World Food Programme: deterioration in occupied Palestinian territories

[Resistance]

(shortened headline to fit)

World Food Programme says situation continues to deteriorate in the occupied Palestinian territories

Christaine Berthiaume of the World Food Programme said that she had been in the occupied Palestinian territories last week. The situation in that region continued to deteriorate. A WFP study showed that more than 50 per cent of the inhabitants of the occupied territories lived below the poverty line. WFP was preparing a study on the "mechanisms of survival" and its results would be out at the end of November. Preliminary results showed that the people in the occupied Palestinian territories had run out of survival mechanisms. They had sold their jewellery, their land, their possessions like machinery, and now everything was gone. Children went to school, and then helped their families by working - right now they gathered green beans and olives. There were some 800,000 people who were not refugees who needed food aid in the occupied territories. The construction of the security wall was contributing to the food insecurity situation.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[Herschel]

2. The noose is tightening

If only they would see the misery terror brings to them. Oh, my.

[Darranar]

3. So you blame the palestinians...

for their plight, but don't blame the plight of the Israelis on the Israelis.

[Forkboy]

4. Nothing is "little Israel's" fault

get with the program!

[Darranar]

5. Let me clarify this...

The Palestinians are being abused. Because of this, terrorism starts. Because of the considerable popular support for the terrorists, they are almost impossible to destroy.

The Israelis are being threatened by terrorist attacks. They fear, and their fear is used to advance a campaign of oppression and ethnic cleansing against the Palestinian people.

Both side's actions should be blamed on THAT SIDE. However, one must also recognize that the other side's tactics add to the capability for one side to carry out atrocious acts.

Atrocities don't justify atrocities, but they do provoke them.

In essence, Herschel's statement that the Palestinians are suffering to Palestinian terrorism is somewhat correct; in order for it to be truly accurate, it must incldue the fact that Israeli oppression and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians also adds to the capability of the Palestinians to carry out terrorist strikes.

[Herschel]

7. We disagree

The terrorist bring misery on the Palestinians. However, there is no ethnic cleansing. Palestinian resistance must stand down. Peaceful protests are acceptable.

[Darranar]

8. Thanks for talking about almost nothing of what i said...

in the above post.

[Herschel]

9. Things you must understand

There is no equivelence between terror and bringing terrorists to justice. There is no ethnic cleansing. Palestinian terror must be dismantled.

[Darranar]

11. How do...

the settlements bring terrorists to justice?

How do long, extensive campaigns leaving thousands of people homeless bring terrorists to justice?

How does building a huge wall in the middle of someone's land, a blatant land grab, bring terrorists to justice?

How does the fostering of such conditions as the one in the article above bring terrorists to justice?

[Herschel]

12. None do

They all serve different purposes. Will you agree terror must end?

[Darranar]

13. For what?

For a peaceful and just solution to the conflict (as much as can be had), yes.

For more and more realistic negotiations, the dismantling of settlements, and the like, no.

[Jack Rabbit]

17. Mr. Herschel, could you please clarify your posts on this thread?

I've asked Resistance to provide more information on this matter, if possible. However, from what is provided, we are getting the picture of a humanitarian disaster:

WFP was preparing a study on the "mechanisms of survival" and its results would be out at the end of November. Preliminary results showed that the people in the occupied Palestinian territories had run out of survival mechanisms . . . . The construction of the security wall was contributing to the food insecurity situation.

Do you believe that the Israeli government, which is the occupying authority in the Palestinian Territories, has any obligation to provide relief to the civilian population?

[Lithos]

25. Very good point

Do you believe that the Israeli government, which is the occupying authority in the Palestinian Territories, has any obligation to provide relief to the civilian population?

Excellent question. Legally they are probably not. Morally, undoubtedly yes.

From a pragmatic purpose, one of the major factors which will help in the long run to insure peace in the region is economic ties. The more there is to lose, the more both sides will push for moderation. The wall of course stops this cold, so there will be no end to the conflict while the wall is in place.

Even if the wall, or some legal barrier preventing basic intercourse remains in place, there is also little hope for restoration of the Palestinian economy as the West Bank and Gaza are tied to the coastal ports under Israeli control and not to the Transjordan or Egypt. So while the Israeli economy can limp along with its ties to the West, the Palestinian economy is stagnate with food and other failing social infrastructures the result.

[tinnypriv]

29. Article 55 of 4th Geneva

Art. 55. To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population; it should, in particular, bring in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles if the resources of the occupied territory are inadequate.

[bluesoul]

30. Moral and legal obligation

Morally and legally, tinnypriv is right! But then when did they care about morality and legality?

[The Magistrate]

32. Here, Mr. Priv

We come upon the inner reason for so much of the word-play over this ground, with advocates for Israel often adopting the usage "disputed territories", and advocates for Arab Palestine preferring the "occupied territories" usage. At the present time, there is some real question whether occupation exists in a legal sense.

After the initial Israeli withdrawl and cessation of civil authority to the Palestine Authority, subsequent to the First Intafada, an excellent case could be made that Israel ceased to be an occupying power in the lands overrun in '67. Whether recent Israeli military incursions into these territories, and the establishment of some Israeli units in apparent permanance there, in course of an active war between the peoples of Israel and Arab Palestine, constitutes legal occupation is not clear. The civil power of the Palestine Authority remains largely intact and effective. It has not been replaced by Israeli military rule over the daily affairs, law enforcement, civil services, etc., of the people of Arab Palestine, though there has been great limitation imposed on their freedom of movement, and many confiscations by fiat, which the Palestine Authority is powerless to prevent. Certainly, in those areas to be inclosed between the Green Line and the barrier being built, a regime is due to be imposed which must be considered a full bore occupation.

[bluesoul]

34. I must

disagree Magistrate. Hitler also occupied foreign land during WW2 but that doesn't mean there was any dispute over the legality or morality of such actions. Might does not make right, certainly not when considering international law, which clearly states that Israel IS the occupying force and will have to eventually move from the occupied territories. Whatever reasons they may give, they do not stand much when considering all the obvious facts and all the conventions, resolutions and law in general. No can do Sir!

[The Magistrate]

35. You Miss The Point, Sir

The legal question is not so clear as you seem to believe.

To use your immflamatory attempt at example for illustration, in the case of France. France, after its defeat, was not a wholly occupied country. There was a zone in the north, under German military occupation, where the only authority was German military law. The remainder of the country, including its colonies, was not occupied, but under rule of the government of Marshall Petain, located at Vichy. This government was in alliance with the Reich, and certainly subject to great influence by it, but was a real French government, applying French law, and even French policy, albiet that of the most reactionary portions of that polity, in domestic and foreign affairs. German law did not run there, nor were German soldiers soldiers present, save in restricted roles of coast and air defence, and in several instances in the colonial territories, French soldiers fought energetically and voluntarily against English invasion forces, even some including Gaullist Free French troops.

Certainly, Israel was an occupying power in the full legal sense in the lands overrun in '67 up to the First Intafada: since the erection of the Palestine Authority subsequent to that, this has become a debateable point. Further, that is the extent of my view in the question: that it requires impartial adjudication, being no longer self-evident, as it was before.

[tinnypriv]

40. I don't take these arguments seriously

I'm aware of the in-depth discussions on both "sides".

The fact is, one side has overwhelming force, the other doesn't. The latter happens to constitute virtually unamimous world opinion, the former consists of essentially the occupier and facilitator of the occupation.

The fact that since 1967 Israel has occupied the West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights and East Jerusalem is not really in "dispute". It is as close to a historical fact as can be determined.

If the US were not a patron of Israel, there would be no learned professors contorting parchment language in a desperate (and transparent) attempt to obscure that reality. Even taking into account the fact it is, the number of those apparachiks is rather small. They cannot even include the CIA in their camp, nor the US state department.

Of course, as usual, the propagandists have a small element of truth on their side (1967 lands were not a state, PA is de-facto recognised by many governments, Jordan claims to WB etc). However it is my experience that those are not worth debating, in light of the overall picture: which is extremely clear to those who have their eyes open.

To quote Bob Fisk: "are those soldiers Swiss?"

[The Magistrate]

46. You Are Free Not To, Sir

The point becomes important only when discussing whether there is some legal obligation to feed the populace, such as would be incumbent under the Geneva treaties. That is a more precise question than whether or not Israeli troops are present in quantity, and it does not seem a contortion to me to point that out. Someone ought to bring it before a court, such as the International Court of Justice, for judicial clarafication.

Arguments that the territory is disputed, suggesting in some sense Israel has a legal claim to possession of it as Israeli territory, are certainly mere word-play.

As with my avoidance of the usage "terrorist", Sir, it is my practice to refer to these lands as "overrun in '67", or some close variant of that formula, for that, certainly, is undisputed fact concerning them, and cannot be taken as alignment with any position argued by any in the matter.

[tinnypriv]

49. ICJ

Such a move would be prevented by the United States.

Regardless, and even taking that into account, the matter has been settled. The questions:

* Is the land overrun in 1967 "Occupied"?

If no, that ends the matter. If yes:

* Does the 4th Geneva Convention apply to those "Occupied Territories"?

The appropriate bodies (the "high contracting parties" + the ICRC) have already answered both: unequivocal yes (affirmed by the UN GA and SC). This has been done repeatedly, the most recent being Dec 2001.

The United States has never specifically rejected the applicability of 4th Geneva to the OT either. It simply abtains from any resolutions/decisions and boycotts any meetings relating to this matter.

Of course, Israel always maintains that 4th Geneva not apply, but that is no of consequence and can be dismissed by rational commentators.

[Lithos]

50. Could you provide a link please?

The appropriate bodies (the "high contracting parties" + the ICRC) have already answered both: unequivocal yes (affirmed by the UN GA and SC). This has been done repeatedly, the most recent being Dec 2001.

[tinnypriv]

54. Links

For the first part: high contracting parties:

This Declaration reflects the common understanding reached by the participating High Contracting Parties to the reconvened Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Conference of 15 July 1999, recommended by United Nations' General Assembly Resolution ES-10/6 in an Emergency Special Session, issued a statement as follows:

"The participating High Contracting Parties reaffirmed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. Furthermore, they reiterated the need for full respect for the provisions of the said Convention in that Territory". ('Declaration of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention', http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/8fc4f064b9be5bad85256c1400722951?OpenDocument)

For the ICRC decision (considered the repository of the conventions):

In accordance with a number of resolutions adopted by the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council and by the International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, which reflect the view of the international community, the ICRC has always affirmed the de jure applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the territories occupied since 1967 by the State of Israel, including East Jerusalem. ('Statement by the International Committee of the Red Cross', http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList325/64EF7FE0FC58B5EBC1256B660060BCF0)

A typical statement by a government party after the meeting in Dec (in this case the one hosting the conference):

As almost the whole international community, Switzerland considers that the IVth Geneva Convention is applicable de jure to all Territories occupied by Israel. ('Press release', http://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/e/home/foreign/hupol/4gc.html)

For a UN/SC affirmation (picked at random):

Reiterating the need for respect in all circumstances of international humanitarian law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949 (UN/S/RES 1435, http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/eed216406b50bf6485256ce10072f637/2557b4ed9525563485256c3f004bbf4e!OpenDocument)

For a UN/GA affirmation (again, picked at random):

Reaffirms that the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949,3 is applicable to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967 (A/RES/57/125, http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/eed216406b50bf6485256ce10072f637/535e2c268f164ac685256ce6006d7e13!OpenDocument)

For Israel's reaction:

Reacting to High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention meeting held in Geneva today, Israel termed the meeting a futile exercise and an abuse of a humanitarian instrument. ('Israel's reaction to the convening of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention', http://www.israelemb.org/articals/2001120602.html)

For the repeatedly comment:

Note that this was a re-run of 1999, which had the same outcome.

...

Good luck finding any of this in the US press. Since the Clinton adminstration boycotted the conference (as I mentioned), consequently it was boycotted from coverage. The usual story.

[Lithos]

33. Even if the IDF were missing

The problem would be present for the reasons I cited. You can see that the problem exists in areas where the IDF is not present and the PA civilian authority is in control.

The security wall and the over arching policy of limited access into Israel is the result of a short term vision done for the illusive spectre of security. However in the longer term the policy of separation will undoubtedly create more insecurity.

[Muddleoftheroad]

36. The PA

The PA and Palestinian areas need to be self-supporting and self sufficient. While I would love a peaceful world where borders are not needed, they are in this case. It doesn't matter in the long run where the wall runs, there needs to be a separation between Israel and the Palestinian areas. Such a separation is also likely to complicate travel from the West Bank to Gaza and vice versa.

Yes, there is a food and medical problem in both those areas right now. Seems to me that Arafat ought to be requesting foreign aid. And bending over backward to have Israel facilitate it.

[SOS]

39. Doesn't matter?

"It doesn't matter in the long run where the wall runs"

Actually it matters a great deal. The current plan for the wall confiscates 80% of the fertile land, 65% of the water resources and 55% of total land in the West Bank and annexes it into Israel.

[Muddleoftheroad]

43. My point

Is that, no matter the path of the wall, the PA needs to be self sufficient without Israel.

We both know they would have a hell of a lot more land right now had they made peace. They did not.

[Zhade]

57. Very hard to be self-sufficient when your land and water is being stolen!

The "fence" (it's a wall, in actuality) enables the confiscation of farmland and water areas.

How can the Palestinians become self-sufficient when the very things they need to do so are being siezed? That just doesn't make any sense to me!

[tinnypriv]

41. You're correct

But that has nothing to do with the point I addressed, which is whether or not the Occupying Power has a legal obligation to provide "relief". It has, as I pointed out.

[Lithos]

51. It would fall into a legal wrangle

I hate to say this, but there are many issues which would entertain the legal types on this point. It is probably easy to prove that Israel is liable for some of the areas, but becomes more difficult to prove they are liable in totality for the entire area. Afterall, the PA civilian authority is still legally in control of a vast majority of the '67 areas.

However, I do agree that Israel should be stepping up to the plate more on this. Even excluding the obvious moral reasons, the pragmatic issues that helping with this would help reduce the ongoing tensions and help improve the security of Israel. The current situation is a fertile field for extremists who can easily leverage the suffering to recruit more bombers and the like.

The wall and other security issues only deal with the symptoms of the problem and do nothing to solve the underlying causation. Sure a certain amount of it is needed, but it can't be the totallity of the solution.

[tinnypriv]

52. The PA is not in control of even a majority of the 67 areas

If you count East J and Golan in those, I suspect they barely hold a quarter of the territories (accounting for nothing in the Golan of course).

But, assuming you mean just the WB and Gaza, the PA "controls" slightly less than area A in the Oslo accords (since some cities have been re-entered by the IDF). Same in Gaza: they hold less than post-Oslo.

I totally agree with the rest of your points (with some slight reservations).

[The Magistrate]

53. Forgive Me If My Impression Is Incorrect, Sir

But are those not the most populated areas, wherein the overwhelming proportion of Arab Palestinians actually live?

It does not seem to me square area that is decisive to the analysis here, but the proportion of the people resident in areas the Palestine Authority controls.

[tinnypriv]

55. Couldn't tell you off-hand

That is a seperate point to the one I addressed - i.e. legal borders and controlling authority of those borders.

Unpopulated areas are quite large, as you correctly note. i.e the Jordan Valley, Megilot etc.

I suspect the question wouldn't be so straightforward however, since Israel is certainly in total control of East J, and the so-called "Jerusalem Envelope" (heavily populated). It is in some control of the populated sections of Samaria. But the PA is in control of Jericho and Ramallah at the moment. There is a question as to whether it is in control in Bethlehem (IDF on the outskirts of the city) etc.

There is also the complicated question of the definition of "control", which is another long-winded topic. For example, the IDF commands hundreds of checkpoints throughout the WB, including some within populated Areas (Abu Dis for example). If there are two checkpoints along a road, does the PA still "control" the homes between the checkpoints?

I think you can get a picture of what a bag of snakes that discussion could get to be. I don't see much to be gained from it.

Essentially, the top-level point remains accurate: Israel occupies all the territory captured in 1967, it controls most of it, and a combination of quislings (PA) and independent elements (Hamas etc, with some anti-Israel PA elements) control the rest.

Legally, Israel is responsible for all of it.

[Aidoneus]

18. no they aren't

if that was the case, then explain the "Force, might, beatings" policy.

[Zhade]

56. Yeah, there's no ethnic cleansing.

And Bush was elected, too. :eyes:

[Jim Sagle]

6. Maybe Arafat should buy some food with the $900,000,000

stashed in his Swiss accounts.

[Herschel]

10. Well said, my friend

-

[dfong63]

15. maybe israel should buy them food with the $10 billion the US gave

... that might help to make up for the Palestinian crops and groves DESTROYED by the Israeli military.

[The Magistrate]

16. War Has Consequences, Sir

Those who resort to it must beware of them.

[dudeness]

21. Indeed they do, Magistrate

one can only hope that a series of "consequences" will lead to an eventual resolution...your thoughts on whether Israel must accept its consequences for her active participation of this conflict?

[The Magistrate]

31. Your Meaning Is Unclear To Mr, Sir

The error is doubtless mine, and you may forgive me if some of my answer partakes of the nature of a textbook "strawman", as it is hard for me to proceed without positing possible meanings to your query, in order to engage them. There is certainly no intent to misrepresent you in doing so.

If, my friend, you mean: are there consequences Israel must bear for the current state of affliction endured by the people of Arab Palestine refered to above, then my answer would be, no, there are not. The peoples of Israel and Arab Palestine are at war, for better or worse, and the current stretch of active hostilities was initiated by the political and military leadership of Arab Palestine, for reasons that seemed good to them at the time. This war has currently, in many respects, devolved into an extended seige blockade. This is a time honored technique, and not explicitly forbidden. By denying employment to Arab Palestinians in Israel, undeniably great hardship is inflicted. By restricting movement, to interdict the communications and logistics of the various armed irregular bodies of Arab Palestine, again, undeniably, great hardship is inflicted on ordinary Arab Palestinians who are not part of these organizations, and in many cases do not even sympathize with them particularly. The point of seige operations is self-evident: to make the game not worth the candle, and move the leadership to halt fighting in order to spare the people they lead further hardship. Thus, the key to improving the condition of the people of Arab Palestine lays in the hands of its political and military leadership, who could act, if they chose, tomorrow, in ways that would relieve much of it.

If you mean: must Israel accept consequences to itself for continuing at war with the people of Arab Palestine, my answer is yes, most certainly. Israel, too, is experiencing considerable economic dislocation. The costs of war are great, in both money, and in labor power directed to unprofitable pursuits. One of the great economic props of the country, tourism, is crippled by the current conditions. There is a great reduction in immigration, and an increase in emmigration. There are boycotts, formal and informal, of Israeli trade. Most of these things, it is in the hands of the Israeli government to alter, and it could, too, if it chose, tomorrow, act in ways that would end most of them.

Political concessions, by either side, would not only improve the condition of its people, but prove a surer route to the aims each professes to be seeking, namely an independent state for the people of Arab Palestine, and a secure existance for the people of Israel. A cessation of violence by the leadership of Arab Palestine would disarm the Likud bloc in Israel: a liquidation of settlements on land over-run in '67, and support for a real state of Arab Palestine, by the government of Israel, would drain away most of the popular support enjoyed by the jihadis among the people of Arab Palestine.

[dudeness]

37. thank you, Magistrate

If you mean: must Israel accept consequences to itself for continuing at war with the people of Arab Palestine, my answer is yes, most certainly. Israel, too, is experiencing considerable economic dislocation. The costs of war are great, in both money, and in labor power directed to unprofitable pursuits. One of the great economic props of the country, tourism, is crippled by the current conditions. There is a great reduction in immigration, and an increase in emmigration. There are boycotts, formal and informal, of Israeli trade. Most of these things, it is in the hands of the Israeli government to alter, and it could, too, if it chose, tomorrow, act in ways that would end most of them.

this is what I meant..I am sometimes unclear in the meaning of questions posed..thanks again for this reply...

the costs of war are great..perhaps both sides will take this into account soon..

[The Magistrate]

38. That Is How It Is Supposed To Work, My Friend

As once the sage General wrote" "There is no recorded instance of a state benefiting from prolonged warfare."

The problem, though, is two-fold. First, the leadership suffers few of the privations borne by the citizenry, and in the modern era, does not generally face lethal consequence for failure. Second, people once involved in struggle tend to develop a focus on symbol that shields them against being moved even by their own suffering, as something merely material, and unimportant by compare to the ideal of victory, which must, after all, be achieved if one only holds on long enough....

[dudeness]

44. thanks again, Magistrate

as the path to peace in this conflict is intractable, a common tactic in the negotiation process would be to change the persons at the coal face of talks, to supplement the end of hostilities . i would see a change in political leadership of both warring parties as a means to an end. Although not a popular suggestion in this forum, I would however, advocate the removal (political) of both Arafat and Sharon from leadership roles..

[The Magistrate]

47. You Could Probably Get A Majority Here In Favor Of That Proposition, Sir

Neither portion of "Sharafat" has much real support here.

[dudeness]

48. Magistrate, your knowledge and common sense

is seemingly boundless..have you ever entertained publishing a book or discussion papers? or have I already missed that particular boat?

[Jack Rabbit]

14. Mr. Resistance --

The exerpt for EI is little more than what you posted. I'd like to know more about this problem. Do you know of ony information on the WFP site about it?

Thank you.

[Resistance]

19. It sounds like we'll have to wait

until the end of November when that WFP study is due to be released. I would go back to the WFP's website then, and also check the ReliefWeb page on the O.T.

[Jack Rabbit]

20. Thank you for your effort

Let's keep on top of this one.

[Muddleoftheroad]

22. Perhaps Arafat ought to open up his Swiss bank accounts

And buy some food.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[drdon326]

24. $ 900,000,000

terror,INC.

[SOS]

42. $900,000,000?

This is reminiscient of the Soviet propaganda campaign launched against Haile Selassie in the early 1970s. The Russians spread the lie that Selassie had stashed millions in Swiss banks.
Turned out to be completely false.
Convenient that these propaganda campaigns always involve Swiss banks. Their privacy laws make it impossible to prove the rumors false. No-one knows what's in a Swiss account. That's the whole idea. Can anyone making these claims even name the bank? Provide a link?

[bluesoul]

45. Accusations

They can't as they have no proof!

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[Adalah]

27. It can be reasonably argued

that the hardships endured by Palestinian civilians are at least partially the result of terrorist activities and Israel's response. Yet Israel, as the occupying force, has an obligation to Palestinian civilians. The notion that the impoverishment of civilians be used as a tool to turn them against terrorist groups is disgusting.

[tinnypriv]

28. Anybody who says the closure shouldn't be eased is: (wait for it)

To the right of the Chief of Staff of the IDF.

:dunce: :dunce: :dunce: