Human Rights Watch reports 'serious violations' in Israel, Palestinian territories

[Jefferson23]

Annual report lists Israel's blockade of Gaza Strip, settlement expansion in West Bank, and home demolitions in East Jerusalem; report also accuses Hamas for carrying out judicial executions and for allegedly torturing detainees.

By DPA

Serious violations in Israel and the Palestinian territories were ongoing in 2011, Human Rights Watch said in its annual report Sunday.

It listed Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip, ongoing settlement expansion in the West Bank and home demolitions in East Jerusalem.

But it also noted Palestinian rocket and mortar fire from Gaza at southern Israeli population centers.

And it condemned Hamas, the radical Islamist movement ruling Gaza, for carrying out three judicial executions, and for allegedly torturing scores of Palestinian detainees, some of whom died.

remainder: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/human-rights-watch-reports-serious-violations-in-israel-palestinian-territories-1.408670

[azurnoir]

1. HRW has condemed Hamas?

why that's not part of the 'accepted' narrative about them in the future they (HRW) should take care to stick to the script

[shira]

47. HRW is run by humanitarian racists....

...their miniscule amount of lip service towards Hamas withstanding. They could literally spend decades writing non-stop about Hamas human rights violations in Gaza.

I wonder how many of their articles are devoted to the profound murderous antisemitism that permeates Palestinian run Gaza and the W.Bank.

I wonder...

20 articles?

1 article?



Right. None.

I can't imagine any human rights org would remain silent if Israel were surrounded by extreme rightwing fascist WW2 regimes like Germany, Austria, and Poland - constantly spewing annhilationist antisemitic rhetoric, comparing subhuman Jews to dogs, apes, and pigs, and calling for the destruction of the state.

But HRW has been silent on this.

Why?

HRW gushed over and whitewashed Ghaddafi's Libya just 2 years ago, claiming there was a Tripoli Spring.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/05/26/tripoli_spring

Why should anyone take the humanitarian racists at HRW seriously?

[Jefferson23]

48. Incorrect on all charges.

Gaza: Hamas Should End Killings, Torture
At Least 32 Palestinians Killed During and After Israeli Offensive

April 20, 2009

(Gaza City) - Hamas should end its attacks on political opponents and suspected collaborators in Gaza, which have killed at least 32 Palestinians and maimed several dozen more during and since the recent Israeli military offensive, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. Human Rights Watch called on Hamas authorities in Gaza to hold those responsible accountable.

The 26-page report, "Under Cover of War: Hamas Political Violence in Gaza," documents a pattern since late December 2008 of arbitrary arrests and detentions, torture, maimings by shooting, and extrajudicial executions by alleged members of Hamas security forces. The report is based on interviews with victims and witnesses in Gaza and case reports by Palestinian human rights groups.

http://www.hrw.org/news/2009/04/20/gaza-hamas-should-end-killings-torture

World Report 2011: Libya

Government control and repression of civil society remain the norm in Libya, with little progress made on promised human rights reforms. While releases of large numbers of Islamist prisoners continued, 2010 saw stagnation on key issues such as penal code reform, freedom of association, and accountability for the Abu Salim prison massacre in 1996.

Libya maintains harsh restrictions on freedom of assembly and expression, including penal code provisions that criminalize "insulting public officials" or "opposing the ideology of the Revolution," although there has been slightly more media debate in recent years, particularly online.

Arbitrary Detention and Prisoner Releases

An estimated 213 prisoners who have served their sentences or been acquitted by Libyan courts remain imprisoned under Internal Security Agency orders. The agency, under the jurisdiction of the General People's Committee for Public Security, controls the Ain Zara and Abu Salim prisons, where it holds political and "security" detainees. It has refused to carry out judicial orders to free these prisoners, despite calls from the secretary of justice for their release.

http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2011/libya

Libya: Rights at Risk
September 2, 2008

Despite modest improvements in recent years, Libyans and foreign residents in Libya
continue to suffer from serious violations of human rights. The continued arrests and
incarceration of political prisoners, some of them “disappeared”; the torture of detainees;
the absence of a free press; the ban on independent organizations; and violations of
women’s and foreigners’ rights plague the country as it tries to reintegrate with the
international community. The country is dominated by one leader, who tolerates no
unsanctioned criticism of his rule or Libya’s unique political system.

Human Rights Watch welcomes improved relations between Libya and other
governments, including with the United States, but not at the expense of human rights
and the rule of law. To date, international engagement with the oil-rich country has
focused on counter-terrorism and business ties, and inadequately addressed the lack of
democratic reform and protection of human rights.

Below is a selection of the key human rights issues in Libya, as documented by
Human Rights Watch. The material is based primarily on three visits to Libya since 2005. For
more detailed information, see: http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=mideast&c=libya.

http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/libya_rights_risk_090808.pdf

Human Rights Watch, Our Research Methodology

Introduction
Initial Research
Interview Research
Locations
Who We Interview
How We Conduct Interviews with Victims/Witnesses
Non-Interview Research
Specific Methodological Challenges

http://www.hrw.org/node/75141

[shira]

49. Did you read the HRW puff piece by Whitson on the Tripoli Spring?

Notice anything wrong there?



WRT Hamas, HRW has never reported the insane amount of antisemitic rhetoric and incitement that leads to terror attacks and dead Jews. What kind of human rights organization would look the other way at a WW2 era Germany or Austria that premised their attacks against Jews on the insane amount of antisemitic incitement generated by each government?

HRW has no problem describing Israeli policies and actions as discriminatory, racist, that it segregates, or is equal/unequal...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sarah-leah-whitson/a-matter-of-civil-rights_b_848067.html

But not a peep about the most vile Hamas/PLO antisemitic rhetoric and actions.

This is the same HRW that quite deliberately runs interference for Hamas, claiming there's no evidence Hamas uses human shields (like children for example) despite video evidence, news reports, and eyewitness accounts.

[Jefferson23]

50. Maybe you should read it, then research their reports...learn to

understand distinctions between them. HRW is not guilty of
anything you have claimed.

HRW's job is well done on human rights violations....you're confused.

Consider using caution when you speak about insane amounts of
bigotry...the settlers are well versed in these matters.

Human Rights Watch applies same standards to Israel, Hamas
Group's director writes in Op-Ed for Haaretz that war coverage documents violations by all sides.
By Kenneth Roth

Critics of Human Rights Watch's work on Israel raise three main points. First, they say we disproportionately focus on Israel, and neglect other countries in the Middle East. Second, they claim our research methodology is flawed - relying on witnesses with an agenda. Third, as recently expressed by our founding chairman Robert Bernstein, they argue that we should focus on "closed" countries such as China rather than "open" societies like Israel.

I reject all three claims.

Human Rights Watch currently works on seventeen countries in the Middle East and North Africa, including Iran, Egypt, Libya and Saudi Arabia. Israel accounts for about 15 percent of our published output on the region. The Middle East and North Africa division is one of 16 research programs at Human Rights Watch and receives 5 percent of our total budget. Israel is a small fraction of what we do.

Our war coverage in the region has documented violations by all sides. No international human rights organization has done more to highlight the war crimes of Hezbollah and Hamas, challenging their leaders and the Arab public to think critically about the unlawful conduct of these groups. Our Civilian Protection Initiative, launched five years ago, has sought the support of Arab civil society leaders to discredit terrorist attacks.

The research methodology employed in these wars is the same we use around the world: in-depth private interviews with multiple witnesses. We corroborate their accounts with field visits, ballistics evidence, medical records and other means. Unfortunately, since late 2008, the Israel Defense Forces have refused to meet with us or answer any of our detailed written questions.

The problem of witness intimidation is not new, and we take it into account.

Contrary to the claims of some critics, in Gaza we found there were Palestinians who would speak about violations by Hamas. Palestinian victims and witnesses of abuse were the primary source for a report we published on Hamas torture and executions - a report cited publicly by the Israeli government.

We apply the same international human rights standards to all countries, open and closed. We work extensively on China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia and Iran, but we also investigate abuses in the American criminal justice system, police killings in India, "disappearances" in Sri Lanka, and migrants' rights in Europe. All governments, regardless of their political system, are obliged to uphold the same international norms.

At the heart of our critics' arguments lies the view that we should hold Israel to lower standards. There is no dispute that the country was founded on the ashes of genocide and is surrounded by hostile states and armed groups. But some believe that these circumstances give Israel's democratic government the right to take whatever steps it deems necessary to keep the country safe.

A country's conditions do not remove its obligations under international law, though. Whether a state is an aggressor or acting in self-defense, whether it faces a regular army or insurgents that commit abuses, the laws of war apply, imposing a duty to minimize civilian harm.

And being a democratic country prevents Israel from committing wartime abuses no more than it stopped the United States from torture and unlawful detentions at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.

The serious Israeli abuses we documented also put the country at greater risk. By failing to hold those responsible to account, Israel increases anger and resentment among the Palestinian population and in the wider Arab world, and undercuts moderates who wish to pursue peace.

Our critics have every right to challenge the substance of our findings on Israel or any other country, though they rarely find errors. But if they want to challenge repressive regimes and combat armed groups that terrorize civilians, they will not serve that cause by trying to exempt Israel from human rights laws that are the best defense against such abuse. Nor does it help to attack those organizations that are working to uphold those laws around the world.

The writer is executive director of Human Rights Watch.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/human-rights-watch-applies-same-standards-to-israel-hamas-1.5361

[shira]

51. You have no comment on that "Tripoli Spring" garbage by HRW, right?

I'm giving you one more chance to comment on it. Let me know if you see anything wrong there.

And I'm not wrong about HRW never reporting about the insane amount of antisemitism generated by the PLO/Hamas that leads to terror and dead Jews.

Neither am I wrong about HRW denying Hamas human shields despite loads of evidence proving it.

=======

The articles you're posting do not address my points at all.

[Jefferson23]

52. I'll make this easy for you. You put this complete fabrication

up, and I responded. Even with your numerous edits in between, you have
nothing of substance. HRW reports are there for anyone to read, if interested.

[shira]

54. In other words, you have nothing to counter with...

....other than irrelevant articles that do not specifically address the points brought up.

[Jefferson23]

55. I suggest you get Harry to hurry up and READ before

he passes along more nonsense for you to post.

[shira]

57. I'm wondering whether you realize that you rarely address specific points...

...that are brought up in a debate. Your modus operandi seems to be that you counter with irrelevant articles as a substitute for having to answer questions. And by doing so, you either think those articles are responsive to the questions/points brought up - they rarely are - or you're depending on people being too stupid to notice you really have nothing substantive to reply back with.

[Jefferson23]

60. There is no debate..people, if interested, can read the HRW reports

you claimed did not exist..they are there at the links.

I have no interest in whether you or Harry accept them or not.

[Shaktimaan]

111. But they don't exist.

You posted three reports, none of which mentioned rampant anti-semitism in Palestine or any other Arab states. The crit of Hamas was over the killing of Palestinians.

[Jefferson23]

114. The reports have to fit the claim as she states they must read??

Goal posts keep moving when it is clear the HRW condemn actions
by Hamas..their illegal activity. Let's see, HRW must now track anti semitic
statements too, lol . HRW has diligently documented abuse by Hamas..never enough for
some. You wish to defend her positions, be my guest..sad as they are, it certainly
is up to you but the reports do exist.


shira: HRW is run by humanitarian racists....

...their miniscule amount of lip service towards Hamas withstanding. They could literally spend decades writing non-stop about Hamas human rights violations in Gaza.

I wonder how many of their articles are devoted to the profound murderous antisemitism that permeates Palestinian run Gaza and the W.Bank.

I wonder...

20 articles?

1 article?



Right. None.

I can't imagine any human rights org would remain silent if Israel were surrounded by extreme rightwing fascist WW2 regimes like Germany, Austria, and Poland - constantly spewing annhilationist antisemitic rhetoric, comparing subhuman Jews to dogs, apes, and pigs, and calling for the destruction of the state.

But HRW has been silent on this. (end)

Beware the Humanitarian Racist:

snip* His simple test, lol.

A simple test
I have developed a simple test to recognize the humanitarian racists amongst those who de-legitimize Israel. One only has to ask these extreme critics of Israel a few questions or investigate their statements and publications. The first question is: “Can you show me where and how often you have exposed the substantial percentage of Muslims in the world who support suicide bombings or the genocidal worldview of Osama Bin Laden?”


The second question: “Your government is committed under the UN genocide convention to bring Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad before an international court, because he threatens the State of Israel with genocide. How often have you called upon your government to do so?”


The third question: “Where and how often have you exposed the profoundly murderous worldview that permeates Palestinian society, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas?”



If one finds that these critics of Israel have remained silent or said little on any of these issues, they can be “outed” as humanitarian racists. One can apply this humanitarian racism test to politicians, church leaders, journalists, academics as well as to Jewish and Israeli critics of the Jewish state.



This simple test will also reveal the many humanitarian racists in foreign and Israeli human rights organizations. The European Union subsidizes several of the latter bodies. By doing so, it thus has become a supporter of racism.


Humanitarian racism is one of the many aspects that will have to be investigated in detail, in order to understand the new criminal currents that have emerged in European societies and the European Union itself.


Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld has published 20 books. He is Chairman of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4179427,00.html

[Shaktimaan]

115. I don't agree with that whole "humanitarian racist" thing.

My point was just that Shira accused HRW specifically of ignoring anti-semitic rhetoric that permeates Arab society which you disagreed with and offered something unrelated to that subject as proof. Just because HRW critiqued Hamas for certain actions doesn't mean that they recognize the undercurrent of anti-semitism that runs through the discourse in Arab nations at large.

If you're going to keep saying that you have disproven Shira's incorrect statements then you have to actually disprove her statements. I don't think that's an unreasonable request.

[Shaktimaan]

61. well...

as noted here, one of HRW's main founder's recently came out as being extremely critical of the group's bias against Israel and spending disproportionate resources investigating and condemning it. Such a thing can't be easily dismissed.

If HRW works on 17 countries in the MidEast, most/many of which are run by dictatorships and routinely engage in serious human rights abuses, then why does Israel take up 15% of their reports? This admission itself means that Israel is almost certainly the most reported on state in the ME.

They sought the support of Arab civilians to discredit terrorist attacks beginning 5 years ago? 5 years ago?

All of this information seems to support the criticisms made against HRW.

[azurnoir]

53. Picked up on that line did ya?

well of course you ran the thread that started with a false premise and was replete with Manny's 3 question test which if you don't agree with Manny's and(your?) world view your doomed to fail

the rest of your lather the Jerusalem 'mufti's' end times prophecy (hadith) reading ect is quite well known by now but HRW doesn't single individuals often does it? Oh wait simply condemning the man that said it isn't enough is it, just like HRW's condemning Hamas isn't enough it's never enough is it

so tell us what would be in your mind the proper ratio of condemning Israel to Hamas (in Israel's favor) be 1:1 2:1 what?

Now lets take a look at what was said about Libya

I first
visited Libya four years ago, just as it was gearing up for its self-rehabilitation
in the international community, and I returned the following year, working on
Human Rights Watch's first official investigation in the country. The
government was making all the right foreign-policy moves -- agreeing to give up
its weapons of mass destruction program and to compensate victims of the 1988
Libyan-backed bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. Soon after, Libya even settled the
case of five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor who were imprisoned for eight
years, accused of infecting Libyan children with HIV. They had remained in
detention despite overwhelming evidence that the infections were caused by the
poor hygiene that characterizes Libya's public hospitals.

But
internally, the repression of Libyan citizens was as suffocating as ever. President
Muammar al-Qaddafi's Green Book, analogous in state-sponsored hallowedness to
Mao's red one, was repeated and rephrased in every meeting -- by officials and
citizens alike. Libya was a state of perfect direct democracy, I was told. Every
citizen participated in making the country's decisions -- so no need for a
private press. Vague promises for reform were uttered here or there, but during
our visit, we heard no critical voices inside the country, public or private.

When
I visited that same Libya this April, I was unprepared for the change. I left
more than one meeting stunned at the sudden openness of ordinary citizens, who criticized
the government and challenged the status quo with newfound frankness. A group
of journalists we met with in Tripoli complained about censorship and the ease
with which public officials could sue them for slander. But that hadn't stopped
their newspapers from exposing unsanitary hospitals or contaminated food supplies.
One journalist said that, while he was wary of being prosecuted, he found
delight in testing the boundaries. Quryna,
one of two new semi private newspapers in Tripoli, features page after page of
editorials criticizing bureaucratic misconduct and corruption, despite
countless pending lawsuits against it.

seems more praise of the Libyan people than the government did you read the statements from the journalists, I guess you didn't and it seems in the ensuing two years the Libyan people have taken those things to their ultimate conclusion

[shira]

56. Yeah, okay. Thanks. n/t

[Jefferson23]

58. There are alleged to rest here various types of bogeymen in the OP, lol.

More eye popping revelations from Harry.

[pelsar]

2. the part you forgot...what a surprise...

Egypt shares responsibility for the blockade by restricting the movement of goods and people at the Rafah crossing it controls on Gaza’s southern border.

http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/wr2011.pdf pg 538:

hmm i see a dilemma...how can israel be occupying if HRW clearly states that Egypt shares responsibility for the blockade and that it is egypt that is restricting movements and goods?

[Jefferson23]

3. Who forgot what pelsar...I eliminated this from the OP, or you?

Israel has eased the entry of goods into Gaza, but continued to block exports, hindering the rebuilding of the coastal enclave's devastated economy. Construction materials are still barred because Israel says they can be used by militants and Gaza still had an estimated shortage of some 250 schools and 100,000 homes. (end)

The absurdity to claim Israel is not the occupying force continues..enjoy.

[azurnoir]

4. well I guess we'll 'never' know

when I attempt to open the PDF file linked to I get a warning from Adobe saying that the file is damaged and cannot be repaired

[azurnoir]

6. well isn't that just special

eta tried it again got the same result but glad to see that the page number and everything is recorded anything else 'useful' from that?

[King_David]

9. Guess YOU know better than the Gazans...

Ha Ha Ha

Hamas Says Gaza Not “Occupied”


http://www.democraticunderground.com/11342372

[Jefferson23]

11. To include the Unites States, the UN Security Council, the ICJ,

the international community rejects Zahar's opinion..what a shock you accept
it.

[King_David]

12. Yea a lot of prople are very 'disappointed' with the Palestinians opinion on this .

[Jefferson23]

14. Then you'll have no problem posting a consensus by Hamas and

then from the Palestinians of Gaza.

Try and keep in mind even if there were such an opinion held by the majority,
which there is not, it would not change the aforementioned.

Zahar of Hamas is a reliable source for you, that is amusing...all considered.

[King_David]

16. Yea a lot of people know better than them,

That is clear.

That statement seems to cause a lot of consternation amongst the western 'I know better than the Palestinian ,crowd"

ha ha ha...

[Jefferson23]

17. Having trouble posting the consenus I asked you about from Hamas and

the Palestinians I see...but keep laughing.

[Shaktimaan]

63. well...

Insisting on an unreasonable level of proof before considering his argument hardly implies that your assumptions are correct you know. We don't know what the collective citizenry of west virginia thinks about this either but that doesn't mean that they all agree with me.

[Jefferson23]

77. Unreasonable to you, which I have no concern.

One individual, name, Zahar, of Hamas, made a statement..that is it...most here
seem to not have read it but in snips.

The ICJ, the UN Security Council, the international community to include
the United States regard Gaza as occupied.

The CIA World Factbook says: "West Bank and Gaza Strip are Israeli-occupied with current status subject to the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement -- permanent status to be determined through further negotiation; Israel removed settlers and military personnel from the Gaza Strip in August 2005."
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-06/world/israel.gaza.occupation.question_1_gaza-israeli-troops-arab-israeli-war/2?_s=PM:WORLD

If you wish to jump into a thread feel free to read all the information that was exchanged
back and forth..I am not interested to point it out again.

[Shaktimaan]

78. untrue

That article says nothing about them regarding Gaza as occupied. The fact is that they refer to it as occupied until a specific motion is passed to officially alter its designation. You are taking a procedural matter and trying to pass it off as ideological.

Gaza doesn't come close to meeting the UN's definition of occupied.

[Jefferson23]

79. They refer to it as occupied

until a specific motion is passed..so until then it is occupied. Procedural matter? Yes, it is
subject to final status negotiations.

You have stretched yourself beyond reasoning.

The ICJ, the UN Security Council and the international community disagree with you. Your opinion
is meaningless.

[Shaktimaan]

80. that is totally ridiculous.

An area is not occupied by virtue of whether or not the UN passes a motion to change its name. And when the UN secretary general was asked about it even he said he didn't know.

Your ICJ ruling that defines Gaza as occupied territory is from 2004, before the disengagement, yet you are actually arguing that it proves Israel continues to occupy Gaza? It is actually impossible for Israel to end the occupation according to your rules. Israel could leave the middle east entirely and still be an occupying power. According to these rules of yours, Israel could be nuked, wiped out in an atomic holocaust completely, cease to exist, yet still be occupying Gaza if only the UN and the ICJ neglects to officially rule on it.

I will remember this when you next demand that Israel end the occupation. The occupation's ending is not in any way up to Israel... the Palestinians will have to go to the ICJ and get them to say that the occupation is over. And that's all. It's really quite simple. You would think the ICJ would have done it years ago.

Only Israel could be guilty of occupying a nation without having a single soul there.

You know they also all refer to East Jerusalem as part of the Occupied Palestinian Territories, right? Do you think that means that EJ belongs to Palestine then? Because they call it that.

[Jefferson23]

81. LOL, your rsponses are hilarious. Why don't you try and read

the OP all the way through about the UN..stopping when it is convenient
for you is not a good idea.

I hope you will remember something accurate too...good luck.

In February 2008, Secretary-General Ban was asked at a media availability whether Gaza is occupied territory. "I am not in a position to say on these legal matters," he responded.

The next day, at a press briefing, a reporter pointed out to a U.N. spokesman that the secretary-general had told Arab League representatives that Gaza was still considered occupied.

"Yes, the U.N. defines Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem as Occupied Palestinian Territory. No, that definition hasn't changed," the spokesman replied.

Farhan Haq, spokesman for the secretary-general, told CNN Monday that the official status of Gaza would change only through a decision of the U.N. Security Council.

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-06/world/israel.gaza.occupation.question_1_gaza-israeli-troops-arab-israeli-war/2?_s=PM:WORLD

[shira]

82. Jeff, maybe you should enlighten us and tell us exactly what Israel has to do....

...to end the occupation of Gaza.

I suspect you can't do it. An Amnesty Internation Representative couldn't, so I doubt you could do better....
http://www.shalomlife.com/news/12815/amnesty-gaza-is-still-under-israeli-occupation/

Here's part of the interview. Note that the Amnesty representative isn't all too forthcoming with his answers. Consider this when you keep asserting the "no brainer" that Israel occupies Gaza, everyone knows it, and it's International Law. See, if it was all that, it should be rather easy to state exactly what Israel has to do to end the occupation.

But as easy as that should be, watch how the Amnesty representative fumbles with that one...

What is required of Israel to stop it from being an occupying force under Amnesty’s definition?

That there will be another sovereign power and that the border crossings to Gaza not be under Israeli control. That’s the meaning of occupation, there’s no other sovereign power there, there’s no control over the border crossings for free movement of people and goods and that’s why Gaza is under occupation.

Is an exit by the Navy from Gaza’s waters an end to the occupation?

No.
Is opening the border crossings with Israel ending the occupation?

That’s a step towards ending the occupation.

Can Israel not ever close the border crossings to Gaza?

Assuming that another sovereign power will be there, there can be international border crossings. That’s not the situation as of today.

Hamas is defined as a sovereign power by the Goldstone committee which treated it as “the authority of Gaza” and is internationally recognized by a large number of countries.

It receives recognition as a de facto regime. The question of the Israeli occupation is not related to Hamas. It’s connected with
Israel’s actions.

So what actions must Israel take? You say that the occupation ends if Israel opens the crossings, so if the occupation ends, Israel needs to close the borders since Gaza is defined as an enemy state. There’s a logical contradiction here.

I don’t understand where the contradiction is.

The border between Israel and Lebanon is closed since Lebanon is an enemy state. You’re claiming that Israel needs to open the borders to Gaza and then the occupation will end. And then Israel will have to close the crossings.

I’ll ask you another question. Can Lebanon control the transfer of goods and people to Lebanon not opposite Israel but opposite other countries?

So the problem is with the control by sea and air. If the seas are open there is no occupation?

Of course, had it been possible to enter Gaza freely through the air, by sea and land, that would certainly be one component of the occupation ending.

What are all the components to end the occupation? Amnesty does not present a plan in which Israel stops the occupation. It says that Israel needs to stop the occupation and deepen the occupation by opening the borders. I don’t comprehend that.

Amnesty International does not deal with solving conflicts.

It’s not conflict solving. It’s ending the occupation. Amnesty says that Gaza is under occupation. According to Amnesty, what actions must Israel take in order to stop the occupation?

One of the things which need to be done is to allow the passage of people and goods through the air, the sea and land. That’s one component. There are other components related to agreements of the international community since Amnesty International does not deal with solving conflicts. It only addresses the question of whether the situation is adequate in relation to international humanitarian law and international standards. It doesn’t deal with solving the conflict, not here or anywhere else.

If Amnesty claims that there’s an occupation there should be a definition of when there’s no occupation. Amnesty claims that Israel needs to open all the crossings for free movement from Gaza to Israel and remove the sea and land siege on Gaza, meaning let Gaza be open to the entire world with no connection to Israel, but under those circumstances the occupation no longer exists. So why is there a need to transfer supplies to Gaza? Does Amnesty by the same logic demand the American forces in Afghanistan to help the Taliban? And take care of the sick among the Taliban? That’s the question, when does the occupation end?

I admit that I don’t understand the question. I’m unclear as to what kind of answer you expect.

I am expecting to receive an answer to whether if Israel withdraws its forces from the waters of Gaza, allow the passage of goods to Gaza without inspection, remove the air control of the Gaza Strip and open it to free movement, the occupation will end and Israel will no longer be responsible for Gaza and only for marginal issues, that’s what I expect Amnesty to say.

There are other components of electricity, water. These things do not stand on their own. Removing the siege is one step towards ending the occupation. There are components involving all the aspects of life in Gaza: Social, economic and cultural. Removing the siege is one important step to end the occupation and there are other steps.

What are the necessary steps on which you can elaborate?

One, allow the Palestinians in Gaza free access to drinking water. Israel hasn’t done this in all the years of the occupation until now, and it has a responsibility to ensure that Gaza’s residents have access to water. The same thing goes for health services. For dozens of years the rights of those residents have been prevented and the formations of civil infrastructures were prevented and this became worse during the attacks of last year, and a large part of those infrastructures were destroyed and not rebuilt to this day. This is an obligation of which Israel cannot free itself.

It’s an obligation of which Israel cannot free itself, but it has nothing to do with the occupation. Those are two different things.

It’s related to the situation of the continuing occupation.

Amnesty claims that Israel is an occupying country and is responsible for the welfare of Gaza’s residents. According to this definition, does Israel need to act against the Hamas government in order to care for the welfare and safety of Gaza’s residents?

The State of Israel has an obligation to protect its citizens. It has an obligation to distinguish between military targets and civil targets. When Israel hit legitimate military targets we did not criticize it, because we are not a pacifist organization and we don’t deal with conflict solving, so when Israel hit military targets you didn’t hear any criticism from Amnesty. We certainly criticize Hamas for the internal violence it applies, the illegal executions and imprisonments. We sounded very strong criticism against Hamas’ conduct on these issues.

The question is whether Israel is committed, being an occupying force as Amnesty defines, to be concerned for the welfare of Gaza’s residents and therefore act against the Hamas government and the Palestinian terrorist organizations that control Gaza, in order to protect the Palestinian population?

Israel has a duty to protect its citizens.

Amnesty’s messages said that Israel should take care to protect the people of Gaza. Is the issue of the security of the people of Gaza not an authority which Israel has?

Israel’s duty is to protect its citizens and ensure that the people of Gaza enjoy all the social and economic rights recognized in international law and in the Geneva convention.

So if Hamas is violating the rights of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip to live, as defined in international law, does Israel not have the authority to act against the Hamas government to care for the safety of the people of Gaza?

The problem is first and foremost the rights of the people of Gaza which Israel violates by the illegal siege.

[Jefferson23]

83. They couldn't do it? lol I question your sincerity in asking such a thing, but whatever.

Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine : report of the Secretary-General

Publisher UN General Assembly
Country Israel | Occupied Palestinian Territory
Publication Date 17 September 2010
C
Reference Sixty-fifth session
Cite as UN General Assembly, Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine : report of the Secretary-General, 17 September 2010

A/65/380–S/2010/484, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4cc144752.html [accessed 26 January 2012]

in full: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,UNGA,,ISR,,4cc144752,0.html

[shira]

84. No, they couldn't. Did you read the interview? Also, your link...

...doesn't specify what steps Israel has to take to end the Gaza occupation. I don't understand why you constantly attempt to answer questions with irrelevant articles. It appears you think that merely offering an irrelevant link is an acceptable form of debate. I mean, are you serious?

[Jefferson23]

86. LOL, yes, a settlement of the conflict is ambiguous to you..one that

most of the world accepted each year with the few exceptions to include Israel and their best buddy, the United States.

You've gone off the deep end shira, the interview btw addressed why it remains occupied. If you
think they would not support a peace settlement to end the occupation..you're.......... ( fill in blank).

Peace settlement addresses:

(1) “Affirming the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”;
(2) “Affirming also the illegality of the Israeli settlements in the territory
occupied since 1967 and of Israeli actions aimed at changing the status of
Jerusalem”; (3) “Stresses the need for: (a) The realization of the
inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, primarily the right to
self-determination; (b) The withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian territory
occupied since 1967”; (4) “Also stresses the need for resolving the
problem of the Palestine refugees in conformity with its resolution 194 (III)
of 11 December 1948.”

[Shaktimaan]

93. Wow.

So Israel can't end the occupation without coming to a final peace resolution now? The requirements keep getting bigger.

Your settlement points are pretty out there as well. For example I wasn't aware that Resolution 194 even used the word "Palestinian." Besides that, this actually dictates terms that are only supposed to be negotiated between the two parties. Amnesty International is actually going to insist that Israel is occupying territory until it meets their specific terms for a peace settlement?

You are also forgetting about the little problem of Hamas rejecting permanent peace terms with Israel at any price. Does Hamas' refusal to make peace mean that Israel is an occupier?

Oh, and what does any of this have to do with the legal meaning of "occupation" anyway?

[Jefferson23]

95. For crying put loud, the peace settlement is NOT designed by AI.

I give up, you can't read what is posted, please find someone else
to direct you through all the various posts. It is annoying as hell.

Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine : report of the Secretary-General
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4cc144752.html

[shira]

102. A peaceful settlement ends the occupation? Then why do all you pro-Palestinians...

...insist that Israel GTFO of the territories, thereby ending the occupation?

That won't end the occupation and it doesn't guarantee a peaceful settlement will follow.

So why insist that Israel GTFO of the territories before making peace with the Palestinians?

You're twisting yourself into a pretzel with your contradictory beliefs.

[Jefferson23]

103. You should stop posting what you guess other people say.

Post what they said, we have an archive here.

[Shaktimaan]

109. people say this all the time.

That ending the occupation is a pre-requisite for peace. But Amnesty is saying that peace is a pre-requisite for ending the occupation.

I know how it'll work. Israel will leave the OPT entirely and sign a permanent peace accord, but will just still be an occupier that refuses to allow peace.

[shira]

112. There's no guessing. You've stated many times the occupation must end...

...and nothing about it following a successfully negotiated peace deal.

"The occupation needs to end and yes, you'd think people would learn from the past by now."
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=261838&mesg_id=261912

"The occupation has everything to do with Israel's concern about security and it can end if your government wants it to..but they do not. They clearly place their desire for more land above and beyond your security. Egypt's role will help the Palestinians but Israel must do their part, and it will likely become more difficult for Israel to continue the occupation depending on who the Egyptians elect."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=353875&mesg_id=354275

"There is no justification for the continued occupation, there is NOTHING legitimate about it. So if Israel wants to ban these reports, go ahead, the majority of the world will still be well aware of their indefensible policies. The outrage did not rise primarily from the human rights groups, look at the policies and OCL to find the root cause of late.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=311770&mesg_id=311860

"End the Occupation is an excellent group to support...."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=269515&mesg_id=269520

So how is it possible you forgot what your own beliefs are? Why did you pretend that I made up an accusation about pro-Palestinians here who call for an end to occupation (that would happen before a peace deal is cut)?

Again, how can Israel force the Palestinians to accept a peace deal? Hamas says they'll never sign a peace deal with Israel. Therefore, Gaza will remain occupied as long as Hamas runs it, right? Do you realize how nutty that sounds? You're calling for Israel to end the occupation. How can they do that if the PA has rejected 2 credible peace offers in the last decade (Clinton Initiatives/Olmert offer)? I'm pretty certain you don't hold the PA accountable at all for rejecting each offer without coming back with a reasonable counter-proposal. Given that, it appears YOU are against ending the occupation. If you were really for ending it, you'd be pissed that the PA never even attempted to publicize a reasonable counter-offer to either proposal. You'd want the PA to do all it can (reasonably) to cut a peace deal that would end the occupation. Of course it's not just you. Your colleagues here hold the same view.

[Jefferson23]

113. As usual, you're selective in what you leave out but not very good at it.

Yea, you don't broad brush much, lol.

I have not forgotten anything btw.

Jefferson23 (1000+ posts) Thu Jun-02-11 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. The occupation has everything to do with Israel's concern
about security and it can end if your government wants it to..but they do not. They clearly
place their desire for more land above and beyond your security. Egypt's role will help the Palestinians
but Israel must do their part, and it will likely become more difficult for Israel to continue the
occupation depending on who the Egyptians elect.

I'm not going to argue about the Muslim Brotherhood, believe in whatever bad guy version you prefer.

Abolish The Unitary Executive Theory.


shira (1000+ posts) Thu Jun-02-11 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. Give it up with the "Israel wants more land" BS....that ended in the mid 90's

Edited on Thu Jun-02-11 08:20 PM by shira
...when Israel went beyond Oslo and chose not to start any new settlements.

Since then Israel has offered to END both the occupation and settlements and the Palestinians have refused.

In fact, Israel gave up the Sinai, Gaza, and ended their Southern Lebanon occupation. It's a bald faced malicious lie to parrot the Hamas/PLO line that Israel just wants to "steal" more land.
Lead me, follow me, or get out of my way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Jefferson23 (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu Jun-02-11 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. 64/19. Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine

http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/6F2DF1FFB49D51AD852...
Abolish The Unitary Executive Theory

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php/harveywasserman.com/en.wikipedia.org/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x353875

[Shaktimaan]

85. so then you agree?

That Israel's occupation of Gaza is contingent on the UN ruling one way or the other?
Thus disconnecting the continuation (or ending) of the occupation with any action Israel could unilaterally take?

You realize that this argument says that reality follows bureaucracy. That truth is not objective but contingent on rulings by committee. It is an extremely weak argument.

Since Israel has met the legal obligations defining the ending of an occupation in Gaza, yet is still legally considered an occupier it brings us to the unfortunate but inevitable conclusion that it is not possible for Israel to legally end the occupation. Israel's status is arbitrary without having clear guidelines as to what is and is not an occupation. Which reinforces Bibi's current strategy of not continuing disengagement. If ending the occupation is not technically possible then pursuing it is foolhardy.

[Jefferson23]

87. A weak argument to make is one which you have adopted; to deny the

reality of the occupation which has been an accepted reality for all intensive legal
purposes with the exception of Israel...no shocker there.

UN Security Council, the ICJ, the international community to include the United States.

Let Israel take their case to the ICJ, I so wish they would..and lay it out with the
asinine arguments I have heard on this forum. The airspace and territorial waters
and the movement of the Palestinians all controlled by Israel..to name a few that
the occupation was over in 2005.

[shira]

88. If you read the interview, you'd see just how ridiculous AI's arguments are...

1. They say that Hamas is the de facto government in power, not the sovereign one. There must be a sovereign government ruling Gaza in order for the occupation to end. But Israel can do nothing about that. Every last Jew could get out of Israel, the country could be nuked, and Gaza would still be ruled by a de facto government. Thus, it would still be occupied!

2. They say the blockade is illegal, but also say that Israel's occupation continues. So which is it? If Israel is occupying Gaza, why can't it blockade Gaza legally? As the occupying power, they have every right to enforce a blockade and keep weaponry out of Gaza. AI can't have their cake and eat it too.

3. Same goes WRT keeping law and order in Gaza. The AI representative totally evaded this question. Under International Law, and this isn't even debatable, Israel as the occupying power MUST ensure law and order in Gaza and contain Hamas there. The AI representative wouldn't confirm that because he knew he couldn't reasonably do so.

4. The AI representative also said Gaza must have free access to drinking water. That has zero to do with the occupation.

===========

Bottom line is that the AI guy made a total ass of himself in the interview. He couldn't even answer WRT what Israel could do legally to effectively respond to a gas attack from Syria that wipes out 20,000 Israelis. He's just as disingenuous as the folks here who believe Israel can't have checkpoints. They can't propose effective legal means by which Israel can stop terrorist bombers from crossing freely into Israel. Reminds me of AI not being able to define what a proportionate response to rockets would look like. All they say is that Israel's response is disproportionate and collective punishment, just like the human rights posers here who can't think of anything better than checkpoints to contain mass terror attacks.

If AI is unable to specify what exactly ends the occupation, or what Israel can do legally and effectively to stop mass terror attacks, then these guys are worthless. Israel can basically do nothing that would effectively counter or stop mass terror attacks against its civilians. The "humane" thing to do is to just let their citizens be murdered without any effective means to counter.

Last, why should Israel GTFO of the W.Bank when not even that would end the occupation?

[Jefferson23]

92. You: Last, why should Israel GTFO of the W.Bank when not even that would end the occupation?

I'll leave you to your sources which sustain you so well.

Perhaps the guy who wrote the OP, Beware the Humanitarian Racist,
can come up with another "simple test" to end the occupation that
would satisfy you and the Israeli government.

[shira]

98. In other words, you can't justify your belief that Gaza is occupied...

You won't even attempt to defend the AI representative.

Basically, because they say so, it must be true in your opinion. Case closed. No defense or justification necessary.

[Jefferson23]

101. It is a matter of what is accepted by the UN Security Council

as well as the other entities that have been listed for you..countless times.

You would have to prove them wrong, not me.

[shira]

104. The very fact you can't or won't defend UNSCR logic goes to show...

...their view is most likely wrong. And that's the point Shakti and I are arguing. You're wrong. They're wrong. And neither you or the UNSCR can defend the position that Gaza remains occupied.

[Jefferson23]

105. I hope you feel better now. It is not only the UNSC btw...but you knew that already. n/t

[Shaktimaan]

106. Prove them wrong about what?

They haven't ever ruled that Israel remains the occupier of Gaza in any capacity. If Israel must rely on such a ruling from outside organizations that won't even consider the subject then they never really had the ability to end the occupation. When asked, groups like Amnesty stated a list including things like "ensure that they have fresh water." America hasn't ensured that France gets fresh water. Are we occupying France?

Hey, do you think that the occupation is illegal!!??

[Shaktimaan]

107. Question...

If my driver's license says that I have brown hair but then I dye it blonde, would you continue to believe that my hair is brown because the document says so?

I love this argument. The truth is determined by the document. Not by reality. It's really a perfect ideology for anyone opposed to Israel because it posits that propaganda actually is the truth, even when it's wrong.

[Shaktimaan]

94. so what?

That's a blockade. It's got nothing to do with an occupation.
Face it, you just can't make the case. Relying on an ICJ ruling from BEFORE the occupation ended is perhaps the saddest argument I've ever heard. Is that REALLY your argument? I mean, are you really going to stake your reputation on that position.

Be aware I am going to really make fun of you. Like, a lot.

[Jefferson23]

96. Your opinion versus the UN Security Council and the others listed.

You have a grudge against reality, the ICJ would be different because YOU say so..no one
else. The United States is a part of the international community, occupied Gaza is non-controversial,
and you're making fun me.


Bring it.

[Shaktimaan]

97. who disagrees with me?

Did the UNSC, IJC or anyone else actually rule on the subject?
Remember here, Israel isn't occupying Gaza bc of the blockade according to you but bc no one has said that they aren't occupying. So, Jordan and Egypt are also occupying as well according to your argument.

[Jefferson23]

99. What? You're a waste of time..you have no idea what each position is as

of right now do you? Yet you sit there as if you do...unbelievable.

[Shaktimaan]

100. Let's say I don't...

what's the ICJ's position?

[Shaktimaan]

108. another question.

Back in 2005 when Israel left the Gaza strip and did not have any blockade imposed, did not control any of the borders except the Israeli ones, Europeans still ran the Rafah crossing, trade was occurring between Gaza and Israel, and so on... back then, do you still think that Israel was occupying Gaza?

[King_David]

89. +1

[azurnoir]

15. many it seems want to ignore the full statement from Hamas as it isn't very useful

there are two threads here about this statement from Hamas one that gave the full quote (it was quickly buried) and one that gave the abridged quote repeated and linked to as needed what is about the full statement that makes some want to hide it or at the very least have it forgotten?

first the one that gives the edited version of the Hamas statement from the rightist UNwatch organization

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11342372

and the full quote

Senior Hamas member Mahmoud al-Zahar dismissed a statement made by Hamas Politburo Chief Khaled Mashaal, who claimed recently that the group will hold mass rallies against Israel within the Gaza Strip.

"Popular resistance is inappropriate for the Gaza Strip," al-Zahar said. "Against whom exactly would be rally? Such resistance would be fitting if Gaza was occupied." However, he claimed that all forms of resistance – including the armed kind – are appropriate for the West Bank, as it is "still under occupation."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11342131

are we only to take part of the quote seriously?

[azurnoir]

90. well actually there was another thread were exactly what Zahar said was posted

"Popular resistance is inappropriate for the Gaza Strip," al-Zahar said. "Against whom exactly would be rally? Such resistance would be fitting if Gaza was occupied." However, he claimed that all forms of resistance – including the armed kind – are appropriate for the West Bank, as it is "still under occupation."


http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4170429,00.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11342131 (want to give credit where it's due, the thread was quickly buried for some reason I just can not imagine why though

but if you look at the statement Zahar never actually said Gaza was not occupied he inferred it but he also inferred that armed resistance was not appropriate for Gaza too

[pelsar]

19. the question you'll never answer.....it destroys the occupation argument

if egypt opens its border, expands upon entrance of goods.....opens its port nearby for the gazans import and export......

i would say that pretty much destroys your "israel is hindering the rebuilding of the....economy

and if you disagree, try to give forth a logical explanation of why the goods can't be brought in via the 12 wide egyptian border.....

[Jefferson23]

21. The answer you do not accept.

You prefer your answer in brief... not details. What does ease mean to you,
another lie?

Israel has eased the entry of goods into Gaza, but continued to block exports, hindering the rebuilding of the coastal enclave's devastated economy. Construction materials are still barred because Israel says they can be used by militants and Gaza still had an estimated shortage of some 250 schools and 100,000 homes.

[pelsar]

22. its a very simple question...on the level of grade school

i'm familiar with the quote...but it has nothing to do with the question does it.

here i'll repeat if for you using different words:

what can't be brought in via the egyptian border if egypt decides to open their border....

[Jefferson23]

23. Why the mystery pelsar?

Evidently you hold the key to the end of the occupation that according to
you does not exist in Gaza. Spill it pal..I'm all ears.

You don't like my answers, we've established that at least.

[pelsar]

24. the question has nothing to do with israel....its about egypt and gaza

whats your answer?.....that israel restricts goods?....the question doesn't even mention israel, its all about egypt and gaza border

perhaps you should explain how your "answer" relates to the egyptian and gaza border and their transfer of goods, lets start with that?

(do you realize how silly your replies are?...you avoidance of such a simple question is so obvious- why not be honest and just say your not going to answer my direct question?)

[Jefferson23]

25. If I don't see the same absurd false relevance

you do, I'm silly? Well hell, so be it. So come on, tell me how
it's all about Egypt and Gaza. I guess Israel does not restrict goods
as HRW claims and the relationship between Israel and Egypt will be of continual
good will if they allow shipments Israel doesn't approve of...according to you.

[pelsar]

26. finally your starting to answer.....

takes you along time......

relationship between Israel and Egypt will be of continual good will if they allow shipments Israel doesn't approve of

see that wasn't hard....if i understand you, your claiming that egypt is concerned about their relationship to israel and hence its all about politics.....

but i was referring to any physical obstacles than hinders movement of goods from egypt to gaza, not the political aspect.

_____________

you asked (note how i answer directly, its a good habit), how its all about egypt and gaza? Its not a matter of it being 'all about' its a matter of a realistic solution: If egypt decides to open its border up and allow for the importing of all that is missing in gaza, then there are no more shortages...

a different version of my direct question is, do you disagree with that?

[Jefferson23]

27. You're schooling so many, not just me pelsar..I'm impressed.

First it was the ICJ, then the UN Security Council, the international
community.

I'll be forever grateful but you haven't told me why you believe
Egypt will do this, and what reaction will Israel give them if they
did. Not a minor detail you know.

[pelsar]

28. there certainly needs a lot schooling..

I didn't answer that part yet...i was clarifying your position, that its politics that is the restrictions.

and I shall, but i fully expect you to answer my direct question about if there are any physical obstacles that restrict the importation from egypt for all that is missing from gaza.

this too is part of your schooling, the ability to be honest and direct in your answers....

_____________________
presently via tunnels, the gazans import so much that there is a glut on the market, and the egyptians do little to prevent it, as trucks enter rafah every day from the sinai to the tunnel operators. If egypt was serious about restricting the importing of goods, they would stop the trucks.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/10/14/2454358/in-rafah-tunnels-from-gaza-just.html

Except in the neighborhood of Salah Eddin. There, pickups and tractor-trailers clog the narrow streets, carrying loads of almost anything: cookies, canned food, tanks of cooking gas, cement, construction steel. What comes into the neighborhood, however, leaves it only through a network of secret tunnels that are the major conduit for goods headed into Gaza, where 1.2 million Palestinians live under an Israeli blockade.

Salah Eddin is unquestionably one of the largest clandestine cargo ports in the world, though no one keeps track of what goods pass through it. Their value is no doubt in the tens of millions of dollars, if not more, all of it illegal. Some of it may even be weapons, spirited out of Libya's chaos from Moammar Gadhafi's vast stores.

furthermore hamas now openly sits on the egyptian border observing the IDF movements and preparing their next attack, as per the previous one.

hence its pretty clear that egypt is not so concerned with any israeli reaction, since they have already made changes and there has been none. (that argument has been made over and over again even as egypt open and closed its border...and israel outside of a few words, never did anything-its been shown to be a false argument, just as your trying now....)

your failure would be to explain how exactly would israel show its displeasure? attack egypt?
____

now your turn....those physical obsticals that prevent egypt from opening up the border to gaza?

[Jefferson23]

30. You're honest and I'm not..more revelations for me to accept.

I need to work on my sarcasm.

My failure to explain how exactly Israel would show their displeasure?

You're not joking, unfortunately. I believe the direct evidence that Israel
could allow the goods they deny themselves but does not would address
your answer regarding what their reaction would be if Egypt did.

The physical obstacles are less relevant, as far as I know.

[pelsar]

31. i have no idea what you wrote....

the physical obstacles are not "less relevant"

what are they if any?

just answer the question and then well expand upon the implications.....

[Jefferson23]

32. Re-read what I posted, the physical obstacles are less relevant.

I did answer, I have no control of what you comprehend or not.

[pelsar]

34. i disagree that they are "less relevant"...though i do comprehend....

why you don't want to answer.

here i'll change the question:

Are there any physical barriers that prevent the increased importation of goods from egypt to gaza that cannot be overcome with a better infrastructure.

hows that a question that is more theoretical....i thinks its rather important and relevant, so you can humor me and answer, just as i did yours.

try it

[Jefferson23]

35. Yea, I'll try..again.

They are less relevant in the sense they are not the main obstacle...you
disagree with this?

[pelsar]

36. your still avoiding the core...but i understand why...

i have to go now... i do get an insight as to the intensity of the anti israeli crowd through these little discussions:

i shall explain the obvious:
if egypt decides to increase the traffic of goods to gaza, as they can, they can clearly end any shortage of materials that is claimed to be, hence ending the blockade, this is what you don't want to even write...you've avoided that simply truthful sentence for so many posts.

your claiming its "irrelevant" is because its takes away from israel the responsibility towards gaza and the claim that gaza is still occupied, and open egyptian border destroys that claim.

that is what its all about.....more than anything, taking away gaza from israeli responsibility is to be avoided. Its not a matter of the life improving for the Palestinians, its a matter of needing to blame israel for something or other...

here just for fun, i'll add another question, that you won't answer:
If egypt would open up its border for goods and people would life improve for the gazans?


btw
I noticed that you also couldn't exactly explain what israel would do, if egypt opens up the border and defies israel...

[Jefferson23]

37. Yea, I know it's somehow my obligation to

support your ideas, regardless of how absurd they are.

on edit for clarity.

[pelsar]

40. you have no obligation to me or anybody..its just interesting..

how you simply won't answer such a simple question directly and honestly, you were getting close with your last "side step" that claimed it was not relevant. At least you actually did admit there was a question to be answered. (i call that progress). You mention a 'main obstacle" but neglect to mention what that might be... (that somehow makes the egyptian border irrelevant)

but alas, there wasn't an actual answer, to the question. Its not so much for me, its pretty obvious that if egypt so chooses they can end the blockade anytime they want and hence the "occupation"

the discussion is for those who just read here and are interested in the conflict and have little knowledge. For those who have heard about the occupation and didn't know that gaza and egypt share a border that israel has no control over, well they will look at your answers and wonder, why you don't answer? what exactly are you hiding?

How can there be an israeli occupation if egypt shares a border and opens and closes as per their own interests?

at that point, your credibility pretty much drops.....as do others who share that same argument and also can't/won't answer such a simple series of questions.

Of course the implications of an non occupied gaza are staggering and a real game changer for the whole I/P conflict, and for many that too is to be avoided, there are too many vested interests in keeping it going, be it emotional, national, or economic....

[Jefferson23]

41. If you could filter out your pre-text, I would appreciate it.

If you have a premise YOU believe in, state and support it instead
of attempting to create a puzzle of questions that if answered
according to your logic will be the correct and "honest" answer.

You can keep repeating how you do not receive an answer 'til
the cows come home for all I care pelsar...you receive answers
from me. They're just not the ones you would prefer.



I will repeat one last time, I do not find the physical obstacle,
( your words) to be so relevant as to the greater problem.
As I stated earlier, the relationship between Israel and Egypt
is the greater hardship in your scenario.
The fact that Israel could very well allow these materials, but
they DO NOT, is an indicator imo, this action by Egypt would
have consequences.

[pelsar]

42. you answers are "half answers'..

you refuse to commit to anything definite.....thats is what i have a problem with. and example?

just look at your last sentence
this action by Egypt would have consequences.

really? what kind of consequences?...come on, make a commitment and write out what you believe these consequences would be....(you must have something in your head, since you wrote it....)

or what was your last one?..i'm asking about what are the physical barriers that prevent egypt from delivering and your answer? something about it not being relevant?...hell i didn't ask about theory of relativity i asked if there were any physical barriers in your opinion.

if i attached pictures would that help? an ariel map? what is it that your missing that prevents you from answering such a simple question? if the question is not clear, just tell me and i'll rewrite for you...feel free to ask for clarification if need be

perhaps you want to say, and here i am putting together all of your half sentences together,so feel free to correct:
there are in fact no physical barriers, but there are political ones. If egypt were to open its gates then israel will retaliate against egypt, probably by bombing cairo or poisoning the egyptian water supply...

how about instead of saying how wrong i am, you just correct it?

[Jefferson23]

43. I'm going to try and say this as polite as possible.

This idea/premise is YOURS, not mine. Don't ask me to fill
in your blanks for you..it's a silly game you play.

You constructed it, so defend/support it or not. At this point I
really don't give a damn.

If you don't believe there is a problem that would derive from
your government, considering and I repeat what I said earlier, that
Israel can allow the materials in now if they want to, but they
have not done so. If this is not an issue in your mind, sell it to
Bibi and his Likud buddies..see what response you receive in
return.

[pelsar]

44. no way....its so obvious...but i will state it for all the readers...

your asking me to state how i see the problem, this gives you ability to not have to defend your own position.

thats not how this all started out...it was i who asked you to defend you position and you are trying very very hard to avoid it...

which explains why you refuse to answer any questions....so i shall do a summary:

i asked how can there be an occupation if egypt has an independent border with gaza and can import/export what they want.

your answer was that israel is restricting goods

i kept asking in various ways that if israel is restricting goods, why can't egypt just fill in whatever is missing.

you don't answer...finally after multiple attempts you explain that egypt can't fill in because there will consequences from israel if they do....what are these consequences i ask?

no answer and an attempt to turn the conversation around (as per your last post)
____

your pretty obvious, what is very clear, is that certainly don't like having your position questioned, and you certainly don't have answers to defend your position....perhaps thats why you mainly cut and paste articles and don't write much about your own personal position.

[Jefferson23]

45. You have a solution in your mind that YOU have constructed

yet you wish me to guess the answers to your premise...because only you
possess an honest answer. Own what you suggest pelsar is my advice.

My opinion never changed and is non-controversial..Gaza is occupied.
I gave you responses..you don't like them. You accuse me of not answering
and go on to say I copied and pasted..when I did not you suggested I should
go back to copy and paste reports.

You offer a premise you believe I should see logic in, and you do not
address the fact that Israel as documented by HRW has not allowed
in materials necessary to build the 100, 000 homes and 250 schools,
they COULD do so but have not. Your premise, Israel will be fine with this..why you believe
this I have no fucking clue. Try and keep in mind this is YOUR idea, not
mine. I am not a mind reader, so I don't know what Bibi's response
would be..you seem to believe he'd be supportive. Ask him.

I'm all done here.

[pelsar]

46. I wasn't asking to change your opinion...i was asking you to back it up....

Last edited Tue Jan 24, 2012, 05:53 AM - Edit history (1)

which you seem to have a hard time with. Clearly you do not like having your opinion challenged and are quite arrogant in that as you wrote: is "non-controversial" (nothing in "non-controlversial in the I/P conflict).

Furthermore, you keep trying to change the subject and my questions...i've never talked about israeli policy, i've always been trying to ask about egypt and gaza policies, you apparently don't like that subject matter and keep on trying to change it back to israel....

perhaps thats why i do not like your responses since they are based on avoidance and never complete. You leave things hanging so as, what i believe is, not to commit.

it took quite a few post to get to the point where you apparently believe that egypt's foreign policy with gaza are controlled by Israel as you mentioned that Egypt must follow what israel does, because if not there will be "CONSEQUENCES"....(very scary word)

when asked what exactly are these consequences....you change the subject again (notice the pattern here).

but amongst all of your answers of avoidance, i do believe i have a complete picture, as always feel free to modify it, as to where i'm wrong and fill in the blanks:

Israels occupation, as are all occupations are based on complete control of the occupied people. Though Egypt and Gaza have their own border, open and close as per their own needs, since Egypt is afraid of what israel might do (even in this post mubarak period) - nuke cairo, assassinate its leaders, _________, Egypt in fact follows the israeli lead, what israel does in terms of gaza, egypt does- except for the tunnel smugglers and hamas on the egyptian border.

in essence israel controls egyptian foreign policy inreguards to gaza....that appears to be you belief. Obviously your not going to back it up with anything concrete, but that i don't expect, its nothing more than a belief. This i believe is as far as your own personal opinion will go (the rest you leave up to HRW and friends).

As in all beliefs (birthers...) you will continue with this irreguardless of what hamas claims, what egypt claims.....or even what they do. When egypt does open up the border and lets concrete in, you'll make some silly excuse that "it doesn't really mean anything....until your "high priests" of the HRW changes their mind

i think thats a pretty clear picture...how did i do?

[Shaktimaan]

67. a solution?

Pelsar is just pointing out a flaw in your argument and is asking you to offer a reasonable explanation as to how you account for your position in light of it. You do have an obligation to defend your position if you are offering it up as a legitimate argument.

Aside from your description of Gaza as occupied (which makes no sense to me according to the accepted definition of "occupation&quot your main argument rests on the determination that Israel is entirely in control of the flow of goods into and out of Gaza. If Israel had only shut down a mile of the border, for example, the argument that Israel has blockaded Gaza would be dismissed outright. But then why is it valid if Israel controls 95% of the border? Is a bucket with a dime-sized hole any more watertight than a bucket without a bottom at all? Or is this a distinction without a difference?

You seem to be working on the assumption that Israel IS in fact in control of the Egyptian border, via means of unnamed consequences should Egypt open it up to unmitigated trade. But this belief doesn't seem to be based on any kind of evidence. It is an article of faith, which explains why your responses are of the "I don't have to believe what you believe" variety, and increasingly dodge engaging over the key point... the unaddressed flaw in your argument. That Israel is NOT in control of Gaza's whole border. You are entirely within your rights to believe that the hole in your bucket does nothing to affect its ability to carry water. But unless you patch this hole in your logic you may find your bucket to make less sense to others who do not share your continued faith that no water escapes from the hole.

you do not
address the fact that Israel as documented by HRW has not allowed
in materials necessary to build the 100, 000 homes and 250 schools,
they COULD do so but have not.

They COULD let it all in, true. But that does not prove an ability to keep it all out. I may have the ability to allow my opponents to score on my goal in soccer. But that doesn't imply that I have the ability to stop them from scoring.

Here is the thing. Pelsar does not have to prove that Israel would allow Egypt to enjoy a Gazan border free of restrictions. He does not need to prove that Israel would not respond in some way or that there would not be consequences, as you predict. Your argument is that Israel controls the entire border. The onus is upon YOU to show that Israel actually IS controlling it. At the very least offer some sort of evidence to support your belief. Has Israel made statements threatening Egypt? Has Israel said they won't stand for it? Why do you believe this? More importantly, why should WE believe it? Do you have anything at all you back up this idea, or is it merely an article of faith on your part?

If your argument is that Israel controls the border then it is very damaging to this argument if it is shown that Israel only controls MOST of the border. It is not so absurd that we expect you to address this not insignificant flaw in your argument.

[Shaktimaan]

62. That's an embargo you described.

Not an occupation.

Besides that, Israel doesn't even control all of Gaza's borders. It is incapable of blocking anything by itself, their entire border with Egypt is outside of Israel's control.

By definition an occupier MUST actually occupy the area in question. Meaning there have to be Israelis there, controlling Gaza to meet the standards.

[azurnoir]

73. Israel has total control over Gaza's air space and water access

Israel has also unilaterally declared Gaza's fishing area limits

[Shaktimaan]

74. Right.

But not their overland borders. Regardless it wouldn't be an occupation, it would be a blockade or an embargo. It doesn't come close to meeting the standard for an occupation, Hamas is clearly the government in power there.

[shira]

76. It's simple. Gaza is not occupied. Here's an interview of an Amnesty Int'l representative...

...trying to maintain Gaza is still occupied, but he is unable to state exactly what Israel has to do to end the occupation. Further, he can't even admit that if Israel is occupying Gaza, Israel has the right to maintain law and order in Gaza by taking out Hamas.

http://www.shalomlife.com/news/12815/amnesty-gaza-is-still-under-israeli-occupation/

It's hilarious.

These irrational anti-Israel arguments are complete jokes.

[Sycamores]

7. the part you intentially forgot...no surprise

Rafah crossing does not have the infrastruture for the transportation of trucks supplying goods it's a terminal to facilitate the travel of people across the border. about 1% of supplies is capable of getting through Rafah. the rest goes through israel or not.
it's clear that israel shares most of the blame to say otherwise makes you a liar or stupid.

[holdencaufield]

8. You're completely right...

You could never get trucks through here...


?w=800

[King_David]

10. LOL nt

[azurnoir]

13. Thanks for the picture that shows two rather narrow lanes one going each direction

which according to some is plenty enough for 1.5 million people, well at least if their Palestinians that is. I wonder though if it were I.5 million 'Israeli's' that had one lane in each direction nothing else no air no or water transport would it still be so generous or would we see something else?

[pelsar]

20. you too?

construction 101...you don't know that roads can be widened to fit additional traffic?

[azurnoir]

29. "you don't know that roads can be widened to fit additional traffic?"

sure did you know blockades can be ended?

[pelsar]

33. thats the point....

just widen the road, let the trucks in and blockade ended..unless of course your still selling the idea the israel just might attack egypt for doing so...or that israel will order the US to stop sending money to egypt?

did i forget any of your other claims?

[azurnoir]

38. well didn't Hamas say that resistance coming from Gaza was inappropriate*?

so why is Israel still blockading Gaza?

* it was part of the statement about Gaza not being occupied so are we only to believe part of the statement?

[pelsar]

39. hamas...doesnt really control egyptian or israeli foreign policies...

your confusing blockade and occupation...

i believe you basically were claiming that the road in to gaza was to narrow to bring in enough goods...

perhaps you don't believe it can be widened to bring in additional goods if egypt and gaza so decide?

[azurnoir]

59. well thank you for yet another dissertation on what should be 'enough' for Palestinians

however no matter how much Egypt enlarges Rafah it does alleviate the air and sea blockades that Israel imposes on Gaza does it?

[Shaktimaan]

66. so what?

It doesn't have to, does it? The point is that Israel does not control the flow of goods into or out of Gaza. It controls the flow of some goods in specific directions. Is there some material that can only be delivered by boat for some reason?

You can argue that the blockade is wrong and that Israel should lift it. But to argue that Israel controls the flow of all goods into and out of Gaza is untrue. It can not do so as Israel doesn't control all the borders.

[azurnoir]

70. so it should be enough got it n/t

[Shaktimaan]

71. not really the point, is it?

The point is that you can't accuse Israel of a enforcing a complete blockade, total embargo, occupation, etc, if only part of the border is blocked by Israel.

[azurnoir]

72. perhaps you need to reread

I accused Israel of maintaining a total air and water blockade your claims extend far beyond that

[Shaktimaan]

75. Good for you.

But I'm referring to the OP that we are discussing. And thou were not accusing Israel of maintaining a total air and water blockade, you were implying that Rafah could not make up for the traffic blocked by an air and water blockade, changing the topic. Which is why I made the comment that it was not the point of the thread.

[azurnoir]

91. and we're back to what should be good enough for Palestinians

would such conditions be good enough for Israel? We'll even go one better we'll open one sea port too, if the most likely wordy answer is no why the double standard

[Shaktimaan]

64. are you serious?

or being facetious?

Aside from the fact that they can just widen the road/build a new one, etc., there is a big truck going through in this very photo with tons of room to spare.

[holdencaufield]

65. Irony ....

[Shaktimaan]

68. sorry, it's late.

I was just about to remove my post when I saw your response.

[holdencaufield]

69. Interesting though...

... that some people -- when faced with the obvious -- still think that Egypt doesn't have a border with Gaza and that "the Zionist Entity" controls the everything in the world (including geography).

I guess hatred of Israel gives some people tunnel-vision.

[pelsar]

18. how about dumb, but i mean really really dumb

this is one of those really really really stupid arguments, i mean really dumb.


according to this website: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/HumanitarianAid/Palestinians/New_government_policy_brings_more_goods_to_Gaza_June_2010.htm

no more than 1300 trucks a week, which comes out to 7.7 trucks an hour passing through the border on their way to the interior of gaza. Not possible you say? so you don't believe that the egyptians or gazes are capable of expanding the road and infrastructure for the increased traffic (lack of engineers?), the borders width is about 12km of sand and open desert....
______________

like i wrote, one of the dumbest arguments i've seen in a long time here...

[Shaktimaan]

110. what about the tunnels?

If the Palestinians can move tons and tons of food, supplies and merchandise UNDERNEATH the egyptian border in hidden tunnels they clandestinely dug themselves then I'd be willing to wager that they'd be able to figure out a way of moving things over that same border ABOVE the ground. It's actually easier to build infrastructure like that, and just travel in general, when you just have to go through air instead of dirt, sand and stone. Air has less friction or something like that. I'm no physicist so I wouldn't really know. It does just seem easier though, even when I try it at home, like moving my hand through the air is WAY easier than moving it through my wooden desktop. Try it, I'll bet you have the same result.