with a loose and voluntary enforcement mechanism.

dre · July 13, 2010

What is all this talk of Israel violating "international law" in the blockade? One is not guilty of having violated a law until the allegation is proven in a court of law. Not the media, not the UN general assembly, and no, not the Goldstone report, but a court of law, acting within its jurisdiction. You would think that naomi/dub, being such a strong proponent of international law, would know a few such basic facts about law in general...

What is all this talk of Israel violating "international law" in the blockade? One is not guilty of having violated a law until the allegation is proven in a court of law. Not the media, not the UN general assembly, and no, not the Goldstone report, but a court of law, acting within its jurisdiction.

No thats not really the case with international law. Theres no court of law to determine if yorue guilty or not. Essentially about 15 of your peers each consult their own internal legal council, and internal case law, and then they VOTE on whether youre guilty or not.

but a court of law, acting within its jurisdiction

Theres no such entity.

Army Guy · July 13, 2010

No thats not really the case with international law. Theres no court of law to determine if yorue guilty or not. Essentially about 15 of your peers each consult their own internal legal council, and internal case law, and then they VOTE on whether youre guilty or not.

Theres no such entity.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The International Court of Justice (French: Cour internationale de justice; commonly referred to as the World Court or ICJ) is the primary judicial organ of the United Nations. It is based in the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands. Its main functions are to settle legal disputes submitted to it by states and to give advisory opinions on legal questions submitted to it by duly authorized international organs, agencies, and the UN General Assembly

The ICJ is composed of fifteen judges elected to nine year terms by the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council from a list of persons nominated by the national groups in the Permanent Court of Arbitration. The election process is set out in Articles 4–12 of the ICJ statute. Judges serve for nine year terms and may be re-elected for up to two further terms. Elections take place every three years, with one-third of the judges retiring (and possibly standing for re-election) each time, in order to ensure continuity within the court.

International court of justice.

My linken.wikipedia.org/wiki/

The International Criminal Court (French: Cour Pénale Internationale; commonly referred to as the ICC or ICCt)[1] is a permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression (although it cannot currently exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression).[2][3] The creation of the ICC perhaps constitutes the most significant reform of international law since 1945. It gives teeth to the two bodies of international law that deal with treatment of individuals: human rights and humanitarian law.
The court came into being on 1 July 2002 — the date its founding treaty, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, entered into force[4] — and it can only prosecute crimes committed on or after that date.[5] The official seat of the court is in The Hague, Netherlands, but its proceedings may take place anywhere.[6]

International criminal court.

My linken.wikipedia.org/wiki/

M.Dancer · July 13, 2010

I have never questioned whether Hamas should or shouldn't follow international law. Of course they should. This means allowing the Red Cross to visit Shalit.

As a member of the Arab Terrorist Lobby, your non answers to the question are as expected.

GostHacked · July 13, 2010

Army Guy,

Yes it does seem the ICJ is the entity that determines international law. It's not very effective in enforcing any ruling it hands down. International pressure is more effective than international law. It was international pressure that changed Israel's stance on the blockade. Israel lifted some restrictions and more aid now is getting through.

This really depends on the countries that have ties to Israel as well. If Israel's friends can influence them to a specific course of action, then it will be key in the long run to put more pressure on Israel to get them moving in a specific direction. But that is not very effective either, because the friends do not all have the same interests when it comes to Israel.

Since those same friends hold some powerful seats in the UN, I fail to see how the ICJ is ever effective in these cases. How can the ICJ and the UN punish a country for it's actions when one simply veto can kill the movement? The US has vetoed many resolutions that were brought up against Israel over the past few decades. Some which would have had a great impact in/on Israel, never came to be, simply because of one veto.

GostHacked · July 13, 2010

As a member of the Arab Terrorist Lobby, your non answers to the question are as expected.

Slander, not very welcome here. Kind of shows your desperation in these threads. You might do yourself justice by not replying. Because,as I read many of your posts, I find quite a few are non-answers as well.

M.Dancer · July 13, 2010

Slander, not very welcome here. Kind of shows your desperation in these threads. You might do yourself justice by not replying. Because,as I read many of your posts, I find quite a few are non-answers as well.

Sure you do. As well as not knowing what slander is, this is another topic where you lack background and the intellectual capability to form a cognet opinion.