UNRWA: Gaza blockade anniversary report

[tootrueleft]

http://www.unrwa.org/etemplate.php?id=1007

i]As the Gaza blockade moves into its fifth year, a new report by the UN’s agency for Palestine refugees, UNRWA, says broad unemployment in the second half of 2010 reached an unprecedented 45.2 per cent, one of the highest in the world. The report released today, finds that real wages continued to decline under the weight of persistently high unemployment, falling 34.5 per cent since the first half of 2006.

“These are disturbing trends,” said UNRWA spokesman Chris Gunness, “and the refugees, which make up two-thirds of Gaza’s 1.5 million population were the worst hit in the period covered in this report. It is hard to understand the logic of a man-made policy which deliberately impoverishes so many and condemns hundreds of thousands of potentially productive people to a life of destitution.”


A sobering reminder of the ugliness of israeli policy. At least things should improve now.

Go ahead excusers, tell us all how its hamas fault, we could use a good laugh.....

[shira]

1. What is the Gaza gov't doing to create jobs and bolster the economy? Anything?

The choice for Israel is between allowing Gaza to import heavy weaponry from Iran to use against its civilians - or - blockade Gaza.

Protect its own civilians from deliberate rocket/terror attacks - or impoverish Gaza.

Which is the better moral choice?

Hamas could decide to call off terror attacks, return Gilad Shalit, and recognize Israel - and the blockade would end immediately. Their choice.

BTW, the UN blockade vs. Iraq from 1990-2003 did exponentially far more damage so once again the UN has one standard for other nations and one for Israel...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions

[tootrueleft]

2. Let me guess, they're all anti-semites and jew haters. Change the record will ya,its gotten real old

[shira]

3. Let me know when you have a substantive reply. I'll wait.

See, if you take in what was explained to you in that last post then you'll understand better why the vast majority of Israelis couldn't give a shit about that UNRWA report....and moreso couldn't give a shit about what people like yourself think about Israel.

:)

[tootrueleft]

4. Do you excuse all crimes against humanity or just the ones committed by jews?

[shira]

6. There are no crimes vs. humanity being committed according to the article above. n/t

[tootrueleft]

7. Easy to say when you've not been dehumanised, malnourished and imprisoned. Sleep well?

[shira]

9. Consider the source. The UN with Syria and Libya heading its Human Rights commission....

....claims Israel is committing crimes vs. humanity.

I'm pretty certain you don't see any problem with that, right?

[tootrueleft]

10. Yes yes, poor ickle superpower being victimized again by being called on their criminality. Boo hoo.

Nobody buys that crap.

[shira]

11. The UN with Libya, Syria, and S.Arabia passing judgment on a liberal democracy is a joke.

Why is it so difficult for a liberal like yourself to admit that?

Seriously, why should Israel give a shit what the UN says WRT human rights when the world's worst abusers are passing judgment?

[tootrueleft]

12. So you excuse the abuser ONCE AGAIN but condemn the other abusers commenting on it.Surprise surprise

[shira]

13. Israel's not an abuser and why is it so difficult for you to admit the UN is a joke...

....with serial abusers of human rights trying to pass judgment on a liberal democracy?

Why should ANYONE take them seriously?

[tootrueleft]

18. And if the syrians and libyans were the same religion as you you'd be excusing their abuses too.

Guess the only moral compass you question is the one that points to Mecca.

[shira]

20. See, if you can't admit the UNHRC sucks with rogue nations ruling the roost,

...then you have to know that you cannot be taken seriously.

Why give a shit what you think or what Saudi Arabia, Libya, and Cuba think of Israel?

I mean seriously dude...

[tootrueleft]

21. "Sucks", what you like a 10 year old girl or something?

[shira]

48. See, you're pretending sanctimonious condemnation from a council with Libya and S.Arabia is credible

...and you think I should take their judgments seriously?

Are you kidding?

Why would anyone on a liberal board act as a megaphone for some of the world's worst extreme lunatic rightwing 3rd world regimes?

Their condemnations carry as much weight as the KKK condemning black people.

[azurnoir]

15. Syria's candidacy was shelved and Libya was kicked off the UNHRC

one would think you'd know that, in fact I'm 'surprised' that you seem not to remember that

[shira]

16. That just happened. You think the UNHRC is now legit with its remaining members? n/t

[tootrueleft]

22. I'm sure they'd be legit enough if they were telling you what you want to hear....

[shira]

47. Why do you think that Saudi Arabia or Libya should be taken seriously when they accuse Israel...

...of violating human rights?

And why do you pretend they're credible sources of information?

Would you trust the KKK reporting on black crime?

[King_David]

61. That's 'Jews'

Got it?

[King_David]

5. What blockade? Rafah? nt

[tootrueleft]

8. "What global warming? It's chilly outide today....."

[King_David]

19. as opposed to intide?

[tootrueleft]

23. As opposed to infanticide via israeli white phosphorous

[shira]

49. You're trying soooo hard to slander and defame Israel. Why's that so important to you? n/t

[Igel]

14. There are many policies that tend to impoverishment.

Look at the attitude of Pakistan to India. Trade is reduced, cultural exchanges made problematic. The policies are reinforced by the rise of India from a lesser economic condition in 1949 and Pakistan's slow descent into penury.

Consider the embargoes on Israel. No trade with Israel is permitted in Lebanon, Syria, Sa'udi Arabia, Iran, Libya, Yemen, and some other countries. In others there's officially trade but precious little--Egypt, Jordan. A center of innovation and entrepreneurship, with a number of top-notch universities is effectively embargoed, its citizens unable or barely free to visit each other. In some countries, just the suspicion of Israeliness is enough to get cargo confiscated--there was a shipment of mugs that had Hebrew on them and it was assumed they were somehow Zionist mugs of genocide and anti-Islam hatred, confiscated in Sa'udi Arabia and destroyed even though they originated in Lebanon and somebody thought the design cute.

The consequence of this embargo was worse when Israel was a fairly new nation, in the nearly 2 decades between the establishment of the new state and occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Adding to the injury, prior to the Jordanian and Egyptian peace treaties the blockade was all encompassing.

Or ponder Northern Cyprus's position in the world community.

Sure, it's ugly. But in the absence of a peace treaty between Pakistan and India, and a flowering of good will between them, that policy won't change. I don't see the policies of Arab countries towards Israel changing any time soon and it's certainly not Hamas' fault, predating as it does the formation of Hamas and the insidious Zionist occupation of (additional) waqf lands. That won't change until the cultures change or a way out of the perceived humiliation and retrograde religiosity can be found. And N. Cyprus won't be resolved for similarly culture-specific reasons (mixed in with a bit of nationalistic fervor, of course). Again, not Hamas' fault.

[tootrueleft]

24. "Sure, it may be a crime against humanity but everyones at it..."

Guess its OK then......

[shira]

17. UNRWA has nerve arguing Israel's man-made policy that deliberately impoverishes...

..considering UNRWA's role in perpetuating the refugee crisis by helping to prevent refugees from assimilating into the countries they now reside in - making them live on aid that keeps them destitute, in addition to lacking the same basic human rights of the citizens in those countries. They even claim 2/3 of the Gazan population REMAIN refugees despite Gaza being controlled by a sovereign Palestinian entity!

What fucking assholes! They're perpetuating the refugee crisis and their continued destitution and they have all this nerve?

And you have to LOVE no mention whatsoever of the reason Israel is blockading Gaza - something to do with Hamas' man-made policy of raining rockets down on the Israeli population!

[tootrueleft]

25. Amazing how, according to you ,israel always has a good reason to break international law isn't it?

[shira]

26. The blockade doesn't break international law anymore than the UN blockade of Iraq did. n/t

[tootrueleft]

27. One example:It banned childrens shoes making it collective punishment, which IS illegal.

Try it with the boyscouts buddy.

[shira]

29. Ummmm....when? Got a credible source for that? n/t

[tootrueleft]

30. Haaretz: "Israel lets clothes into Gaza for first time since Hamas takeover"

http://www.haaretz.com/news/israel-lets-clothes-into-gaza-for-first-time-since-hamas-takeover-1.283913

Israel allowed a shipment of clothes and shoes to be delivered to Palestinians in the Gaza Strip on Sunday for the first time in its almost three-year-old blockade of the Hamas-controlled enclave.

Palestinian officials said the goods arrived in the territory via Israel's Kerem Shalom border crossing. Ten truckloads of clothing and footwear were expected during the day.

[shira]

36. Really? Here's the BBC quoting UNRWA...

The UN relief agency for Palestinian refugees Unrwa's list of household items that have been refused entry at various times includes light bulbs, candles, matches, books, musical instruments, crayons, clothing, shoes, mattresses, sheets, blankets, pasta, tea, coffee, chocolate, nuts, shampoo and conditioner.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7545636.stm

And worse, here's more showing shoes were definitely being allowed in....
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=69&x_article=1832

Also, here's a Maan report a month prior so how could a shipment going out a month later be the first shipment in 3 years....
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=CP1256&langpair=auto%7Cen&rurl=translate.google.com&tbb=1&twu=1&u=http://www.paltoday.com/arabic/News-74892.html

Even worse, if you read the Maan article you'll find that the shipment was being REJECTED, which goes to prove there wasn't any shortage.

[tootrueleft]

31. Red cross: "Closure constitutes collective punishment"

http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/update/palestine-update-140610.htm

"The whole of Gaza's civilian population is being punished for acts for which they bear no responsibility. The closure therefore constitutes a collective punishment imposed in clear violation of Israel's obligations under international humanitarian law . "

[tootrueleft]

32. Amnesty: "Blockade collectively punishing women and children"

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/suffocating-gaza-israeli-blockades-effects-palestinians-2010-06-01

"But whatever its stated justification, the blockade is collectively punishing the entire population of Gaza, the majority of whom are children, rather than targeting the Hamas administration or armed groups. "

[tootrueleft]

33. Let me guess, all my links are jew hating anti semites and self loathing jews etc......

[shira]

35. Find where these same organizations criticized the UN embargo of Iraq which was far worse....

....labeling that blockade collective punishment.

[tootrueleft]

37. Changing the subject as usual. I've proven its collective punishment and you endorse it.

[shira]

38. You haven't proven anything. Find the definition of collective punishment and THEN find...

...where these same organizations criticized the UN for doing at least 100x worse WRT Iraq in the 90's.

I'll wait.

[tootrueleft]

39. Do you condone the dehumanization of all children, or just palestinian ones?

[shira]

40. Still waiting for the answers to my questions....

And there is no dehumanization going on.

That's as phony a charge as your "Israel denying shoes" into Gaza was. Why do you think the media screwed up on that one so badly?

[tootrueleft]

42. Condoning the suffering of innocent kids on a liberal board. Thats pretty fucking low, even for you.

[shira]

45. See #36 above, as your accusations are complete bullshit. Hard to condone false charges. n/t

[tootrueleft]

53. So you're claiming blockading for years didn't cause the suffering of innocent children?

[shira]

55. You made a false, slanderous charge. Why? Why's it so important to slime & defame Israel? n/t

[tootrueleft]

72. You don't defame an abuser of women and children by reminding people of that abuse?

[shira]

77. Which abuse? Stick to facts. You claimed shoes were banned for years and that's bogus...

...as was proven in post #36 and you still have the nerve to pretend that bullshit claim is true?

Are you fucking kidding?

[Shaktimaan]

74. Of course it did.

Frequently though nations like Israel who face enemies committed to their destruction (despite outrageous odds and subsequent negative consequences), only have undesirable options to choose from. Hamas was attacking Israel's civilian cities with rockets and mortars. They were increasingly importing longer range, more powerful versions of those rockets and firing them on more distant, more populated Israeli cities. These are facts.

Now, surely you don't expect Israel to do nothing to defend its borders. But it has very few options available to it. And every single one involved the suffering of innocent children. This is not Israel's fault.

It can invade, and try and take out the leaders of Hamas and destroy their artillery shops. But those people and shops are hidden amongst the civilian population. And Gaza is crowded. As Cast Lead showed us, this option offers a far higher level of collateral damage.

A siege offers more flexibility and carries far less risk of civilian casualties. It is a method of pressure that takes time and allows Hamas an opportunity to change its policy. Israel used these less lethal means for years before finally invading Gaza.

Let's say you could dictate Israeli policy. You oppose the siege, you oppose sanctions. I'm sure you oppose re-occupation or warfare. So I'm curious... what do you propose Israel do to secure its border from terrorism?

-----

It bears noting that this problem was predicted by opponents of the Gaza withdrawal. No occupation, less control over Hamas' terrorism. No ability to arrest or detain individuals, etc. Despite this I supported the withdrawal. I thought it was worth the risk, that the Palestinians had to be given a chance to build their own nation.

[King_David]

62. That's 'Jews'

Got it ?

[Jefferson23]

28. Red Cross: Gaza blockade illegal

Last Modified: 14 Jun 2010 15:48 GMT

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has described Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip as a violation of the Geneva Conventions and called on the Israeli government to lift it.

In a statement released on Monday, the organisation called the blockade "collective punishment", a crime under international law. It described Gaza as a territory plagued by frequent power cuts, a ruined economy, and a collapsed health care system.

"The closure imposed on the Gaza Strip is about to enter its fourth year, choking off any real possibility of economic development," the ICRC said.

"Gazans continue to suffer from unemployment, poverty and warfare, while the quality of Gaza's health care system has reached an all-time low."

Crippling shortages

Israeli officials insist that they provide enough "humanitarian aid" to cover Gaza's basic needs.

But the ICRC said the meagre list of goods allowed into Gaza doesn't meet the needs of the territory's 1.5 million inhabitants.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/06/201061452646659588.html



on edit to add:

http://wn.com/Red_Cross_Gaza_Blockade_Illegal

[shira]

34. Now that's BS because it doesn't fit the def'n of collective punishment

The UN blockade of Iraq for 13 years was exponentially worse and was never labeled illegal or collective punishment.

Double standard.

And bullshit.

[tootrueleft]

41. "Collective punishment is the punishment of a group of people as a result of the behavior of one or

more other individuals or groups."

You would have to be one cold heartless bastard to try argue that preventing the import of childrens clothing for 3 years was not collective punishment. It serves no defensive purpose whatsoever, it acts only to dehumanize innocent children and cause them suffering.

Please condone at your leisure. We won't be in the least bit surprised.

[shira]

46. Cite the legal international definition please. And don't repeat your bullshit about shoes...

...or clothing being denied to Gazans for 3 years.

After seeing that bullshit demolished in #36 above, you should be ashamed of repeating that garbage.

Tell me, what do you call people who routinely slime and slander Arab or Muslim nations? Rightwingers? Bigots? Enlighten me...

[tootrueleft]

54. Forcing children to walk across rubble for years barefoot isn't collective punishment?

The ghosts of the warsaw ghetto children must really think you're such a wonderful representative of their faith now. Give yourself a big pat on the back before you sleep so well tonight.....

[shira]

56. Post #36 proves the claim about Israel denying shoes is a lie. Why repeat it? n/t

[tootrueleft]

71. We all saw the videos of the bearfoot gazan kids. Guess it was a hamas deception, right???

[shira]

76. The evidence proving you wrong in post #36....you think those reports are lies? n/t

[Jefferson23]

43. Your interpretation vs the Red Cross...boy that would be difficult

to decide credibility. You listed another falsehood, which you do consistently, it is irrelevant whether you agree
with their conclusions or not. I suppose the Red Cross has it out for Israel too...according to you.

[shira]

44. The definition of collective punishment doesn't apply here and anyone honest would concede...

....that if the UN's blockade of Iraq was not illegal and not collective punishment, then in no way can that be said of Israel.

Simple logic.

Here's Wikipedia on what collective punishment really is...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Collective_punishments

By collective punishment, the drafters of the Geneva Conventions had in mind the reprisal killings of World Wars I and World War II. In the First World War, Germans executed Belgian villagers in mass retribution for resistance activity. In World War II, Nazis carried out a form of collective punishment to suppress resistance. Entire villages or towns or districts were held responsible for any resistance activity that took place there. Additional concern also addressed the United States' atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which, in turn, caused death and disease to millions of Japanese civilians as well as their decedents. The conventions, to counter this, reiterated the principle of individual responsibility.

See, neither you nor any other group gets to just make up definitions that apply only to Israel.

Here's HRW using "collective punishment" only WRT Israel's blockade, and in no other instances...
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/ngo_monitor_s_report_on_hrw_bias_and_double_standards_continue

And here's an example of an HRW report in 1994 on a blockade that makes Israel's look tame in comparison...
http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/1994/WR94/Helsinki-01.htm

Guess what? That's not described as collective punishment. In fact, I challenge you to find another example besides Israel in which a blockade is considered collective punishment. I've given you 2 examples with Iraq and now Azerbaijan, in which the cumulative effect on the population was FAR worse - but for some reason not defined as collective punishment. You up for that challenge? Or is this where you disappear, divert, ignore that you were refuted, or evade?

[Jefferson23]

50. To YOU the ICRC is impaired in their thinking, and or has it out

for Israel, or maybe both in your "simple logic" assessment. The record stands whether you agree with it or not,
to claim as you have, the blockade is not illegal, is a falsehood.


Red Cross: Gaza blockade illegal

"Collective punishment" of Gazans by Israel termed violation of Geneva Conventions

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/06/201061452646659588.html


The Gaza list:

List of commercial goods allowed for import into Gaza by Israel
April 2010
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/30_04_10_gaza.pdf

[shira]

51. Not just to me - to anyone honest and objective

Read the last sentence of my last post to you and you'll find that I predicted your response. Now you're just repeating the same dishonest, slanderous propaganda. Pretty shameful.

Here's the link proving you wrong...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=355477&mesg_id=355647

Anyway, you failed the challenge I posed to you and now those who don't know better will understand why Israelis generally don't take Amnesty and the Red Cross seriously.

[Jefferson23]

52. A shira challenge? I'll try this another way, just one more time.

I understand you do not accept the findings of the ICRC, what I am expressing to you is the irrelevance
of your opinion. It comes down to credibility, of which I believe you have none, the ICRC has ample.

My point was that you did not state to the other poster that in fact the ICRC found the Gaza blockade
illegal under the Geneva Convention and you didn't agree..what you tried to say was the blockade
was not illegal, period. That is a false statement.

I have no interest in your predictions.

[shira]

57. If it's illegal then so was the UN blockade of Iraq for 13 years & also Azerbaijan's blockade...

...both of which made Israel's blockade appear tame in comparison. There cannot be one law for one nation and another for the rest of the world.

Same goes for the charge of "collective punishment".

To argue otherwise is nonsense. And that's why you and these comical organizations cannot be taken seriously and are generally ignored by reasonable people. Same reason the UNHRC's rulings are hardly any more credible than a ruling by the KKK against black people.

[Jefferson23]

59. I'm confident most people can figure out for themselves which

organization/commentators are comical on this subject.

[shira]

63. I agree. Many people are capable of figuring out there are big problems with certain NGO's. n/t

[shira]

58. Also, the ICRC claims there's no humanitarian crisis in Gaza....

....so how do you pick and choose what you wish to believe from them? Is there a crisis or isn't there? There was one? When did it end?

In addition, they made the claim that there was no evidence Israel used WP illegally in Gaza.

Are they only credible when they say what you wish to believe about Israel?

[Jefferson23]

60. Look at the time table of events, and it is you that has a problem

with their reports, not me.

[shira]

64. But you've repeated the claim about a humanitarian crisis in Gaza that the ICRC says doesn't exist.

You've also raised issues here about Israeli use of white phosphorus during OCL, which the ICRC says there's no evidence suggesting Israel used it illegally.

How do you know what to believe?

Do you still believe there's a humanitarian crisis in Gaza now? There are sources NOW saying there still is. If there was at one time but not now, then when did it end?

How about illegal use of WP? There are sources NOW claiming Israel's use of WP during OCL was illegal.

You raised these issues yourself here, remember? Were you wrong about Israel?

Which sources do you trust?

[Jefferson23]

66. Don't tell me what I've posted shira..play that shit some where else.

I already told you, it is you that has a problem with their reports, not me and the time line is essential to follow, ignore it as you do
only makes you less credible than you are already.

2009.

snip* Does the ICRC consider white phosphorous weapons as they have been used in Gaza to be legal under international humanitarian law?

If ICRC delegates in the field gather credible and precise evidence of violations, or if ICRC medical personnel corroborate reports by others, the ICRC would begin by discussing this with the party concerned – rather than speaking publicly – in keeping with our standard practices. We have not commented publicly on the legality of the current use of phosphorous weapons by Israel, contrary to what has been attributed to us in recent media reports.


Does the use of weapons containing white phosphorous, in particular incendiary weapons, in a populated area give rise to any specific humanitarian concerns?

Yes. White phosphorous weapons spread burning phosphorous, which burns at over 800 degrees centi grade (about 1,500 degrees fahrenheit), over a wide area, up to several hundred square metres. The burning will continue until the phosphorous has been completely depleted or until it no longer is exposed to oxygen. The weapon has a potential to cause particularly horrific and painful injuries or slow painful death. Medical personnel must be specially trained to treat such injuries and may themselves be exposed to phosphorous burns. If used against military targets in or near populated areas, weapons containing this substance must be used with extreme caution to prevent civilian casualties.

http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/interview/weapons-interview-170109.htm

Also on January 13, an Associated Press report quoted Peter Herby, head of the Arms Unit at the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), as saying that white phosphorus use to create a smokescreen or illuminate a target is not prohibited under international law, and that the ICRC had "no evidence to suggest it's being used in any other way."<71> Two days later, on January 15, following news reports that the IDF had hit the UNRWA compound in Gaza City with white phosphorus shells, Israeli government spokesperson Mark Regev used the ICRC's statement to justify the IDF's attack. "I would point you to the statement yesterday of the International Committee of the Red Cross," he told CNN. "After looking into the issue , they found absolutely no wrongdoing on Israel's part."<72>
On January 17, however, the ICRC publicly disputed this interpretation of its position. "We have not commented publicly on the legality of the current use of phosphorus weapons by Israel, contrary to what has been attributed to us in recent media reports," Herby said in an official statement.<73> Nevertheless, the Israeli government continued to misstate the ICRC's position to justify its use of white phosphorus.<74>

http://www.hrw.org/en/node/81726/section/6

If you defend the use of white phosphorus, which reaches a temp of over 800 degrees, then we have nothing further to discuss here.

[shira]

67. First, are NGO's lying when they claim there's still a humanitarian crisis in Gaza? n/t

[Jefferson23]

70. If you're interested, you'd read current reports. n/t

[shira]

75. Really? Here's the EU commissioner for humanitarian aid just last month...

EU Commissioner for Humanitarian Aid Kristalina Georgieva believes that more access and freedom of movement will solve the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

"The humanitarian crisis in Gaza is not normal, it was artificially created because of the blockade," she said in an interview with Ynet after a three-day visit in Israel and the Palestinian territories.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4070269,00.html

WTF is she talking about?

Didn't she get the memo that there's no humanitarian crisis in Gaza anymore?

Here's Juan Cole not even 72 hours ago...

Wikileaks State Department cables reveal that Israeli officials have admitted privately that their goal in Gaza is to make Palestinians there live on the absolute edge, without tipping the situation over into clear humanitarian disaster. Arguably, in the latter balancing act, they have failed.

http://www.juancole.com/2011/06/under-punitive-israeli-blockade-gaza-unemployment-among-worst-in-world-un.html

He's still a credible blogger over at DISinformed comment, right?

[Harmony Blue]

78. The reason their claims hold up is because they have

evidence as disputable as it may be. On the other hand where is the evidence that Gaza is not in a humanitarian crisis?

[shira]

79. Do you believe there's still a humanitarian crisis in Gaza?

And if not, when did it formally end?

[azurnoir]

65. editting to suit needs-again? full statement with the parts that were left out bolded

Collective punishments

Article 33. No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
Pillage is prohibited.
Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.

Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions collective punishments are a war crime. By collective punishment, the drafters of the Geneva Conventions had in mind the reprisal killings of World Wars I and World War II. In the First World War, Germans executed Belgian villagers in mass retribution for resistance activity. In World War II, Nazis carried out a form of collective punishment to suppress resistance. Entire villages or towns or districts were held responsible for any resistance activity that took place there. Additional concern also addressed the United States' atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which, in turn, caused death and disease to millions of Japanese civilians as well as their decedents. The conventions, to counter this, reiterated the principle of individual responsibility. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Commentary to the conventions states that parties to a conflict often would resort to "intimidatory measures to terrorize the population" in hopes of preventing hostile acts, but such practices "strike at guilty and innocent alike. They are opposed to all principles based on humanity and justice."

Additional Protocol II of 1977 explicitly forbids collective punishment. But as fewer states have ratified this protocol than GCIV, GCIV Article 33 is the one more commonly quoted.

This page was last modified on 24 May 2011 at 13:48.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Collective_punishments

[shira]

68. LOL, what hidden message do you find there that puts things in a different light?

This should be good.

[azurnoir]

69. The very first sentence in my snip

Article 33. No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed.

are the people of Gaza not protected?

[shira]

73. Damn, now you're taking it out of context b/c they actually DEFINED what it means.

Otherwise, raising taxes on a population would be considered collective punishment.

Hell, let's arrest all Republicans for attempting to kill Medicare while we're at it. THAT would be collective punishment and thus it's illegal, right?

:eyes: