Israeli NGO: Try Hamas for war crimes

[Fozzledick]

By REBECCA ANNA STOIL

In the shadow of threatened international legal action against Israeli leaders following Operation Cast Lead, Shurat Hadin: The Israel Law Center became the first group to launch a legal counterattack Thursday.

The organization sent a request to Attorney-General Menahem Mazuz to charge Hamas members captured during the campaign with war crimes and crimes against humanity.

In the letter, the NGO argues that Israel is required under international law to try Hamas operatives for those offenses as opposed to the usual charges such as murder, membership in a terror organization and illegal weapons possession, for which Hamas members usually face trial. Hamas, the letter said, was in violation of the Geneva Convention in firing rockets at civilian targets, and that violation constitutes a war crime.

Furthermore, it argued, systematically targeting Israeli civilians violated the Hague Convention and constituted a crime against humanity.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1232643727610&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[EFerrari]

1. Boy, is that stupid. I guess the Israeli government isn't finished

alienating people who formerly supported them.

[Fozzledick]

2. I really don't think Hamas' apologists "formerly supported them"

and unlike the frivolous accusations spammed around here, they actually have a case.

[EFerrari]

3. The problem Israel has is that it just killed over a thousand people,

wounded thousands more, demolished what was left of Gaza and, now they want to go to trial in an obvious attempt to deflect attention.

That whole spin thing isn't working out very well for them, is it?

[Fozzledick]

4. The legal issues are clear cut despite your spin

Terrorist attacks against civilians vs self-defense against them.

[Chulanowa]

6. So all those dead and wounded Gazans were terrorists?

Damn. I didn't even know babies could hold a rocket launcher. Palestinians must give their kids wheaties, huh?

[Fozzledick]

8. Terrorists who use "human shields" are responsible for their deaths

[EFerrari]

9. You bet. And the IDF has a long history of using hostages and human shields.

I just heard a new report today, as a matter of fact. They continue to defy even their own courts.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=252304&mesg_id=252593

[Chulanowa]

11. That's almost too dumb to reply to, but I'll try anyway

Israel... was... bombing... a... city.

Ohm, not just Gaza city to be sure. But Israel targeted towns and villages all through Gaza. Which is a little redundant since Gaza doesn't exactly have vast tracts of uninhabited land to bomb, since it's a strip of land that's 27 kilometers by 3.

"Human shields" is propagandist bullshit, and you're a fucking dipshit if you can't realize this.

[oberliner]

19. Considering how densely populated the area is - that is a surprisingly low casualty count, isn't it?

Gaza City has a population of about 410,000. Approximately 530 people (slightly more than half of them civilians) were killed in Gaza City during this conflict.

That is about 1/10th of 1 percent of the population of that city (less if you don't include the militants who were killed).

Of course all civilian deaths are tragic, especially those of children, but relative to other conflicts around the world where civilians have been killed, this seems lower than one would expect for such a populated area.

[zonmoy]

45. That only means that the casualty list got doctored to make israel look as good as it can.

[oberliner]

49. It's from the Palestinian Center for Human Rights in Gaza

They are certainly not known for doctoring lists to make Israel look good.

[Chulanowa]

51. So which is it?

Are tons of people dying as human shields, or is Israel tiptoing around civilian areas?

I swear, bringing logic to Israel supporters is getting more and more like discussing economics with a libertarian these days.

[oberliner]

65. Let's be reasonable and fair

I do not believe that there is evidence to suggest that Israel wantonly and deliberately killed large numbers of civilians just for the sake of killing civilians.

I'd say that while Israel certainly is responsible for killing hundreds of civilians, the numbers were not excessively high when compared with other similar invasions.

I'd say in some cases Hamas probably tried to use civilian areas and buildings as cover.

I'd also say in some cases, Israel fired at those civilian areas anyway to kill those Hamas militants, killing innocent people in the process.

Would you disagree?

[EFerrari]

72. Isreal also used civilians areas and buildings as cover and reportedly

also used hostages and human shields as is their long time habit in defiance of their own courts.

Gaza is one big "civilian area" and to pretend otherwise is simply dishonest.

[oberliner]

74. Well, I do no think it's fair to call Gaza one big "civilian area"

There are militants and they have launched weapons against Israel. I do not think it would be fair to categorize them as civilians.

According to a Channel 4 (UK) news report:

"But this programme has heard accounts of Hamas fighters taking over homes to fight the Israelis and executing any family members of residents who objected."

If something like that is true, I would say it is worthy of condemnation, wouldn't you?

[EFerrari]

82. Using civilians is a war crime, as the IDF knows very well.

Last update - 01:13 04/09/2005
IDF still uses human shields, in violation of High Court ruling
By Arnon Regular


Some 15 soldiers, armed with rifles, machine guns and observation equipment, took over the fourth-floor apartment where the 16 members of the Rajabi family live, at least half of them minors. The family consists of Rajabi and his wife, their children and his son Nabil and his children.

Family members said the soldiers ordered most of them to leave, but held three of Rajabi's sons - Nabil, 30, Raja'ai, 19 and Najah, 13 - captive in the apartment. The three were used as human shields during the soldiers' stay, against their will. The soldiers wouldn't tell them how long the operation would last or how long they intended to remain in their home. The remaining family members went to other apartments in the building, which is owned by Rajabi.

At first, the IDF spokesman denied that the three brothers were being held against their will and said they could leave whenever they wanted. But the force's commander told Haaretz that they were holding the three until the operation ended.

Apparently unaware of the IDF's obligation under the High Court decision not to use civilians as human shields, Liron said it was normal procedure intended "to protect his soldiers' lives." He was also unaware of the IDF Spokesman's denial that the three were being held until the end of the operation.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=620507

I am always surprised at the attempts to paint Hamas as somehow less human for doing exactly what the IDF does.

[Chulanowa]

124. If it's true, absolutely

Now let's see some proof. Honestly the only proof I've heard of Hamas killing Palestinians is when a misfired mortar took out two Gazan kids, and another where a ricochet caught a man in the gut or the like. Not much to gawk at when you consider nearly a third of the Israeli deaths in the fighting were caused by an Israeli tank shooting towards them...

[Chulanowa]

73. I don't see much to argue with

Well, except for the fact Israel killed substantially more than "hundreds"... And of course, every bit of cover in the Gaza strip is bound to be "civilian areas and buildings" as I said... The entire place is pretty packed.

I don't think Israel went balls-out targeting civilians... but they damn sure did target civilians, and intentionally so. Not necessarily to kill them (though there was plenty of that, obviously) but to scare the shit out of them. The invasion was two parts killing and one part propaganda. Israel constantly pressed the message that Hamas was forcing Israel to kill all these people, and demolish all these homes. Thus the meme found around some of the more numbed minds around here that Israel didn't kill anyone that didn't deserve it and all the Innocents killed were in fact "killed by Hamas"

Thus the "they used human shields" bullshit. 'Cause the mentality is that not only is Israel perfectly justified to blow up fifty people to try to get one Hamas guy, but it's the Hamas' guy fault that Israel fired the missile.

It's ridiculous, and I've never seen any of these people apply that fucking dumb logic to any other conflict in the world.

[oberliner]

102. Substantially more than hundreds of civilians?

I have not seen any source identify the total number of civilian casualties as being more than 900 so can you explain what you mean when you claim that Israel killed substantially more than hundreds of civilians?

This source indicates that 895 civilians were among those killed:

http://www.pchrgaza.org/files/W_report/English/2008/22-01-2009.htm

[Chulanowa]

123. 1,285 Palestinians have been killed, the article says

Frankly I'm not terribly interested in which party the people may have belonged to. Kind of hard to figure out party affiliation after killing someone, after all. However, I have to ask - why are you omitting civil police from your count?

Oh right, it brings the number over a thousand.

Also from your source...

Children and Women Constitute More Than 43% of the Total Number of Victims

2,400 houses were completely destroyed, including 490 ones that were destroyed by air strikes

IOF destroyed offices of 10 charitable societies.

IOF attacked ambulances and vehicles of civil defense and relief services.

So tell me are you trying to count on this source to defend Israel's actions? If so, well, that says quite a lot about what you consider "acceptable," Oberliner

[oberliner]

126. We were talking about civilians killed

The source identifies slightly less than 900 civilians killed - thus, hundreds of civilians.

In any case, no one is defending any actions - I was completely opposed to the invasion from the start and continue to believe that it was a mistake in every respect.

I am, however, also able to acknowledge the role that Hamas played in this conflict.

And I think it's important not to engage in hyperbolic execrations about what took place

The situation is bad enough without unfounded claims of "genocide" and the like. I do not feel that the casualty count, for instance, supports such a claim.

In any case, the focus now ought to be how we can move forward and create an environment whereby a peaceful resolution to this long-standing conflict can be found.

I support President Obama's goal of two states living side by side at peace with one another.

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

7. Right. Apparently those famous Hama apologists at Amnesty International

and Human Rights Watch and the UN disagree with you.

[shira]

14. shows their hypocrisy, doesn't it?

they know and can confirm easily that Hamas commits 10x as many warcrimes as Israel is alleged to have commited.

But being partisan, and after 8 years of rockets, they're only targeting one side.

One example; Gilad Shalit. No Red Cross visit = war crime. Where's AI to followup on that one?

[Idealism]

21. Does cold blooded murder of a leader count as a war crime, shira?

[shira]

23. can you be specific?

[Idealism]

24. You are missing the point

If you order the killing of another peoples' leaders, is it not a war crime? In cold blood, no time of war, is it not a war crime?

[shira]

25. probably not

what type of leadership are we speaking of?

The leader of Islamic Jihad? Or maybe the 3rd in command of Al Aqsa Martyrs brigade?

[Idealism]

26. There is no dividing line

But for argument sake, it is a political party leader. Is it considered a war crime?

[shira]

28. who?

which one? Is this political leader also head of an internationally recognized terror organization - and is he a terror threat to civilians?

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shira]

34. he was a terror mastermind

his death, as well as his immediate successors like Rantisi, crippled Hamas' terror capabilities for some time - and therefore saved lives of innocents he would have been responsible for killing had he lived longer. It's not a warcrime and no sane court would have ruled that it ever was.

If the USA had taken out Bin Laden shortly after 911, would you have labeled that similarly as a warcrime?

[Idealism]

38. Your accusations are baseless, and your personal opinions matter not to law

There is no evidence that he 'masterminded' terror, the man was blind and near deaf, not to mentioned handicapped. He was their spiritual leader, not much else, especially the time of his death.

Not to mention that shortly after his brutal assassination, there was waves of suicide bombers, rocket, and mortar fire into Israel that resulted in the complete blockade of Gaza. Avraham Poraz famously voted against Sharron's cabinet when the decision to assassinated Yassin was drafted, and he was fired by Sharron for it after. Poraz was vindicated later when several world leaders condemned Israel's action saying in many different words how it definitely hurt the peace process.

Either way, the U.N., and every member except Israel and the U.S. agrees with me: the assassination of Shiek Yassin violates the Fourth Geneva Convetion. There were multiple resolutions from the U.N. Council on Human Rights blasting the attack as "extrajudicial" and "definitively a violation of humanitarian law."

[shira]

41. if Yassin was truly a terror mastermind....

...you believe his assassination was still illegal?

[Idealism]

44. I prefer to deal in reality than hypotheticals, shira

In reality, this is pre-meditated murder of a political figurehead. In reality, it violates the Geneva Conventions. In reality, this should be punished. End of story.

Bin Laden, if we ever find him, will be tried and if convicted will get the death penalty. Yassin was never tried, nor convicted, yet he was met with an execution. Is that right?

No. No matter what you feel about the man, everyone has a right to a trial. Everyone has the right to live.

[shira]

47. so I'll take that as a 'no'

No matter how bad Yassin or Bin Laden "might be", it's wrong to assassinate them. Looks like that's what you're saying.

Israel should have gone all special-ops, invaded, arrested....risked more civilian deaths...just to get Yassin and do a show trial as they did on Marwan Barghouti, who may be released soon?

[Idealism]

50. The rule of law must be upheld at all costs.

Assassinations are wrong. Politically motivated assassinations are exponentially more wrong.

If we don't uphold the law, we are no better than those who would terrorize us. What gives you the right to determine who is guilty, without a trial? Since when did any of us become judge, jury, and executioner of those we don't like? Should we go assassinate Chavez next? How about Mubarak? Oh, wait, we support that dictator, even though he has committed hundreds of crimes against humanity. I guess the assassination policy only applies to those we don't like? I guess Ahmadinejad should be on the look out for Israeli intelligence agents trying to poison him in his sleep...

Yassin was absolutely a ZERO threat to Israel, bring yourself back to reality. The only threat you could even argue about the man was the fact that he was willing to compromise with Israel for peace, thereby threatening Sharron's colonial expansionism in the West Bank.

[shira]

55. i asked you whether

Israel should have risked more civilian deaths and casualties by trying to extract Sheikh Yassin in order to try him. Such an operation may have been FAR too costly.

You can have the last word, however. There's not much to say when you can't even agree that the head of an organization internationally recognized for its terror was zero threat to Israeli civilians.

[Idealism]

58. Is the Queen of England the head of that country?

There is a difference between the 'spiritual leader' of a group and the head of state.

As I, and others have said, Yassin was NO threat to Israel. Military analysts, independent observers, and over a hundred countries say he was no threat and the assassination was illegal and wrong. Not to mention Sharron's own Minister of the Interior, but he got fired for his dissent.

There are always more choices than:
a)kill someone to get what you want
b)don't kill someone to get something you want

Perhaps you don't understand diplomacy well enough, so I will forgive the error of your thinking.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

125. Citation please?

"In reality, it violates the Geneva Conventions."

An enemy's leadership is normally fair game in a war

[Idealism]

130. A. It was not a time of war, but occupation

which means the 'rule of war' are different.

b. It violates the fourth Geneva convention

c. Here is one PDF from the U.N. Commission on Human Rights just days after Yassin's murder, although it may require you to go through the U.N. library first

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G04/123/34/PDF/G0412334.pdf?OpenElement

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shira]

76. it's not like the USA going into

a foreign country to take out a terror leader who is zero threat to American citizens.

Israel took out a terror leader who was then the leading threat to many Israeli civilians.

[Idealism]

78. A blind, deaf, crippled senior citizen poses a leading threat to Israeli's citizens?

What the hell have they been spending the $134 billion the US gave them on, if they feel this man posed a threat?

You are delusional if you think this man was a threat to Israeli civilians. His assassination set off more suicide bombs in Jerusalem than any fabricated command of his did.

[shira]

83. you're very gullible to believe he was nothing

more than just a spiritual leader or founder of Hamas. He has been quoted numerous times. You can google him and see how gung-ho he was over suicide missions and other terror acts. He was far more than just a cheerleader for the murder of innocents.

[Idealism]

85. How about you google his quotes that say he wants peace?

How about you google his quotes calling for a long-term hudna? A lasting "calmness"? A 20-year, 30-year, or 50-year peace with Israel?

Again, how did he order suicide bombers when he was blind, deaf, and handicapped? Telekinesis?

He was a moderate among Hamas leadership, but Israel chose to illegally murder him because they "thought" he was bad. No matter what your OPINIONS ARE, the law is not decided by YOUR BELIEFS.

[shira]

128. check out Ahmed Yassin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheikh_Ahmad_Yassin

And please, find where it is against International Law for Israel to take out this murderer.

[Idealism]

131. Prove that he was a murderer in a court of law, then sentence him.

But no, you rather illegally and extrajudicially kill someone because you were told something bad about him. That will show those haters, won't it?

Here is the transcript from one of the many U.N. Commission on Human Rights that CLEARLY states the killing to violate the Fourth Geneva Convention. You might want to read it sometime. But, then again, it would hurt your delusions to learn the truth- so be careful.

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G04/123/34/PDF/G0412334.pdf?OpenElement

[shira]

133. I couldn't access that website

but googling 4th geneva convention and Yassin gave me this:

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=22&x_article=770

Yeah, I know you hate the source, but they do have a point. If Israel's actions were so illegal, Israel would have been found guilty of these "crimes" long ago, and punished with sanctions or worse. Hence, you and your ridiculous "legal team" of non-experts have no case and are only slinging mud to see what sticks.

[Idealism]

139. LOLOL Bring in the great debunker known as CAMERA!

Because we all know they are more credit-worthy than the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, and every country that spoke condemned Israel for their extrajudical assassination of Yassin.

There was a resolution (which I gave you the link to the transcripts of that meeting), it passed. The resolution was ignored by the Israeli government, as all resolutions against Israel end up being.

Apparently, you don't want to dig a little to get answers so here it is, step by step.

http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/

go here.

type in "assassination Yassin"

1.Title: Summary record of the 17th meeting, held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, on Tuesday, 23 March 2004 : Commission on Human Rights, 60th session

Click "English" and read the PDF. The only two countries to not condemn the actions were the U.S. and the Israeli representatives, although the U.S. says the actions are "deeply troubling."

Since you probably won't take the time to look at the document, I will type up some of the things said.

Consideration of the draft decision for a special sitting on the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory resulting from the assassination of Sheikh Ahmad Yassin.

Mr. Umer (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), introduced draft decision E/CN.4/2004/L.3, whereby the Commission on Human Rights would decide to hold a special sitting, on an urgent basis, to consider the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory resulting from the assassination of Sheikh Ahamd Yassin and on the morning of 22 March 2004. The OIC, like the European Union, the Russian Federation and other lovers of peace around the world, was deeply shocked by the violent attack by Israeli forces against a non-military target. The attack was a serious violation of international humanitarian law and had been universally condemned. Mr Jack Straw, the British Foreign Secretary, had said that he did not see what Israel had to gain from assassination an 80-year-old man in a wheelchair. Mr. Javier Solana, the European Union High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, had described the assassination as "bad news" for the Middle East peace process. The Secretary-General of the United Nations had strongly condemned the assassination of the spiritual leader of Hamas, Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, and eight other people, recalling that extrjudicial killings were in contravention of international law. He had appealed to the Israeli Government to put an immediate end to such acts. The Acting High Commissioner for Human Rights had expressed the same views.

snip

Ms. Whelan (Ireland), speaking on behalf of those members of the European Union who were also members of the Commission on Human Rights, recalled that the Council of the European Union had condemned as unlawful the extrajudicial killing of Sheikh Yassin. The European Union had repeatedly condemned the terrorist attacks committed by Hamas against Israeli civillians. Israel was entitled to defend itself, but not by carrying out extrajudicial killings. She recalled that item 8 on the Commission's agenda concerned the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine, and would therefore provide an opportunity to discuss the issues referred to in draft decision E/CN.4/2004/L.3. She also recalled that the matter of extrajudicial killings had long been on the agenda of the Commission. For those reasons, the European Union would abstain if the draft decision was put to the vote.

snip

Mr. Puri (India) said that he was appalled by the assassination of the spiritual leader of Hamas, which would exacerbate the violence in the region. Since gaining its independence in 1947, India has always resolutely supported the Palestinian cause, and believed that the Palestinian people deserved the full support of the international community in claiming their right to national independence. Indian did not believe that the Middle East problem could be resolved through the use of force.

Extrajudicial killings violate the Fourth Geneva Convention, and are a direct violation of international humanitarian law.

CAMERA is a great source of propaganda, not facts, sorry to burst your bubble.

[shira]

147. Too many holes in your argument

1. Israel has the right to defend its citizens from terror masterminds like Sheikh Yassin (pretend he really was a bad guy). All nations do.

2. History shows that taking out Palestinian terror leaders results in terror organizations becoming disorganized and therefore far less capable of carrying out more terror attacks. The result being fewer terror attacks and less dead civilians. Terror leaders are combatants by definition. Therefore, they are fair game.

3. Had Israel gone about it in the manner you prescribed, and embarked on a military mission to extract Yassin in order to try him in court (assume he'd never turn himself in) it's very likely that more people would have died as a result - both Palestinian and Israeli. Do you believe such a price in lives is worth it? Please answer this, as it's the only question I'm asking you in this post.

4. Hamas leaders now, and even less so at that time when they had no voice politically, are not on par with leaders in Korea or Cuba. Those are sovereign nations. There is no sovereign nation recognized today as Palestine. There are only Palestinian territories. The laws protecting leaders in Yemen or Chile are different than for those protecting terror leadership.

5. Your citing of the Geneva conventions does not cover terror leadership of a non-sovereign territory. It doesn't cover terror leadership that is considered worldwide to consist of legitimate combatants. The UN has no credibility in its one-sided political condemnations. It's sad you cannot even admit that this organization is and has been for a long time very hostile WRT Israel.

The UN's hatred of Israel was on crystal-clear display when Arafat made his first appearance there in 1974:

http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/1194/9411070.htm

And of course there was the "Zionism = Racism" resolution of 1975.

Both UN disgraces preceded the Palestinians wish for a 2-state solution. At that time 35 years ago, there were only Palestinian calls for the destruction of Israel. And the UN ate it all up. The same UN that you seem to think has changed for the better since then and therefore has the right to preach to Israel and hold them to standards other nations aren't responsible for.

[Idealism]

150. I guess the whole world is just 'out to get Israel'

You are delusional. The U.N. is made up of 191 countries, are you claiming they are all anti-Semitic now?

Extrajudicial killing is illegal under humanitarian law. They had no right to murder Yassin. Add another war crime to the glorious Israeli record.

How you could you not tell that the excerpt was a TRANSCRIPT from a U.N. Commission on Human Rights session, and thus not an "argument with holes" as you claim? It was word for word what was said at the meeting, thus not an 'argument,' thus a fact. Israel committed another crime that they get away with.

Rocket and mortar fire since Yassin's death has gone up exponentially. The suicide bomber attacks started up shortly after the assassination, but were all but eliminated once Gaza was blockaded.

[shira]

154. it's politics....look over there

You are delusional. The U.N. is made up of 191 countries, are you claiming they are all anti-Semitic now?

Not quite, there are plenty of other reasons. Do you think the 1975 Zionism = Racism, applause for Arafat in 1974, and for Ahmanutjob just recently by the GA shows that the majority of the UN is reasonable WRT Israel?

The 1st two examples go back over 30 years but Ahmanutjob is just recent. Imagine the President of a Western nation ranting about wanting to eliminate the cancer that is Libya or Greece - repeating that he wants to wipe such a country off the face of the earth. Think the UN would embrace him like they do Ahmanutjob? Of course not. That leader would have been forced to resign by now. But Ahmanutjob is given a platform at the UN and applauded, just like Arafat was 35 years ago.

Can you now admit that the UN is extremely hostile to Israel? Factor in the time and energy spent on Israel (and not other more pressing matters like Sudan, Congo, Zimbabwe, etc..). Why should anyone take the UN seriously WRT the way they handle Israel?

Extrajudicial killing is illegal under humanitarian law. They had no right to murder Yassin. Add another war crime to the glorious Israeli record.

It's not illegal to target the heads of terrorist organizations. They're combatants and thus they're fair game. Why didn't you answer the one question I asked of you? Here it is again. If Israel were to militarily go into Gaza to extract Yassin, in order to try him later, and the operation results in many deaths - is that a better option than taking him out with fewer casualties? Please answer this time.

How you could you not tell that the excerpt was a TRANSCRIPT from a U.N. Commission on Human Rights session, and thus not an "argument with holes" as you claim? It was word for word what was said at the meeting, thus not an 'argument,' thus a fact. Israel committed another crime that they get away with.

It's not a war crime for reasons I pointed out in my last post. It's never a warcrime to take out the head of a terrorist organization waging war on your own populace, and it doesn't matter if he or others claim he is the "spiritual" leader of Hamas. International Law describes Yassin as a terorist combatant, and thus fair game.

[Idealism]

158. You can't seem to get this through your thick skull

It isn't legal just because you think it is. The U.N. has ruled these killings to be against the Geneva Conventions. The U.S., China, and Russia hold the veto power behind this organization, not Iran or an actively hostile regime to Israel.

The rule of law must be followed or you are no better than those who would terrorize you. Israel has turned into a state sponsor of terror by their illegal actions, in the assassinations and many other instances. Yes, if Israel so feels that a handicapped, deaf, and blind man poses a grave threat to their security, then by all means they had many avenues open to them besides cold blooded murder. Diplomacy works better than violence, and without the repercussions. The problem is that Israel could not PROVE any of their allegations, so no foreign body would both cooperating with them on a seizure. For them, killing him was easier, and they knew they could ignore the U.N. and have the US there to veto any sanctions against them for it.

I like how you think you have some type of authority on international law, or that you think CAMERA knows more than the U.N. about humanitarian violations. Tell me, oh great enlightened one, what has CAMERA said about the illegal settlements, or the 600+ checkpoints, or Martial Law being imposed in the West Bank? What does it say about the 500 Palestinian children behind held in Israeli jails? Does it talk about the hundreds of Palestinians held in Israeli prisons on NO charges, without evidence of any wrongdoing, and are denied their due process under law?

No? Seems CAMERA only gives their version of the story, biased as ever. The U.N. is unbiased, and an authority on international law- considering THEY WROTE THEM.

Again, just to be sure you fully grasp this:

Just because you think something is legal to do, doesn't make it so.

[shira]

160. Are you high?

The UNGA said zionism = racism and they also sponsored Durban 1 and embraced Ahmanutjob after he threatened to destroy a UN member state.

They obsess over Israel and pass more resolutions against the Jewish state than many other ridiculously worse countries COMBINED.

Let that sink in.

And you believe they're unbiased and are passing independent, objective, legitimate legislation against Israel? Like zionism = racism?

Are you really this irrational?

And last time - if going after Yassin in order to bring him to justice would have resulted in FAR more casualties, would you be for that? Don't bother responding without answering this one again.

[Idealism]

162. Yes, because the rule of law is more important than your blood rage

It would not be justified, which was why the Israeli government decided to take the easy way out, the illegal way out, knowing they could ignore a UN Commission on Human Rights decision, like they brush off the others.

Show me the resolution that calls zionism to be racism, before making the wild accusations, and I mean a TRANSCRIPT of the event, not some CAMERA link, or something from Dennis Ross.

If you think 185 countries in the world are racist against Israel, you are suffering from numerous psychological problems. Persecution complex, being the foremost. Your victimhood is laughable. You like to focus on Gaza and "ze rockets!" that Hamas rained down on Israel-which are illegal under humanitarian law for sure- but you fail to see the real problem.

The real impediment to peace is the illegal settlements, the land being stolen year by year from the Palestinians, and the annexation of the prime real estate of the West Bank. But you still think Israel is angelic in their existence and you purposefully ignore the resolutions against Israel by the U.N. Here is a hint: almost all of those resolutions had to do with the West Bank, not Gaza. The apartheid wall is criticized every year, each year a new resolution passes proclaiming the wall to be illegal- usually passing 185+-2. But you still defend these things, why? The IDF declared Martial Law in the West Bank, issues over 1500 military orders that dictate Palestinian life, build over 600 checkpoints to restrict Palestinian movement, and build Israeli-only super highways- again, that restrict movement.

They have arrested Palestinian children, as young as 12, and have held them for up to 20 years in some cases. They currently have over 500 children jailed.

They arrest their own citizens for even speaking out against the Gazan operations (700+ detained in this manner, of which you are aware), but they also arrest Palestinians with little to no evidence of wrong-doing. They often will deny them their due process, holding them for years without trial- very similar to Guantanamo, yes? "Enemy combatants" in the United States are the "Administrative Detainees" in Israel.

You like to defend Israel, so defend against the real problem here. It isn't Hamas, they have absolutely nothing to do with the West Bank.

So why is Palestinian life so shitty in the West Bank, even under the Western-backed PA? Can't blame Hamas for that one.

[shira]

164. thank you

1. So you would have been for an Israeli military operation that could have very well resulted in MANY more casualties than just targetting Yassin. What about the innocent casualties? You'd risk that in order to stop Yassin and you have the nerve to accuse Israel of not taking civilians more into account? Basically, you're advocating what YOU would call a "war crime" or "disproportionate" response. But I'm certain you don't recognize the irony in your response.

2. Zionism = Racism 1975. It took until 1991 for it to be revoked. Please educate yourself before arrogantly spouting off more ignorant nonsense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_3379

You know about Durban 1? If not, please do some research. The UN thought it was such a great success, they're more than happy to repeat it again this April. And you believe the UN is unbiased?

3. Israel is not perfect and they should be criticized, just like any other country. You go further than that, into hostile defamation and demonization. Do you understand the difference between legit criticism and defamation/demonization?

[Idealism]

166. You cite a wikipedia page as a credible source?

Seriously, if we are going to talk about major criticism, find me the U.N. transcript like I asked. They are all online for you to find, go go.

If Israel could back up their claims of him being a criminal mastermind, they would have. Instead, they illegally murdered a handicapped, blind, deaf old man- screwing themselves twice in one illegal move. It gave the Palestinians yet another reason to seek martyrdom by harming innocent Israeli's, and it pushed the peace process back years.

Israel couldn't prove Yassin to be a mastermind, why else did every country vote in favor of the resolution? If the Mossad could prove the claim, you would've known. Instead, we get Sharron parading on television, claiming a great victory, and telling us how much of a threat to Israel a paraplegic senior citizen was. It would be laughable, if it wasn't so ironic.

[Behind the Aegis]

168. RESOLUTION 3379

TEXT OF RESOLUTION 3379

3379 (XXX). Elimination of all forms of racial discrimination

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolution 1904 (XVIII) of 20 November 1963, proclaiming the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and in particular its affirmation that "any doctrine of racial differentiation or superiority is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous" and its expression of alarm at "the manifestations of racial discrimination still in evidence in some areas in the world, some of which are imposed by certain Governments by means of legislative, administrative or other measures",

Recalling also that, in its resolution 3151 G (XXVIII) of 14 December 1973, the General Assembly condemned, inter alia, the unholy alliance between South African racism and Zionism.

Taking note of the Declaration of Mexico on the Equality of Women and Their Contribution to Development and Peace, 1975, proclaimed by the World Conference of the International Women's Year, held at Mexico City from 19 June to 2 July 1975, which promulgated the principle that "international co-operation and peace require the achievement of national liberation and independence, the elimination of colonialism and neo-colonialism, foreign occupation, Zionism, apartheid and racial discrimination in all its forms, as well as the recognition of the dignity of peoples and their right to self-determination" ,

Taking note also of resolution 77 (XII) adopted by the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the Organization of African Unity at its twelfth ordinary session, held at Kampala from 28 July to 1 August 1975, which considered "that the racist regime in occupied Palestine and the racist regime in Zimbabwe and South Africa have a common imperialist origin, forming a whole and having the same racist structure and being organically linked in their policy aimed at repression of the dignity and integrity of the human being",

Taking note also of the Political Declaration and Strategy to Strengthen International Peace and Security and to Intensify Solidarity and Mutual Assistance among Non-Aligned Countries,* adopted at the Conference of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Non-Aligned Countries held at Lima from 25 to 30 August 1975, which most severely condemned Zionism as a threat to world peace and security and called upon all countries to oppose this racist and imperialist ideology,

Determines that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination.

2400th plenary meeting
10 November 1975

The following nations sponsored resolution 3379:

Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Cuba, Dahomey, Democratic Yemen, Egypt, Guinea, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Republic, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates and Yemen Arab Republic: draft resolution.

Voting record on resolution 3379:

In favour: Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syrian, Arab Republic, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Chad, China, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Dahomey, Democratic Yemen, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, German Democratic Republic.

Against: Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Luxembourg, Malawi, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Swaziland, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Canada, Central African Republic, Costa Rica, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany (Federal Republic of).

Abstaining: Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Lesotho, Mauritius, Nepal, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Upper Volta, Venezuela, Zaire, Zambia, Argentina, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Burma, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Gabon.

Draft resolution III was adopted by 72 votes to 35, with 32 abstentions (resolution 33 79 (XXX) ). source

General Assembly Distr.
GENERAL

A/RES/3379 (XXX)
10 November 1975


Thirtieth session
Agenda item 68

RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY


3379 (XXX). Elimination of all forms of racial discrimination


The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolution 1904 (XVIII) of 20 November 1963, proclaiming the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and in particular its affirmation that "any doctrine of racial differentiation or superiority is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous" and its expression of alarm at "the manifestations of racial discrimination still in evidence in some areas in the world, some of which are imposed by certain Governments by means of legislative, administrative or other measures",

Recalling also that, in its resolution 3151 G (XXVIII) of 14 December 1973, the General Assembly condemned, inter alia, the unholy alliance between South African racism and zionism,

Taking note of the Declaration of Mexico on the Equality of Women and Their Contribution to Development and Peace, 1/ proclaimed by the World Con-ference of the International Women's Year, held at Mexico City from 19 June to 2 July 1975, which promulgated the principle that "international co-operation and peace require the achievement of national liberation and independence, the elimination of colonialism and neo-colonialism, foreign occupation, zionism, apartheid and racial discrimination in all its forms, as well as the recognition of the dignity of peoples and their right to self-determination",

Taking note also of resolution 77 (XII) adopted by the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the Organization of African Unity at its twelfth ordinary session,2/ hold at Kampala from 28 July to 1 August 1975, which considered "that the racist regime in occupied Palestine and the racist regimes in Zimbabwe and South Africa have a common imperialist origin, forming a whole and having the same racist structure and being organically linked in their policy aimed at repression of the dignity and integrity of the human being",

Taking note also of the Political Declaration and Strategy to Strengthen International Peace and Security and to Intensify Solidarity and Mutual Assistance among Non-Aligned Countries,3/ adopted at the Conference of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Non-Aligned Countries held at Lima from 25 to 30 August 1975, which most severely condemned zionism as a threat to world peace and security and called upon all countries to oppose this racism and imperialist ideology,

Determines that zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination.

2400th plenary meeting
10 November 1975

UN Source

[Idealism]

169. It can be construed as such, to be honest

Manifest destiny is a popular belief in Zionism, it can definitely be considered discriminatory towards Palestinians.

[Behind the Aegis]

170. "Manifest destiny is a popular belief in Zionism"

In some forms, not the most commonly accepted version, "the support for the continuation of the nation of Israel."

[Idealism]

171. There is a certain ambiguity in 'continuation,' is there not?

Is there truly a splint among Zionists as to how far the 'continuation' goes? It seems to me they have no problem with the growth of their state, even past their legal borders.

[Behind the Aegis]

172. If you go off the definition you use, then yes.

However, as I already said, it is not the most widely held of Zionist beliefs. It is simply another method of anti-Israel propagandists to malign Israel's very existence.

[Idealism]

175. Would you consider the settlers to be anti-Israel?

or just ultra-Zionists?

[Behind the Aegis]

184. Not anti-Israel, like the posters here.

"Ultra-Zionists?" There is a new one. They are Nationalist/Religious zionists, though more the former, than the latter.

[Idealism]

186. I don't think most people here who

criticize Israel are anti-Israel or anti-Semitic, though maybe one or two of them. Did you see the 60 Minutes episode on Palestinians and Israeli's last weeks? In it there is a mayor of a Jewish settlement in the WB being interviewed, and she is very adamant about stealing as much land as she is allowed to. She claims "God gave the Israeli's this land" and she won't be happy (and Israel won't truly flourish) until all of that land is once again theirs. I would consider her and ultra-zionist, because I don't believe most Israeli's to have her same fervor. It is a mix of Nationalism and Religion, you are right, and I think it is discriminatory against non-Jews in general.

[Behind the Aegis]

188. I disagree.

I have found many posters here are anti-Israel, a good number are flat out bigots. There are way fewer (only a handful) who are actual anti-Semites.

I saw the 60 Minutes program on the web. I still see "ultra-zionist" as a slur of sorts, but nothing to write the ADL about, for sure. I see people like her are being anti-Israel because she and other settlers only care about their needs and not the true needs of Israel as a nation, which makes her and those like her anti-Israel.

[Idealism]

190. She claimed to be doing the work of Israel though

If you were to ask her, she is doing what is wholeheartedly in the best interests of Israel. She believes, as other settlers do it seems, that Israel can only survive by way of the settlements and their growth. Otherwise, the 'demographic timebomb' the far-right in Israel warn of (as if it is WWIII) will spread and overtake them and all they care about. It seems like xenophobia to me.

It brings up another question. If the settlers are anti-Israel, why are they not reigned in more? Why are the settlements allowed to flourish and discriminate against the Palestinians whose land was stolen? Both sides seem to agree that these illegal settlements are the biggest impediment to peace, so why are they even permitted?

[Behind the Aegis]

192. She could claim to be the Queen of Sheba, doesn't make it so, relevant, or accurate.

I have no doubt whatsoever she believes what she is doing is in the best interest of Israel. The minutemen of the US believe the same thing. It doesn't mean it is true. Because they believe the right-wing "demographic timebomb" scenario, more than likely is why they believe what they are doing is in the best interest of Israel. They also are likely to believe, as do I, that Israel, as a Jewish homeland is needed and desirable because the world will again, turn blind eyes and deaf ears to the destruction of Jews.

"If the settlers are anti-Israel, why are they not reigned in more?" Because their views are shared with some in power. Those in power share some of the same zionist views I described in the last post, and others hold a more pragmatic view, one of defense.

"Both sides seem to agree that these illegal settlements are the biggest impediment to peace, so why are they even permitted?" I disagree with your analysis. Both sides don't agree the settlements are the biggest impediment to peace. Though problematic, they are not the real stopping point to the process.

[Idealism]

193. The settlements are the single biggest insult to the Palestinians

How you don't see it that way is perhaps personal bias, which is understandable. According to dozens of interviews I have watched with leaders from both sides, the settlements are the biggest problem. How do you evict over 280,000 settlers that think they have a mandate from God to live on another persons land? Right-of-return comes in a close second, but I think if Palestinians could see their potential growth and greatly raise their standard of living, they would acquiesce on that stipulation. Prosperity, security, and autonomy will do wonders for a society, and they will compromise much easier once they are treated better.

According to a recent NYTs article that studied how the two sides would view peace, both said they wished for symbolic gestures. Things like an official apology from Israel for 1948 and the violence that ensued went a long way with changing the minds of Palestinians towards a two-state solution. On the Israeli side, they saw full recognition as crucial. It is interesting, but from a psychological perspective, both sides seek to repair their egos in a sense. They each want to be respected; Israel doesn't wish to be held up to a higher standard of morals than the rest of the world and have their military decisions criticized, and Palestinians don't want to be treated like second-class citizens and have their plight ignored the world over.

There is a difference between wanting a Jewish homeland and believing that you have the divine right to bulldoze another society's houses and annex it as a part of a Jewish state. There will always be some ultra-Zionists (I know you dislike the term, but I don't mean it as derogatory, just descriptive) that believe they have a mandate from heaven to colonize the land for the good of Israel, just like there will always be some Palestinians/Arabs/anti-Semites who wish to see Israel dissolve. It is vitally important to remember that these are not the majority views of either side. We must marginalize both of these destructive views because they are an obstruction to peace and ultimately detrimental to both societies.

[Behind the Aegis]

194. The settlements are not the single biggest insult to the Palestinians

You stating it is the single biggest insult is actually due to your bias, which explains why you also see it as the biggest problem.

Just as there will always be "ultra-Zionists," there will always be those who lack the understanding of the complexity of the situation and boil it down to simple "talking points," much like the "ultra-Zionists" they so despise. Peace will come when the Palestinian leadership throw off the yoke of the Arab "brothers" and negotiate for their own needs.

[Idealism]

195. I strongly disagree

Palestinian leadership 'throwing off the yoke of Arab brothers?' The past Palestinian leadership was so corrupt and inept at everything except pandering to their western-backed sponsors that they never cared about their citizens. They were more worried about what the US thought of them than their own people, or their Arab "brothers," as you say, did. Or are you claiming that the secular Fatah's problem was really from being too closely tied to their Arab "brothers"?

I don't despise anyone, first and foremost. You like to paint with a broad brush and to demonize anyone who doesn't think as you do, and it speaks more to your character than to mine. Are you aware of this persecution complex I spoke of? It is a common theme in psychoanalysis.

[Behind the Aegis]

196. I don't need dime-store psychoanalysis from a poster on the internet.

"The past Palestinian leadership was so corrupt and inept at everything except pandering to their western-backed sponsors that they never cared about their citizens." Or so goes the propaganda. The current Gazan leadership is so engaged in their blood-lust, they have no concerns for their citizens except as pawns.

"I don't despise anyone, first and foremost." I didn't say you did. I was speaking in generalizations, perhaps you didn't understand that. The only one broadbrushing here is yourself, along with your protectionism, and your dime-store psychoanalysis which has failed you, especially if you think I have a persecution complex. Then again, it sounds more like you (again, a form of protectionism exemplified by "demonize anyone who doesn't think as you do"). Saying it is so, doesn't make it so (as I said a few posts back).

[Idealism]

197. The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress.

It is clear that progress will not be made in talking with you. Like I have come to see from personal friends on both sides of this conflict, there is a blindness to the plight of your opposition. You like to highlight when you are wronged, as you should, but you don't understand when you- or often your government- harm those who injure you.

Have a good day, BTA

[shira]

173. to be honest, you don't have a clue

Prior to 1948, do you really think the Jews involved with the creation of Israel were more concerned about Manifest Destiny than they were a safe haven for Jews worldwide? Are you in ANY way aware of the history of Jews for 2 millenia prior to 1948? You're somewhat fortunate to be here, getting just a taste of how it was for 2000 years here, by reading some of the madness and insanity on these boards.

[Idealism]

176. There is plenty on both sides to go around, shira

Every Palestinian death is not equatable to genocide, or the Holocaust. Similarly, not every Israeli death is cause enough to kill 100 Palestinians, or to collectively punish 1.5 million Gazan's by blocking humanitarian aid. Both sides are guilty as sin in this conflict, but Israel will have a harder time getting their people to accept peace than Palestinians will I believe.

[shira]

177. Hamas needs to be punished

how do you go about doing that without collectively hurting any Palestinians? Hamas says no peace ever, just Jihad until Israel is liberated. They keep the terror attacks going.

What should Israel do that is morally correct in order to stop Hamas?

[Idealism]

179. You have some misperceptions about Hamas

Not every leader in Hamas wants to see Israel destroyed, there have been top officials who spoke out seeking a two-state solution. Most Palestinians want a two-state peace. Knowing these two things make peace a definite possibility, but there are symbolic gestures that both sides can do to help their causes. If the Palestinians are allowed to feel respected by Israel and not treated like second-class citizens, peace will become attainable, just like if all Palestinians recognize Israel's right to exist and stop using violence as a means of resistance, it will improve both peoples lives.

The collective punishment of Palestinians has been going on before Hamas was elected. It would have continued whether Fatah remained in power or not.

I agree with you that Hamas needs to be punished, but by killing them (along with hundreds of innocent civilians) you are only making the problem worse. In their minds, when you use violence time and time again against them, they justify the violence they have inflicted unto Israel. You can't simply kill an idea, and Hamas represents a resistance movement first and foremost. Even if you manage to kill every member of Hamas, their sympathizers and all, a newer- more militant- group would rise from their ashes. Violence breeds extremism. The Palestinian people deserve better, and Israel owes it to themselves to seek a better way to deal with those who dislike them. The same can be said for the United States.

As pertaining to your question how do you go about punishing Hamas while not collectively punishing all Gazans, that isn't simple but nothing worth-while is. I would suggest Israel cease the violence immediately, nothing productive will be accomplished while it goes on. I would then have a meeting with Hamas and Palestinian Authority leaders, detailing to them how Israel can help make their citizens lives better- if these two groups would form a unity government and work to a common good for their people. Stipulate that the only way funding is coming from foreign countries to rebuild Gaza is if Hamas accepts a unity government coalition, and that if they perpetrate violence against Israel while the unity government is going on, they will be expelled from leadership positions and Gaza will be handed over to the PA. If there is violence from any fringe groups (Islamic Jihad, Army of Islam, etc), and there is a consensus from the PA and Hamas over who initiated any attacks on Israel, then they must arrest those responsible. If they do not attempt to locate the perpetrators and arrest them, Israel may withhold foreign aid meant for rebuilding Gaza. While the Unity government is in power, actively trying to prevent violence against Israeli's, Israel must keep the borders open and allow all humanitarian aid through, as well as industrial diesel through the Nahal Oz crossing. If they can continue relatively peaceful relations while Gaza is being rebuilt (meaning no righteous assassinations by Israel, too), this will lay the basis for working with Palestinian leadership in the near-future towards the two state solution. There isn't one giant leap either side can take, or even should make. It needs to be done with baby steps until something good comes of it.

[shira]

180. so let's go with that

Israel accepts and 50 Israelis die, then 100, up to 500, no Israeli response yet. Like no other country, Israel restrains itself, keeps borders open to suicide bombers, etc. Doesn't retaliate harshly to rockets.

Now how long do they wait until Palestinian leadership gets their act together? What's the threshold? 2000 lives lost? When can they act? And when they do, what are they allowed to do militarily?

I'm being serious.

[Idealism]

182. You are being very unreasonable

If there is any attack made against Israel, and the unity government does not arrest those responsible, Israel closes the borders and stops rebuilding Gaza. Simple as that. There are 400,000 people left homeless from this tragedy, they will not stand for not having anyone help rebuild their lives. There were over 20 Mosques bombed. With no aid rebuilding these things that are destroyed, life can't go on for these people. The unity government has no choice but to allow Israel to rebuild their shattered land, so they will accept the terms of preventing violence. Couple that with international peace keepers and observers watching over the whole rebuilding process and telling us exactly what both sides are doing, I don't think there will be a spike in violence once the borders open because it will immediately improve Palestinian life. Do you not think so?

[shira]

185. just preparing for the worst, that's all

it would be criminally negligent not to do so.

"If there is any attack made against Israel, and the unity government does not arrest those responsible, Israel closes the borders and stops rebuilding Gaza. Simple as that. "

And what if the arrests are half-ass, out within a week or month? How do you arrest dead "successful" suicide bombers? What compelling evidence would Israel require in order to close borders again and claim that the PA is not serious in implementing law and order? Again, how many Israelis must die before Israel is forced to stop it?

"Couple that with international peace keepers and observers watching over the whole rebuilding process and telling us exactly what both sides are doing, I don't think there will be a spike in violence once the borders open because it will immediately improve Palestinian life. Do you not think so?"

There are international peace keepers in southern Lebanaon allowing Hezbollah to grow stronger than they were 2 years ago. And you assume improvement for ordinary Palestinians translates into rational Hamas leadership? Based on what evidence?

[Idealism]

189. I guess nothing will be good enough for you

"Half-ass arrests?" Hamas arrested a dozen members of the Al-Aqsa Brigades after they fired rockets into Israel during the June 19th cease-fire, and last I heard they were still in jail. Is that half-assed, or are you being militant to the point? You don't stop a dead successful suicide bomber, but you can arrest those higher in that militant group who perpetrated it. Hamas arrested the Army of Islam spokesmen after they kidnapped a BBC correspondent and negotiated a release of the journalist by doing so. Just like Israel didn't stop Baruch Goldstein from killing a few dozen Palestinians by opening fire on worshipers praying in a Mosque. You can't prevent all forms of violence, but you can punish it and try your best at deterring future acts.

Hamas did not get voted into power on the "Kill the Jews" and "Let Israel bomb Gaza for 22 days" platforms. They won the elections based on their anti-corruption, policies of socialism, and resistance to the occupation. Their official campaign promises held no mention of Israel directly (although, their original charter, written in 1987, does). Hamas will face re-election in the near-future, and they are accountable to their population just like every other democratically elected government. If they don't improve the life of Gazans, or are seen to hinder the process, the PA will marginalize Hamas' influece. Either way, Palestinians will have a better life, I am hopeful.

[shira]

198. history shows

the PA makes arrests for PR purposes and releases these guys within hours, days, or weeks at best. If you have a source showing that the people Hamas arrested recently are still in jail, I'd love to see it.

Hamas may have been voted in on anti-corruption, but Palestinians who voted them in weren't stupid and knew very well they were also getting an organization committed to inciting and committing genocide.

My point is that with your plan, Israel would need incredible proof showing the PA not being serious about cracking down on terrorism in order to get the rest of the int'l community to "buy into" their closing of the border. From the Israeli perspective, if they cannot use force until "X" amount of Israelis are murdered or maimed, they need to know the threshold first in order to agree to the terms. You think they're likely to just "go for it" and wait until 1000 Israelis are dead/maimed until they've had enough of this deal? Think of the political pressure. 1000 there is like 40,000 to us here in America. That's a helluva risk. What politician will just sit on his/her hands while the population is screaming to "do something"?

Just saying, when it's not YOUR ass on the line but others, you have to consider the ramifications.

For the record, I think your plan is great. I'm not sure it's practical. I wish it would work, however.

[Idealism]

199. If you look at polling data from the election time

The people who voted in Hamas were not fanatics bent on destroying Israel, for the most part. You even had Christians in the West Bank voting for Hamas candidates because Fatah failed so badly at improving Palestinian lives. The main exit polls from the 2006 elections that I saw showed more people concerned with ineptitude and corruption than anti-Israeli sentiments by far.

I don't think that 1,000 Israeli lives is equatable to 40,000 in the US by any measure. There has been objection to the rockets and mortar attacks since they began, even though they killed two dozen people in 8 years. There was even more uproar over Hamas suicide bomber attacks, which to this point (I believe) is credited with 500-600 deaths since 1994 (although they have been nonexistent since Gaza was blockaded).

If your problem is the PA jailing people just for PR and releasing them, then why not have the ICC arrest and hold those who commit these acts? They can even try them too while they wait for more egregious criminals to come through the Hague. The PA could arrest them and turn them over, both sides win.

I think there are more people watching the I/P conflict now than before, and won't let casualties go as easily as they have in the past. Hate them all you want, but Hamas still has to answer to their people in elections. Pre-Cast Lead polls showed the PA with a huge lead in Gaza, although in the West Bank- Hamas was polling marginally higher (which speaks to the PA's utter lack of effectiveness). Unfortunately, this past operation in Gaza has no doubt given Hamas a boost in their approval ratings, just as 9/11 did for Bush. The fact is if Palestinians don't see improvement in their lives, they will vote Hamas out. We can only hope.

[shira]

200. It would be nice if that worked out

but it seems, and correct me if I'm wrong, that if things get out of hand Israel is really not allowed to defend militarily until some point in time that it becomes intolerable for most of the population. To get the population to go along with this plan is to also have a leader who's ballsy enough to accept it and wait, very possibly, until casualties reach some breaking point. It seems like political suicide for any Israeli leader, so I don't see much hope for it. I don't see Israel agreeing NOT to defend militarily. Most Israelis would see that as a green light for Hamas and IJ to fire at will.

It would be nice, however, if it could work out.

[Idealism]

201. Israel has undergone several military actions in the past that you may not have heard of

Obviously, this is the biggest operation undergone to combat terrorism by the IDF, but there was covert missions done before this. Operation Wrath of God, which was launched in retaliation for a PLO-backed attack at Munich, was criticized internally and by internationally for its negligence towards peace, the after-effects of the violence, and little evidence of wrong-doing by some of those they assassinated. It gave the green-light for Mossad agents to kill any and all the oppositions leadership (and wrongly killed innocents in some cases), and it spurred Palestinian militants to commit acts in vengeance that ensured the cycle of violence would continue. This operation spanned three decades of extra-judicial killings.

Operation Spring of Youth was another covert operation, although similar to Wrath of God, that was something akin to a Viking raiding party into Lebanon that killed a dozen or so people, including 3 PLO officials. This attack yielded a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning the action of Israel as a breach against international law.

Operation Hot Winter was a recent military undertaking similar to Operation Cast Lead. The Israeli government said it was in direct response to Qassam rocket attacks from Gaza militant groups. It was also condemned for "disproportionate force" after killing 110 (or so) Palestinians and suffering 3 Israeli casualties. Half of those killed were claimed to be civilians by Palestinian figures, while the IDF claims they were mostly militants (I see a pattern here...)

There were numerous military solutions given to this problem, but none of them truly accomplished what they were intended. In each instance, the Israeli solution was met with Palestinian counter-violence. These operations did nothing but make citizens on both sides less safe, ultimately, which is why I consider them an abject failure. In all of these cases, there weren't even close to 1,000 Israeli deaths. These operations were launched after Palestinians inflicted small amounts of casualties unto Israeli's, but it was opportune for Israeli politicians to conduct such a strike against terrorists usually being tied to their falling poll numbers or proximity to re-election. In the Wrath of God operation, due to the Munich massacre, then-Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir's administration (and by default, her party's) approval ratings were very low. With an election looming just months ahead, she green-lit Wrath of God, and despite the internal criticism from the Yom Kippur War, her party won the December, 1973 elections. In a January, 2008 poll of Israeli parties, Kadima was in a pitched battle with Likud, despite Kadima being a coalition of leftists and centrists. This definitely could have influenced Olmert's decision.

[Chulanowa]

122. No, it's more like back in '80

When Iranian special forces were sent to Paris to murder the Shah's brother.

It's also not too different from, the year earlier, Saddam executing a few Kurdish leaders.

Bastards the victims they may have been, but are you going to tell me that Saddam and Khomeini were right to just declare these men kill-on-sight? Because you're saying Israel's right to do so, and if it's right for one group then it's just as right for another one.

Someone thought Rabin was a danger to Israel, too.

[EFerrari]

63. Oh, bullshit. Both AI and HRW have spoken out about him.

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2006/06/28/gaza-israeli-offensive-must-limit-harm-civilians

http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?lang=e&id=ENGMDE150552006

Reality check.

[azurnoir]

5. First off it would have to be proven

that unguided rockets were purposely fired at civilian targets and then there is this recognition problem but it is a "nice" finger pointing distraction and totally expected

[shira]

13. it has to be proven? are you serious?

well, yeah you probably are.

:eyes:

[azurnoir]

27. Yeah I am the

the same burden of proof that those who accuse Israel of war crimes also applies to those who would accuse Hamas, I know you don't like this well except when it applies to Israel but the accusers on both sides must prove their claims. And when it comes to Israel suing Hamas how do you sue a group you do not recognize?
According to recent news reports Hamas may well go all with the EU and recognize Israel at least they are considering it, just as they called Israels bluff and declared a cease fire or truce last week.

[shira]

29. here's one of many....let's see if you agree

Hamas is expected to allow the Red Cross in to check up on Gilad Shalit. It is a war crime to deny the Red Cross access to Shalit.

Agree or disagree?

[azurnoir]

31. LOL projection Shira but yes it might be except until recently

there was no war is it a war crime to not allow the ICRC access to wounded? As far as Gilad Shalit goes there were statements early on that he was killed in a airstrike, hopefully that report was untrue.

[shira]

36. "might be"

Even Germany allowed the Red Cross in during WW2. Hamas isn't allowing any ICRC visits.

Maybe this is against Geneva Conventions and International Humanitarian Law?

Maybe? Might be?

[azurnoir]

39. You mean Germany allowed the Red Cross into camps like

Theresenstat? yeah right, as I said it might be just as IDF's not allowing in the ICRC might be war crimes

[shira]

43. yep, even theresienstadt

http://www.scrapbookpages.com/czechrepublic/theresienstadt/theresienstadtghetto/history/redcrossvisit.html

And thanks for the "might be". Very telling.

[azurnoir]

48. very telling of what?

this is a list from wiki I copied it a eek or so ago and this is how it was then

On July 1, 2002, the International Criminal Court, a treaty-based court located in The Hague, came into being for the prosecution of war crimes committed on or after that date. However, several nations, most notably the United States, China, and Israel, have criticized the court and refuse to participate in it or to permit the court to have jurisdiction over their citizens. Note, however, that a citizen of one of the 'objector nations' could still find himself before the Court if he were accused of committing war crimes in a country that was a state party, regardless of the fact that their country of origin was not a signatory.

War crimes are defined in the statute that established the International Criminal Court, which includes:

1. Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, such as:
1. Willful killing, or causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
2. Torture or inhumane treatment
3. Unlawful wanton destruction or appropriation of property
4. Forcing a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of a hostile power
5. Depriving a prisoner of war of a fair trial
6. Unlawful deportation, confinement or transfer
7. Taking hostages
2. The following acts as part of an international conflict:
1. Directing attacks against civilians
2. Directing attacks against humanitarian workers or UN peacekeepers
3. Killing a surrendered combatant
4. Misusing a flag of truce
5. Settlement of occupied territory
6. Deportation of inhabitants of occupied territory
7. Using poison weapons
8. Using civilians as shields
9. Using child soldiers
3. The following acts as part of a non-international conflict:
1. Murder, cruel or degrading treatment and torture
2. Directing attacks against civilians, humanitarian workers or UN peacekeepers
3. Taking hostages
4. Summary execution
5. Pillage
6. Rape, sexual slavery, forced prostitution or forced pregnancy

However the court only has jurisdiction over these crimes where they are "part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes"<6>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime

if you read over the list both sides may be guilty of war crimes here

[pelsar]

95. i assume your kidding.....

given the statements of hamas that they will and have attacked israeli cities it kinda leaves little doubt that they were purposely fired at those cities....but of course it means you have to believe the hamas leadership for those intentions and subsequent actions.......

kind of inconvenient if your one of their cheerleaders trying to help them out. Thats the problem with hamas, they believe they have god on their side and dont have to pander to the west....no matter how hard some try to "help" them with their soundbytes......

btw i almost lost my keyboard reading your post (have to remember not to drink coffee when reading your posts)...."have to prove it....".....6,000 rockets and only civilian cities and villages in the area to hit

[GodDamLiberal]

10. Hamas wasn't firing

rockets at civilian targets. They have been trying out a new technology called "Remote Farming". They were trying to plow some of the lands that they still own, but aren't allowed to get too, in order to help keep them fertile. Because they know that someday Israel will return all the lands to their rightful owners.

[shira]

12. outstanding!

:rofl:

because as we all know, Hamas is not a terror organization that merits being investigated and prosecuted for warcrimes or any crimes against humanity.

Their actions are self-defense.

:eyes:

[azurnoir]

33. Oh so so clever and a "newbie" at that

where ever do do you guys come from? However last I read it was Israel firing "warning shots" at Palestinian farmers trying to plow their fields on the Gaza side of the fence

[ProgressiveMuslim]

15. Are there Israeli think tanks devoted to coming up with new ways to

fuck the people of Palestine over?


Kill them, steal their land, jail their kids, deny them basic human and civil rights, force them into refugee camps, continue killing them, destroy their REFUGEE homes, murder their women and children point blank, destroy their homes, schools and mosques, and then accuse THEM of war crimes.


That is so fucking twisted it is truly evil genius.

[Vegasaurus]

16. Are you this angry in real life?

Really, you ought to take a pill.

That much anger isn't good for your health.

[Fozzledick]

17. I think the problem is cognitive dissonance

It gets very frustrating trying to claim victim-hood when you're practicing cross-border terrorism using suicide tactics.

[Howardx]

18. the problem is indeed cognitive dissonance

yours and israels. i find much humor in an israel supporter complaining about ANYONE elses claims of victimhood.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

57. or accusing them of cognitive dissonance!

[Idealism]

20. I agree, the Israeli government should stop this silly fascade

[azurnoir]

40. Having lived in Gaza and I believe still having relatives there

yeah she probably is

[shira]

22. it's not about trying Palestinians for war crimes, but Hamas

Do you think Hamas has not committed warcrimes, not only against Israelis but against Palestinians too?

[Idealism]

32. Both should be tried according to degree and number of their crimes

Israel is clearly ahead on that count, but both need to be tried and convicted. There needs to be a regime change in Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank for peace to ensue.

[shira]

35. well at least you agree that Hamas should be tried as well

so why don't you think there's as much passion or obsession from top organizations to prosecute Hamas as they'd like to do against Israel?

It's not like there was as much righteous indignation against Russia for their recent campaign against Georgia.

Do you agree there seems to be a great double-standard?

[Idealism]

42. The double-standard is coming from Israel, shira

In regards to the so-called Georgian War, Russia was deliberately provoked by Micha, as several reports show conclusively after the fact. But, there was much indignation against Russian aggression at the time, before the truth came out, so I am not sure what you are grasping for here. The British Foreign Affairs Minister practically camped out on the Russian border for a few weeks.

Israel for the past two decades especially, has preeminently used their policy of assassination over diplomacy. How do you expect peace when one side casually eliminates the leaders of the other side? While at the same time of their assassinations, they refuse to make concessions, further hurting the peace talks. What type of madness is this? How can Israel credibly claim they have done ANYTHING to promote peace in the region for the past 20 years?

[shira]

46. oh come on now....

Whether I bring up Russia or any other country FAR, far worse than Israel - it's telling that you cannot admit there's a clear double standard with FAR, far more obsession, hostility, and anger against Israel.

As for killing Sheikh Yassin, I asked above IF he were truly a terror mastermind would his assassination have been justified. Still waiting on that one. Indulge me, please.

As for your question about what Israel has done to promote peace the past 20 years, I give you CD/Taba 2000 and Gaza 2005. This crisis should have been long over with.

[Idealism]

52. You keep repeating Taba, even though all members agreed Israel walked away.

Everyone there was unanimous that Israel ended Taba, which more than one person has since corrected you- yet you repeat the same lies, why?

You fail to bring up the Arab Peace Initiative, which has been on the table since 2002, which Israel refuses to deal with because it means they must give more than they get. I guess peace isn't as important as the Golan Heights, prime illegal settlements in the West Bank, and kicking Arabs off their property in East Jerusalem.

This conflict should have been over with long ago, but Israel is unwilling to make concede their illegal expansions.

[azurnoir]

53. LOL don't even bother

I find it humorous that she can be firmly thumped on one thread and will trot out the same BS a few days later on another

[shira]

54. Arafat rejected Taba.....so says Clinton, Ross, ben Ami, ....

and he did so without so much as a counter proposal. But maybe you think Dennis Ross, Bill Clinton, Ehud Barak, and Shlomo ben Ami - all progressives - lied? And you'd rather believe Arafat's regressive camp and their little narrative?

As for the Arab Peace initiative of 2002, I assume you're ignorant of the demand that the Arab world would only consider negotiations when Israel first retreats behind 1967 lines and allows all Palestinian refugees in?

Or are you pretending not to know these facts.....and therefore you repeat the same lies, why?

And lastly, Gaza 2005, end to occupation and settlements, no sea blockade, Rafah border control by PA....that was not a big move towards peace?

[Idealism]

56. I rather believe the U.N, the EU, and the records from Taba

over your CAMERA article, or little green footballs "professional testimonial". The right of return was not demanded, only that a JUST SOLUTION be found. Stop exaggerating, seriously.

Gaza 2005? You mean the disengagement plan that built a wall around Gaza, while simultaneously stealing thousands of acres of Palestinian land in the West Bank? The plan that Sharron admitted to being a colonization plan of the West Bank? The plan that DOUBLED the population of illegal Jewish settlers in the West Bank? Building over 700 checkpoints in the West Bank so Palestinians could not even take a shit without permission from their occupiers? Building Jewish-only superhighways between their Jewish-only illegal settlements, thereby making it harder for Palestinians to move- once they get past those 700 checkpoints? Building an Apartheid Wall around the West Bank over twice the size and scope of the Berlin Wall, thereby annexing what was rich Palestinian farm land for illegal Jewish-only homes?

Are you fucking kidding me? REALLY?

[shira]

59. No, you believe CounterPunch, VanityFair, ElectronicIntifada, etc...

Here's Shlomo ben Ami's own account:
http://www.weizmann.ac.il/home/comartin/israel/ben-ami.html

Do you know anything about him? His account mirrors that of Dennis Ross.

As for your rant on Gaza 2005, you get what you get when your info. on conspiracy theories comes from CounterPunch, EI, VanityFair, etc.

The fact is Gaza was a lost opportunity for Palestinian leadership, who failed their Palestinian constituents. After the Lebanon 2000 pullout, there's no doubt that if the PA reacted peacefully to Gaza 2005, a West Bank pullout would have followed due to the same public pressure within Israel that led to the 1st two pullouts.

[Idealism]

61. Show me proof of me ever quoting Vanify Fair or EI

I can show you proof of you quoting both the sites I listed, however.

Here is the account by http://www.gush-shalom.org/archives/taba.html">Gush Shalom, which both sides agreed was correct at the time.

This EU non-paper has been prepared by the EU Special Representative to the
Middle East Process, Ambassador Moratinos, and his team after consultations
with the Israeli and Palestinian sides, present at Taba in January 2001. Although
the paper has no official status, it has been acknowledged by the parties as being a
relatively fair description of the outcome of the negotiations on the permanent status
issues at Taba.

snip

The Israeli side stated that the Clinton proposals provide for
annexation of settlement blocs. The Palestinian side did not agree
that the parameters included blocs, and did not accept proposals
to annex blocs. The Palestinian side stated that blocs would cause
significant harm to the Palestinian interests and rights, particularly to
the Palestinians residing in areas Israel seeks to annex.



I quote dozens of human rights groups on the occupation of the West Bank, if you doubt their claims, dare try to refute them. Oh wait, you can't- because it is the truth. You have a much better shot at arguing for Israel if you don't mention the West Bank or East Jerusalem. Those are so patently one-sided conflicts, that it is a joke that you or anyone else could still justify them.

[shira]

67. so to summarize

1. You cannot admit honestly that Israel is being criticized FAR out of proportion in comparison to every other country that acts either as bad (in your opinion) or even much worse.

2. You think Dennis Ross, Shlomo Ben Ami, Bill Clinton, and Ehud Barak - all progressives - are liars WRT Taba 2000. You trust Arafat and his narrative over theirs.

3. You realize the Arab 2002 initiative for peace FIRST makes Israel almost entirely defenseless BEFORE Arab nations even consider negotiations for normal relations - AND there are no stipulations in that initiative for Palestinian terror to stop.

[Idealism]

77. Isreal has over 360 U.N. resolutions against them for a reason

More than any other country, they have violated international law in more instances than any other present day country. I don't know what you are talking about "Arafat and his narrative" when the European Union, the Mid-East quartet, and everyone there agreed at the time that Israel refused to concede illegal settlements in Taba. NO ONE disputes that, yet you think Arafat walked away? You are so blindly Pro Israel it is amazing, how did you get this far in life with so little ability to reason?

The API does not make Israel 'defenseless,' unless you think a recognized Palestinian state is a 'threat' to Israel (which it is obvious you do, because you think Palestinians to all be sub-human militants, and their deaths are justified because it keeps Israel safer).

[shira]

81. rofl

1. So you really think Israel has more UN resolutions than any other country because, by far, they ARE the worst country and no other is even close? :rofl:

2. Again, are Clinton, Barak, Ross, and ben Ami - progressives - all liars about their account of Taba? :eyes:

3. You may like to think that I see Palestinians as sub-human militants whose deaths are justified (why else would I have my positions) but I find it's your side who doesn't give a rip about Palestinians whose suffer mostly under their regressive leadership. I find it's your side, and orgs you promote, who never call out Fatah and Hamas for their cruelty towards Palestinians, or Lebanon for what they did not even 2 years ago when they massacred Palestinians.

The API makes no mention of Palestinian terror. It demands Israel first pulls back to 1967 borders and justly solves the Palestinian refugee situation. Even if that means allowing 1 million refugees in, that, in addition to nonstop Palestinian terror and a smaller Israel - with its population swelled by over 15% (think of America taking on 40-50 million possible hostiles)....this is a recipe for making Israel defenseless. Even all THIS doesn't guarantee normal relations with the Arab world....only 'consideration' for it. It's a total joke but you're so blind and unreasonable about this, that you cannot see it.

[Idealism]

84. I guess the U.N. and all 191 countries in it are just "anti-Semitic", huh?

It suddenly makes sense! The whole world just hates Jews! Israel could not have possibly done all these things that are well-documented violations of humanitarian law, could they? Naw.

Come back to reality.

[LeftishBrit]

91. Not antisemitic, but they have their own political motives,

Why do you think there haven't been any resolutions against the USA, UK, Russia or China? Because all these countries are totally innocent? Or because the UN is a political organization (and never claimed to be anything else), and not a court of law?

[Idealism]

92. The U.S. vetoes resolutions they don't like, same as China does

Which is why it is amazing that 360 were passed against Israel. The U.S. holds the most power over the U.N., so are you claiming that the US is biased towards Israel because they allowed so many to pass? Really?

[hack89]

113. Why do you think that the UN has any moral standing in the world at all?

call me when they expel Zimbabwe, North Korea, Sudan, China, and all the other despotic regimes.

They will ignore true genocide while passing resolutions condemning Israel. They deserve to be ignored.

[Idealism]

114. The U.N. is made up countries voting towards resolutions

If you think they have no credibility, then you claim no countries in the world to be credible. Is that the path you want to go down?

[hack89]

116. I claim that not all countries have equal credibility or moral standing

do you think that Saudi Arabia has equal credibility on woman's rights or Iran on gay rights? Does the fact that human right violators are in every UN Humans rights organization give you pause as to their moral standing?

The UN has some utility, but to claim that their resolutions reflect some higher moral standard is nonsense.

[Idealism]

117. Clearly you have some doubts over whether Israel is guilty of humanitarian crimes

Which I find laughable. They have yet to be tried, but there is much evidence of the wrongs they have done, and if it ever goes to court they will be found guilty I am sure.

Are you denying hundreds of violations of the Geneva Conventions by Israel in the past few decades? Really?

I guess international law doesn't apply if you are the United States, or one of their close allies. Good message to send the world, right?

"They can't tell us how to treat people when their religion oppresses women!"

[hack89]

120. Don't put words in my mouth

Israel is no better or worst then many other countries. There are countries that have slaughtered and imprisoned innocents on a scale that the IP conflict does not begin to approach. Yet they are ignored by the UN. Why doesn't international law apply to Sudan, Congo, China, North Korea, Cuba etc?

I am not saying that Israel is innocent - I am saying that the UN does not have the moral authority to pass judgment when so many of the "judges" have blood on their hands too.

[Idealism]

121. Every government who engages in crime should be put on trial

The reality of the situation is that Sudan is not influential in the world, so people ignore it. A country like Israel is too big to be completely ignored, but too small to stop the resolutions against them. Instead, they ignore them, and the world doesn't care.

The problem I have is that my tax dollars finance the crimes they commit. Bashir in Sudan is not financed by my taxes. Both are wrong, and they should be tried and convicted.

[oberliner]

60. Dennis Ross (who was actually there) does not share that view

He claims that Arafat essentially rejected everything that was proposed and did not offer any ideas of his own.

[Idealism]

62. I believe the EU over Dennis Ross, and the EU was "there" as well.

[shira]

98. the EU wasn't there

they consulted with both sides and then wrote the paper.

As for the annexation of the settlement blocks, Shlomo ben Ami goes into far more detail in his accounts.

[Idealism]

101. Their team of consultants were there.

The account was agreed upon by both sides as being accurate and fair. End of discussion.

[shira]

105. both sides agreed that it was a relatively fair account

the fact is Shlomo ben Ami went into far more detail WRT the annexation of settlement blocks. You can point to nothing in that article showing how "unfair" Israel was, or why Arafat should have been congratulated for rejecting it.

[Idealism]

106. It is obvious that you don't believe a word that article says

How am I to change someone who has made up their mind, without reading everything they can?

Keep believe PNAC signatories like Dennis Ross, and see how far you will be away from the truth.

[shira]

109. what's to deny?

you made a claim about annexation of settlement blocs, and Shlomo ben Ami went into even more detail than the EU account, which does not contradict ben Ami. It just doesn't go into detail like he did.

Have you even read Shlomo ben Ami's account?

[Idealism]

111. I have seen many interviews of him

I don't need to read his official account, he has reiterated them enough on Democracy Now over the years. And on DN, he didn't mention the impasse about illegal settlements, which is more telling than your article any day of the week

[shira]

112. okay, so how about this?

Shlomo ben Ami:
"No. They presented a counter-map that totally eroded the three already shrunken blocs and effectively they voided the whole bloc concept of content. According to their map, only a few isolated settlements would remain, which would be dependent on thin strings of narrow access roads. A calculation we made showed that all they agreed to give us was 2.34 percent."


Q: You say that during this whole period between June and January, in the period when you conceded the Rift Valley and accepted the idea of a territorial swap and divided Jerusalem and handed over the Temple Mount - that the whole movement of the Palestinians toward Israel was in fractions of percentage points. So, all they added to the pledge of 2 percent that they gave Clinton from the outset was 0.34 percent?

Shlomo ben Ami:
"It's hard for me to argue with you. But that is exactly why the criticism we have taken from the left leaves me gaping. I simply don't understand it. It's true that both Barak and I were sort of `outside children' of the left. Neither of us is a professional peace industrialist. But look where we got to. Tell me what more we were supposed to do."

http://www.weizmann.ac.il/home/comartin/israel/ben-ami.html

[Idealism]

115. This proves my exact point about how Israel is unwilling to compromise

Because the Israeli's wanted more than what Arafat pledged to Clinton, they are allowed to halt peace talks?


Way to go Israel.

[shira]

118. wow.

Israel unwilling to compromise? I read just the opposite.

It's fascinating how your side is impervious to facts.

[Idealism]

119. They promised Clinton something

and when they come through, they are the ones stalling peace?

Regardless of the facts, this statement clearly denies any mention that Israel wanted to keep 8% of the West Bank that clearly was past the green line. Again, breaking international law.

[shira]

134. duh

they came through with 0.34% in addition to that promise and rejected everything else (even what Clinton described as the 'ceiling' without so much as a counteroffer.

And again, you know nothing about International Law and depend on legal amateur putzes who have no clue or leg to stand on to interpret it wrongly for you - which never results in convictions or sancitons BTW because it's all faux understanding. But it sure as hell convinces gullible people like yourself, doesn't it?

Again, Shlomo ben Ami refutes your narrative about Arafat taking CD/TABA seriously. And your EU report does nothing to refute him. Barak hardly "walked away" with Arafat waiting eagerly behind to close a peace deal that was sooo within reach. Arafat wasted everyone's time there and that's the historical record.

[EFerrari]

64. Dennis Ross is not a very credible source, is he?

[oberliner]

66. Clinton had faith in him - and so does Obama.

Wasn't he just selected by Obama to be an "ambassador-at-large" to the Middle East?

[EFerrari]

69. Is that a recommendation? I'd have thought his AIPAC affiliation would be enough for you.

He's not credible. He's not independent or neutral so he can't be considered a good actor.

[shira]

71. How about Shlomo ben Ami? Also not credible?

His account of Taba mirrors that of Dennis Ross.

[EFerrari]

79. Does it? I'm glad you asked because he gave a good interview

on Amy's show with Norman Finkelstein in 2006 that readers of this forum may find instructive:

AMY GOODMAN: What happens when a former Israeli Foreign Minister debates a scholar known as one of the world’s foremost critics of Israeli policy? The answer is not what you may expect. Last week, Shlomo Ben-Ami and Norman Finkelstein joined us our Firehouse studio for a wide-ranging exchange that lasted close to two hours. Today, we bring you an edited version of what they had to say.

Shlomo Ben-Ami is both an insider and a scholar. As Foreign Minister under Ehud Barak, he was a key participant in years of Israel-Palestinian peace talks, including the Camp David and Taba talks in 2000 and 2001. An Oxford-trained historian, his new book is Scars of War, Wounds of Peace: The Israeli-Arab Tragedy. President Bill Clinton says, quote, “Shlomo Ben-Ami worked tirelessly and courageously for peace. His account of what he did and failed to do and where we go from here should be read by everyone who wants a just and lasting resolution.”

We’re also joined by Norman Finkelstein. He is a professor of political science at DePaul University in Chicago. His latest book is Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History. Avi Shlaim, Israeli scholar at Oxford University calls Beyond Chutzpah “Brilliantly illuminating… On display are all the sterling qualities for which Finkelstein has become famous.”

We tried to cover as much ground as we could from the origins of the conflict to the Oslo peace process to the present. I began by asking the former Foreign Minister of Israel, Shlomo Ben-Ami, about the founding of Israel in 1948.

http://www.democracynow.org/2006/2/14/fmr_israeli_foreign_minister_shlomo_ben

Transcript, audio, video at link.

[Shaktimaan]

152. He also has an excellent book out...

called "scars of war, wounds of peace" which I believe he plugged during that interview. He's one of the most unbiased people (IMO) whose book on this conflict I've read. He is certainly not an apologist for Israel's actions, but neither is he extremely critical of most of their actions. I think he looks at things within the context that they occurred, and his non-judgmental tone helps his writing appear more unbiased than many other people's.

One thing is certain though... he is undeniably credible.

[shira]

68. Dennis Ross is so unreliable that he's on Team Obama

with respect to all that is I/P related. And you can bet Obama will look to get Shlomo ben Ami in on negotiations once more too.

[EFerrari]

80. Ross is a PNAC signer and was executive director of AIPAC.

That Obama hired him is no credit to Obama.

[Idealism]

86. She blindly follows Obama just like she blindly follows Israel

It is quite sad, honestly. You can vote for the man, but good lord, since when did unquestioning obedience become a Democratic trait? He isn't infallible.

[oberliner]

87. Ross was never executive director of AIPAC

Where did you get that one from?

AIPAC Executive Directors were:

Isiah Kennen, Morris Amitay, Thomas Dine, Neal Sher, and Howard Kohr (current).

[EFerrari]

88. SourceWatch. Are they wrong? EDIT:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Dennis_B._Ross

Wiki says he was one of the AIPAC founders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_B._Ross

lol

[Idealism]

89. I think we should believe him over the U.N. and European Union

Don't you? :sarcasm:

[oberliner]

93. Wiki says he was one of the founders of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy

Which Wiki says was "AIPAC-sponsored". The entry does not claim that he was a founder of AIPAC itself.

I don't know what to tell you about where "Sourcewatch" got its inaccurate information.

[EFerrari]

96. You're right about the Institute and still, the point is made.

He is not credible. He is not independent.

[oberliner]

97. I do not think he would repeatedly lie publically about what took place

I doubt that Obama would have considered him to work in his administration if Ross had been going around making up lies about what took place at those talks.

[Idealism]

99. He was a PNAC signatory, yet you defend him still?

Perhaps William Kristoll has some words of wisdom for those who wish to defend Israel against the "haters"

[oberliner]

103. All I am claiming is that he is probably not making up lies in interviews

The last two Democratic presidents, Clinton and Obama, both believed his insights and services were worthy of consideration.

[Idealism]

104. Worthy of consideration, of course

All people are worthy of consideration on certain topics. This is not a topic that I would believe him to be partial on, and like I stated, I believe the European Union's views on this incident. It seems obvious that if Israel refused to concede their illegal settlements in the West Bank, that they were the roadblock to peace and not the Palestinians. We could sit here and debate "who walked away first" until we are blue in the face, but the facts are laid out. A major contention was the settlements, which were deemed by the U.N. to be illegal on several occasions. Those settlements were more important to Israel than peace, and they remain so, to this day.

[shira]

107. give it up already

there's nothing in the EU account that goes against what Shlomo ben Ami articulated with far more clarity.

You stated wrongly that Israel decided to abruptly (as if for no reason) end Taba, when it was Arafat who rejected almost totally what Clinton described as the 'ceiling' for negotiations. Arafat didn't make a counter-offer the entire time.

Who can blame Barak for leaving at that point - without any concessions from Arafat - and after Arafat KNEW from Clinton that what Taba offered was THE 'ceiling' - meaning as far as Israel could possibly go?

[Idealism]

108. "Who can blame Barak for leaving at that point"

So you admit Israel walked away now. Glad you realized your error.

[shira]

110. glad to assist

you appear to be only amenable to indoctrination.

Have fun arguing with others.

[shira]

129. thanks for making my point too

kudos to you about Barak walking away.....but your argument is childish, as if the context doesn't matter and that people should just believe that Barak didn't want peace. Anyone examining the situation could see it's just the opposite.

This is the type of dishonesty I've come to expect from Israel's most hostile defamers.

[Idealism]

132. Israel doesn't need any help defaming itself

They embarrass their citizens and shame themselves on a daily basis with this silly, doomed mission.

[shira]

135. no, you embarass yourself with all

the ridiculous accusations and your faux understanding of International Law.

[Idealism]

140. You are the one who thinks extrajudicial killings are legal.

You obviously have no idea what international law is. Just like how Israel blatantly violates humanitarian laws over and over, and the U.S. enables them and protects them by vetoing resolutions.

[shira]

143. Hamas leaders do not count like

leaders from France or Japan. This is a fact.

Maybe the PA should have accepted Taba 2001. There'd be an actual Palestine and Hamas leadership would have the kind of protection you mistakenly believe they already have.

[Idealism]

145. Why should they accept when Israel stole their land and refused to give it up?

And no, that is not a fact. According to the U.N., it was illegal and the draft passed. Try again with your 'facts.'

Oh wait, facts to you are only what CAMERA and the IDF say...

(The same groups who denied using white phosphorous, then admitted to it, then said it wasn't illegal, even when little children have burn marks?)

[shira]

155. hilarious

so taking out Yassin is illegal because the UN says so? Show me where International Law states that it is illegal to attack/defend, and if necessary, kill terrorist combatants and their leadership lke Yassin? It is ALWAYS legal by international law to attack or defend against terrorist organizations and their leadership.

Yassin can call himself "spiritual leader" all he likes. That doesn't mean he's not a terrorist leader and therefore defined by International Law as a combatant who is fair game. Terrorist combatants are fair game to ALL nations.....except for Israel, right?

As for white phosphorous, where's the proof it was deliberately used as a weapon (not just for smokescreen)? According to LOW, using it as a smokescreen is LEGAL. Do you have any proof it was used deliberately as a weapon against random Palestinians? Do you believe in innocent until proven guilty - except when it comes to Israel?

[azurnoir]

136. Remember this?

These basic facts are not in dispute and are a matter of public record.

There was certainly nothing remotely similar to Taba discussions that occured at Annapolis. No one even alledges that.

The Israeli negotiating team under instruction from the Prime Minister Ehud Barak unilaterally ended the talks in January 2001 because of the election which Ariel Sharon was predicted to win by a landslide with an absolute promise to reject any agreement with the Palestinians reached at Taba. These facts are not in dispute among sane and rational people.

Here is the link to the European Union notes - known as the Morantinos documents which all sides have confirmed to be a reliable record of what occurred at Taba, Egypt in January 2001.

http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/PRRN/papers/moratinos.ht...

snip:"Beilin stressed that the Taba talks were not halted because they hit a crisis, but rather because of the Israeli election."

snip:"This document, whose main points have been approved by the Taba negotiators as an accurate description of the discussions, casts additional doubts on the prevailing assumption that Ehud Barak "exposed Yasser Arafat's true face." It is true that on most of the issues discussed during that wintry week of negotiations, sizable gaps remain. Yet almost every line is redolent of the effort to find a compromise that would be acceptable to both sides. It is hard to escape the thought that if the negotiations at Camp David six months earlier had been conducted with equal seriousness, the intifada might never have erupted. And perhaps, if Barak had not waited until the final weeks before the election, and had instead sent his senior representatives to that southern hotel earlier, the violence might never have broken out."

link to European Union notes:

http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/PRRN/papers/moratinos.ht...

------------------------------------

Israelis, Palestinians make final push before Israeli election
January 27, 2001
Web posted at: 11:38 a.m. EST (1638 GMT) - link:

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/01/27/mideast....

"Barak's challenger for the prime minister's post, hard-line, hawkish Likud party chairman Ariel Sharon -- who holds a commanding lead in the polls -- has said he would not honor any agreement worked out between Barak's negotiators and the Palestinians. "

"Ehud Barak is endangering the state of Israel to obtain a piece of paper to help him in the election," Sharon said at a campaign stop Saturday. "Once the people of Israel find out what is in the paper and what Barak has conceded, he won't get any more votes."
_________________

Here is a neutral and dispassionate examination of what led to the break down at Camp David in 2000 and Taba in January 2001:

Vision of Collision: What Happened at Camp David and Taba" by Professor Jeremy Pressman:

http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/322/vis...

These facts were quite recently presented to you the poster was Douglas Carpenter yet you choose to ignor information presented to you if I remember you did not chalange the poster at the time but as I predicted you waited a few days and then trotted out the very same BS again so thanks for proveing me right, but I will give you this credit you are a good little soldier

[shira]

137. well then, I should have responded then by pointing to Shlomo ben Ami's report

http://www.weizmann.ac.il/home/comartin/israel/ben-ami.html

Shlomo ben Ami's report is the same as Dennis Ross. The only way you have facts from the source you cite is because of the reports from these 2 sources, as well as from the Arafat camp (which you seem to believe more than that of the progressive liberals who were also there). Why is that, can you tell me? Why the regressive report of the situation is more credible than the progressive reporting?

Have you read why Barak left according to Shlomo ben Ami? After months of negotiations with Arafat's team, the Taba initiative was presented by Clinton as THE ceiling - meaning as good as it gets for Palestinians and all that Israel could possibly do at the time. Arafat pretty much rejected everything his own negotiators worked for with Israeli negotiators and called for almost all issues to be reworked from scratch. He didn't offer any proposals of his own.

Arafat wasted everyone's time there. Bill Clinton admitted as much, and so did the Israeli and American team of progressives who were there.

[Idealism]

138. You claim the EU to be on Arafat's side of things

yet you proclaim people that were there to help Israel negotiate as gospel. That is seriously biased and twisted. Keep soldiering on, see what happens when the people you defend get sent to the World Court.

[shira]

141. nope

I'm claiming only that the EU used reports from people like Shlomo ben Ami and Dennis Ross, along with Palestinian negotiators who obviously had their own spin on the situation and wanted to save face. You believe that the progressive negotiators lied and that the regressive ones told the truth - which you don't even question. That is seriously biased and twisted.

[Idealism]

142. Both sides agreed on the account, but now there is spin and guess who

Its from the people that were there to negotiate for Israel. Interesting.

[shira]

144. wrong again.

they merely stated it's a "relatively fair account" of the situation. It misses a LOT of crucial detail.

But please do continue to spin away.

[Idealism]

146. So I see you are ignoring the U.N. transcript, wonder why?

Oops

[shira]

156. i'm ignoring nothing

the UN transcript doesn't go into detail like Dennis Ross and Shlomo ben Ami. It doesn't contradict their accounts either.

But it's telling that you believe the progressive negotiators at Taba lied.

[Idealism]

159. What does a 2004 assassination have to do with Taba...?

And I wouldn't trust Dennis "AIPAC schlep" Ross on issues relating to the Middle East more than I would trust Electronic Intifada's. They both have an agenda, same can be said for Shlomo. "Progressives" or not, these people have a vested interest in Israel-- NOT being a liberal foremost.

[shira]

161. rotfl.........so liberals couldn't possibly be pro-Israel

and therefore, we should just dismiss any liberal zionist (faux progressive) who isn't a hostile, self-flagellating defamer of Israel?

:rofl:

So what do you think about Noa's open letter to Gazans?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x255450#255767

[Idealism]

163. LOL are you saying that if you are a "true progressive" you must be Pro-Israel?

Wow! A new low, even for you.

You are so naive it is humorous. You must be young.

[shira]

165. so I should be anti-Israel or anti-zionist?

would that make me more progressive/liberal?

Serious question, btw.

[Idealism]

167. You should be as I am, pro-peace

"A nation in perpetual war will never benefit"

I think you should question more what people tell you, instead of believing the worst always of your enemies. There are two groups of DU'ers that think the worst of both sides, and constantly try to find ways to justify their actions. It is very annoying, because no one needs their justifications. Both sides will continue to break international law because no one will take them to task for it. I think Hamas's leadership, particularly the Qassam Brigades leadership, should be tried at the World Court. I also think there should be several high-ranking Israeli officials on the docket with their Hamas counterparts.

In some ways, I agree that there are a small number of people that are anti-Semitic and would slander Israel any chance they could get. There are others who are just upset that their tax dollars finance violence against a largely defenseless people.

I readily admit that Hamas has done stupid, illegal, and immoral things. They are a desperate people, one can understand the reasons behind their actions, but that doesn't make then justified. I haven't seen you admit to the same about Israel. Why are they so infallible? Do you feel the same way about the US government, or does the Israeli administration hold a special place in your heart? Instead of admitting mistakes and wrong-doing in the past, you give me CAMERA articles claiming that the most respected NGO's and the United Nations is racist against an entire country. Instead of wishing for peace in the wake of civilians dying, you tell me why the IDF killing 1300 Palestinians is justified because they are showing restraint. Do you understand how crazy that sounds?

[shira]

174. I asked a simple question

should I be anti-Israel or anti-Zionist, since it is apparently wrong - according to you - to be a proud pro-Israel Zionist?

To be or not to be:

Anti-Israel / Anti-Zionist.

Yes or No?

[Idealism]

178. Why would you ever be anti-Israel?

Zionism has done horrible things and oppressed millions of people, is it not morally right to be opposed to it?

[shira]

181. zionism

is the movement for a national home to Jews. That's all. How could any progressive in 1948 be against that, knowing the history of Jews and how the world literally turned its back on them in the decade leading up to 1948?

How can any progressive be against supporting a national homeland for any group of people?

[Idealism]

183. Zionism goes farther than that

Or perhaps there are more ultra-zionists now than before. The neo-zionism is a manifest destiny, that they have a right to the land because "God told them." That is a pervasive notion that will do no good to Israeli's or Palestinians. The old zionism is not like it is today.

[shira]

187. Israel already returned Sinai and Gaza,

retreated from S.Lebanon, and offered the W.Bank in 2000 (which was rejected and for some reason applauded). Also, you should research in 1967 the 3 no's of Khartoum. This evidence doesn't point to a zionism, which you describe, that has much influence.

[Idealism]

191. So you don't believe the settlements to be a problem?

Both sides agree that the illegal settlers in the West Bank are the biggest roadblock towards peace, but you don't object to them because Israel has "returned" Gaza?

[EFerrari]

100. You are certainly entitled to your thoughts and to your doubts. n/t

[LeftishBrit]

90. Not a bad idea. Logically, *all* who have worked against peace and harmed civilians should be tried

And that's lots of people on all sides.

Not going to happen, but would in a just world.

[Idealism]

94. Should being the operative word

I still have hopes the global outcry has been so overwhelming, that the situation demands people going before the World Court, signatory or not.

[Larkspur]

148. Regime change won't happen in Gaza and Israel

The Palestinians voted for Hamas because they saw Abbas and Fatah as becoming subservient to Israel. The Palestinian people voted FOR Hamas. As long as Israel brutally occupys and denys Palestinians their humanity, then the Palestinians will support groups who don't cave into Israel and right now that means that groups like Hamas will win the day.

Israel is undergoing a Right Wing revolution that is on the wane in the United States. There won't be a regime change in Israel until Israelis face the facts about their apartheid treatment of the Palestinians and Arabs.

Regarding war crimes, technically Hamas could say that they fired their rockets in self defense, in response to Israel literally starving their people to death. The Qassam rockets have no guidance system so they don't have a lot of control over them. Removing the blockade was a condition of the ceasefire that Israel broke. Israel intentionally wanted to kill Palestinians by denying them vital aide.

Israel, not Hamas, is the major war criminal here. Israel broke the ceasefire first and Israel waged war on the Palestinian civilians long before Hamas fired rockets. When the world did not come to the Gazans aide, Hamas or members of Hamas felt desperate and fired those rockets. Israel on the other hand is the 4th or 5th most powerful military in the world and they brutally used it against a starving and defenseless people. The racist graffiti left behind by Israeli troops in the ruins of Gazan homes is clear indication that Israel's real reason to invade Gaza was not to defend Israelis but to collectively punish and exterminate the Palestiinian people.

[Shaktimaan]

149. so now people are outright defending Hamas? never thought I'd see it at a democratic site.

Regarding war crimes, technically Hamas could say that they fired their rockets in self defense, in response to Israel literally starving their people to death.

Wow! Just wow!

First of all, Israel didn't starve anyone to death. Let's get that straight right away. (who am I kidding? you're so far gone it doesn't matter what I say, you'll believe what you want from whatever crazy internet source you get this insanity from.) Next, the rockets far predate any blockade imposed on Gaza. In fact, the blockade was primarily a reaction to rocket and mortar fire. If you'd like to try and justify the rocket fire from when it really began in earnest, 2005, instead of just picking a random point in time after thousands of rockets had already been fired, I'd be very interested to hear all about it.

But the main thing here is that you are actually defending Hamas' actions! Unbelievable! How exactly is the deliberate firing of thousands of rockets at Israeli civilians in any way self-defense? How does it help defend Gaza or Hamas or anyone from anything at all? It doesn't. It is clearly terrorism, by any definition of the term, and a crime against humanity regardless of the situation. I am just amazed that there are people who consider themselves liberal who are able to rationalize terrorism against civilians as acceptable, especially considering that it was only for political reasons.

Israel intentionally wanted to kill Palestinians by denying them vital aide.

Really? You think so? But I'm confused... weren't you just defending Hamas' very intentional attempts to kill Israelis as legitimate self-defense? Why is it that continuing to fire rockets wasn't breaking the cease-fire but Israel's actions were?

The racist graffiti left behind by Israeli troops in the ruins of Gazan homes is clear indication that Israel's real reason to invade Gaza was not to defend Israelis but to collectively punish and exterminate the Palestiinian people.

Well, at least we discovered where you're getting your news from. Foreign language graffiti from the other side of the planet. That's always an excellent way to uncover the true foreign policy objectives of any nation.

[Larkspur]

151. Anti-Israel posts are common on this web site

and being anti-Israel is not = anti-Semitism. There are many Jews, like Richard Falk who works for the UN on Middle East affairs, who said that it was Hamas, not Israel, who broke the last ceasefire.

Appears that you are fairly new to this web site.

The Palestinians in Gaza and Israel had a ceasefire in place before Hamas won a democratic and legal election, which was insisted upon by the Bush Admin. Hamas respected the cease fire after they took over but Israel did not because they continuted the blockaide against Palestinians in Gaza despite the fact that lifting the blockade was part of the ceasefire agreement.

[Shaktimaan]

153. Yes, anti-Israel posts are common on this web site.

and being anti-Israel is not = anti-Semitism.

I never suggested that it was. But I'd like to point out that there's a big difference between being critical of Israel and being "anti-Israel." And an even bigger difference between being anti-Israel and condoning terrorism against Israeli citizens.

There are many Jews, like Richard Falk who works for the UN on Middle East affairs, who said that it was Hamas, not Israel, who broke the last ceasefire.

So what? I frequently criticize Israeli policy too, and I love Israel. Criticizing US policies doesn't make me "anti-American" either. One thing has nothing to do with the other. That said, Falk does happen to be anti-Israel. Many of his views also happen to be pretty nutty and extremist too, to say the least. Working for the UN doesn't necessarily indicate sanity or competence.

Appears that you are fairly new to this web site.

Really, why do you think so?

The Palestinians in Gaza and Israel had a ceasefire in place before Hamas won a democratic and legal election, which was insisted upon by the Bush Admin. Hamas respected the cease fire after they took over but Israel did not because they continuted the blockaide against Palestinians in Gaza despite the fact that lifting the blockade was part of the ceasefire agreement.

I'm not sure what you're talking about, what you wrote here doesn't make much sense. You're leaping all over the timeline for one thing.

When Hamas won the election in 2006 there was a ceasefire between the PA and Israel but Hamas always insisted that it didn't apply to them. At that point there wasn't any blockade against Gaza though. The blockade didn't begin until around 18 months later, after Hamas expelled Fatah from Gaza. But Hamas, Islamic Jihad and several other groups had been firing rockets with gradually increasing frequency since Hamas first won the election. Rockets have landed in Israel every month since then.

You're talking about the recent "ceasefire" though, not the Sharm el-Sheikh truce. Neither side truly adhered to what the other side expected there. Rockets never really stopped and Israel never really opened the crossings completely. But since there wasn't an actual agreement there wasn't anything to really "violate." The "ceasefire" had some interruptions, but it essentially held until its originally agreed upon end date, after which neither side could agree to terms to renew it.

But in all fairness, the blockade is primarily due to the rockets and artillery being fired against Israel. Israel's been pretty clear about this, if the attacks stop then the crossings will be reopened. The crossings themselves make tempting targets, because of the high military concentrations there, and Gazan militants frequently bomb them when they're open. All of the criticisms you're making against Israel regarding Gaza began with the constant rockets and mortars. Prior to that Israel had been abiding by the Sharm el-Sheikh truce and not even been responding militarily to most of the attacks.

[shira]

37. The NGO Front in the Gaza War: Exploitation of International Law

The NGO Front in the Gaza War: Exploitation of International Law
NGO Monitor

January 21, 2009




The exploitation of international legal rhetoric is a major weapon in the political war to delegitmize Israeli anti-terror operations. Under this strategy, crystallized at the NGO Forum of the UN's 2001 Durban Conference, the terminology of international humanitarian (IHL) and human rights law is selectively applied to charge Israel with "violations of law," "crimes against humanity," "war crimes," "disproportionate force" and "indiscriminate attacks." In contrast, the violation of Gilad Shalit's human rights and Hamas' use of human shields are ignored. NGOs use the legal language to increase the credibility and seriousness of the charges, and in the Gaza conflict, many are already calling for international "investigations" and "lawfare" (i.e. filing lawsuits against Israeli officials in different countries) based on these accusations. Hamas, Hezbollah, and the PLO have reaped significant political benefits from this strategy in their conflicts with Israel. This NGO Monitor report analyzes common NGO legal claims:

NGO silence on Gilad Shalit's rights under international law is a significant moral failing by these self-proclaimed defenders of human rights and international law. Held hostage by Hamas since June 2006, Shalit is entitled to the rights and protections of prisoners of war guaranteed in the Third Geneva Convention, including the right to unfettered access to the Red Cross. Hamas flouts international law and very few NGOs call it to account or demanded enforcement of Shalit's rights.
Hamas exploits schools, mosques, hospitals and cultural centers to carry out its attacks in flagrant violation of article 51 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. This factor is minimized or ignored by numerous NGOs, and the emphasis is placed on Israel to avoid civilian casualties. But international law is clear: in cases of human shields, civilian deaths that result are clearly the responsibility of Hamas and not Israel.

Under international law, the test for proportionality is whether civilian harm is "clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated." Casualty ratios are not relevant, and this standard does not require equivalency in weaponry.

NGO claims that Israel deliberately targets civilians or does not attempt to distinguish between civilian and military targets are entirely without foundation. The NGOs leveling these charges do not possess military expertise, detailed information on the dispersal of weapons by Hamas, and they are not privy to Israeli targeting decisions. Such information is essential in order to make a credible evaluation of Israeli military responses to the thousands of rocket attacks by Hamas.

The NGO charge of "collective punishment" is false both legally and factually. "Collective punishment" refers to the imposition of criminal penalties, not economic sanctions. Israel is in compliance with article 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and allows access for humanitarian supplies well in excess of its legal obligations while under attack.
Calls for "war crimes" investigations and lawsuits are part of the NGO anti-Israel lawfare strategy, in order to harass Israeli officials with civil lawsuits and criminal investigations and to promote a negative media image of Israel. Rather than obtaining "justice" for victims, these cases are intended to punish Israel for its anti-terror methods, to prevent future operations, to interfere with Israel's diplomatic relations, and to advance boycotts and other aspects of the Durban strategy.




much more here:
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/the_ngo_front_exploitation_of_international_law

[shira]

70. and the above article on NGO exploitation of int'l law is precisely the reason

most libelous claims against Israel will never be taken seriously.

[Fozzledick]

157. Top UN official blasts Hamas for 'cynical' use of civilian facilities

United Nations Humanitarian Affairs Chief John Holmes blasted Hamas Tuesday for its "cynical" use of civilian facilities during recent hostilities in the Gaza Strip.

"The reckless and cynical use of civilian installations by Hamas and indiscriminate firing of rockets against civilian populations are clear violations of international humanitarian law," Holmes told the UN Security Council.

Israel came under harsh criticism from the UN for firing on its facilities during Operation Cast Lead. Israel says Palestinian gunmen used the facilities as bases from which to attack its troops. According to Palestinian sources, bombings of UN facilities killed nearly 50 people in Israel's three-week long offensive in the Gaza Strip.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1059475.html

[Fozzledick]

202. UN to probe Hamas for use of children

By RUTH EGLASH

The United Nations is ready to address Hamas's use of children as human shields during last month's IDF offensive in Gaza, the UN special representative for children and armed conflict told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday.

"We have not yet dealt directly with the human shield issue, but we will now mention it in our reports," Radhika Coomaraswamy said in an exclusive interview following a four-day visit to the region.

"It is still very difficult for us to say that it was actually happening and we still need to conduct a full investigation into what exactly took place... but we are not denying that it happened; it is absolutely possible that Hamas was using its civilians as human shields," she said.

However, Coomaraswamy said that the UN's policy not to meet with leading members of the Hamas government - because it was officially considered a terrorist organization - seriously hampered all types of humanitarian relief work in the Gaza Strip.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233304702123&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull