It is Ironic that BICOM claim that the blockade is due to “the security threat” posed by Hamas.

Hamas was pretty much elected because of the blockade of Gaza and all Israel did was to tighten the blockade after Hamas was elected. So they took a failed policy that was radicalizing palestinians in Gaza and stepped it up. Good work.

Kevin

can’t it be illegal, collective punishment, and aimed a self-defense all at the same time?

Ditch the charter – though I know you “understand” anti-semitism, Mr White.
Recognise Israel.
Stop the missiles.

“Stop the missiles.”

Stop the illegal occupation of parts of Palestine territory then and the building of illegal settlements for Israeli occupation.

We have this on the Qibya massacre in October 1953 from Avi Shlaim’s book: The Iron Wall (Penguin Books, 2000), p.91:

“. . Unit 101 was commanded by an aggressive and ambitious young major named Ariel Sharon. Sharon’s order was to penetrate Qibya, blow up houses, and inflict heavy casualties on its inhabitants. His success in carrying out this order surpassed all expectations. The full and macabre story of what happened at Qibya was revealed only during the morning after the attack. The village had been reduced to a pile of rubble: forty-five houses had been blown up, and sixty-nine civiliains, two-thirds of them women and children, had been killed. Sharon and his men claimed that they had no idea that anyone was hiding in the houses. The UN observer who inspected the reached a different conclusion: ‘One story was repeated time after time: the bullet splintered door, the body sprawled across the threshold, indicating that the inhabitants had been forced by heavy fire to stay inside until their homes were blown up over them.’”

Avi Shlaim holds joint Israeli-British citizenship and is professor of international relations at St Anthony’s College, Oxford. He sets out his position on Zionism at some length here:
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/archives/Zionism%20AS.pdf

The Qibya massacre wasn’t unusual. Try this on the Deir Yassin massacre in 1948:
http://www.deiryassin.org/mh2001.html

Your assertion that Israel’s blockade of Gaza is illegal rests on the declaration of a bunch of NGOs that it is so. I doubt if you would rely on charity workers for your legal advice if your own interests were at stake.

The question of whether Israel’s blockade of Gaza is or is not lawful under international law is not a straightforward or easy one to answer. Israel claims that its blockade is justified because it is in a state of armed conflict with Gaza.

There is also some irony attached to the fact that those who squawk loudest about a supposedly “illegal blockade” are those keenest on affording the Palestinians a Palestinian state. The moment Gaza becomes part of a Palestinian state, all doubt disappears: any Israeli blockade would be perfectly legal.

sorry forgot to close the bold – moderators please fix if shouting offends…..

@cjcjc

“though I know you “understand” anti-semitism, Mr White.”

That didn’t take long.

@Flowerpower

“Your assertion that Israel’s blockade of Gaza is illegal rests on the declaration of a bunch of NGOs that it is so.”

Well, if you wish to dismiss the views of the International Committee of the Red Cross, Amnesty International, HRW, etc, go ahead.

They’re not alone however.

The blockade has been condemned by the UN’s most senior humanitarian official John Holmes as a form of collective punishment:

http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/Ocha_opt_Gaza_impact_of_two_years_of_blockade_August_2009_english.pdf

…a view echoed by the UN’s commissioner for human rights Navi Pillay:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/06/israel-flotilla-inquiry-un-chief

“. I doubt if you would rely on charity workers for your legal advice if your own interests were at stake.”

Of all the comments you’ve made on here, this is one of the most ignorant and stupid.

Many people frequently rely on charity workers for legal advice, as they are often the only people available to help them. Thats why charities employ armies of solicitors and legal caseworkers. It is actually one of the main functions of the sector. To give just one example, tens of thousands of people each year in UK get free legal advice on housing ssues from organisations like Shelter.

With regards to Israel/Palestine, here even more so the charities involved are likely to have highly paid expert legal advice provided to them on a daily basis. Anti-terrorism legislation means organisations providing any form of assistence to Palestinians could be shut down at an instant if the authorities even suspect them of inadvertantly providing support to someone like HAMAS. In the US they are people serving decades behind bars because they didn’t follow the strict legal procedures there.

So do you honestly think that an NGO involved in breaking a blockade wouldn’t have thought very carefully about the legalities of the blockade and the consequences of breaking it? Do you not think they have law firms on retainer to protect themselves?

I’d be more inclined to believe NGOs working on the issue than someone on the internet who gives no indication of ever having read a non pro-likud viewpoint on the conflict.

I don’t think a strong case can be made forn the illegaility of the bockade because it does, evidently, have a security purpose, even if it has other less legitimate ones too. If the blockade was lifeted there is no doubt that Hamas would take the opportunity to re-arm.

It is a pity that, yet again, a blogger has let Israel-mania distort his view. It is obvious that this is not aa simple either/or situation. But if shouting ‘illegal’ makes you feel better, well I suppose it does not harm. The Israel/palestine struggle will continue on the same tragic course however hysterical the Israel haters get.

“I’d be more inclined to believe NGOs working on the issue than someone on the internet who gives no indication of ever having read a non pro-likud viewpoint on the conflict.”

Me too, when it comes to informaation. It is odd to see the Red Cross taking a political position, though, isn’t it? I thought their policy was not to comment on the politics in a struggle. I guess it is just another example of the derangement that affects people when they discuss the world’s only Jewish majority state. I wonder what can be behind it?

Here is the principal of neutrality uinder whcih the Red Cross operaates:

“In order to continue to enjoy the confidence of all, the Movement may not take sides in hostilities or engage at any time in controversies of a political, racial, religious or ideological nature”

How to square that with this:

“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.”

You may agree with the statement or disagree but you have to say that it represents an engagement with a controversy of a political nature, surely.

What other nation’s human rights violations has the Red Cross publicly condemned? I seem to remeber Burma, but I think that led to a resignation, didn’t it? (Real question, by the way, I don’t know the answer.)

I guess it is just another example of the derangement that affects people when they discuss the world’s only Jewish majority state. I wonder what can be behind it?

Just to clear this up here, John – you are implying that the International Red Cross are a bunch of deranged Jew-haters.

Would you like to stand behind that statement by producing something resembling evidence in support, or are you going to come over all coy again?

“”Just to clear this up here, John – you are implying that the International Red Cross are a bunch of deranged Jew-haters.”

Certainly not. I am a big supporter of the Red Cross. I was wondering what makes it breach its policy of neutrality when it comes to the world’s only Jewish maajority state. What do you think is behind it?

@13

I was wondering what makes it breach its policy of neutrality when it comes to the world’s only Jewish maajority state.

I believe this is what Wikipedia call “weasel words”. The Red Cross exists to provide aid to those in need, and if a State – no matter what religion – is stopping people from getting much-needed supplies it follows that the NGOs must speak up for the hungry and dispossessed. What is wrong with that? Unless you’d rather Israel was treated with kid gloves.

Planeshift @ 8

So do you honestly think that an NGO involved in breaking a blockade wouldn’t have thought very carefully about the legalities of the blockade and the consequences of breaking it? Do you not think they have law firms on retainer to protect themselves?

I expect Israel has access to some smart lawyers too.

In almost every legal issue brought to trial BOTH sides have legal advice. It’s just that legal opinions differ. As I set out, the question of the legality of this blockade is by no means clear-cut. There are good arguments on both sides.

someone on the internet who gives no indication of ever having read a non pro-likud viewpoint on the conflict.

Hope that isn’t aimed at me. I made clear in my post above that I oppose the blockade and have made clear in other comments on Israel that I am very far from being a Likud supporter.

Your tactic of branding anyone who is pro-Israel as being pro-Bibi is as dishonest and lacking in civility as one that says anyone who feels sympathy for the injustice done to Palestinians is pro-Hamas.

“It is odd to see the Red Cross taking a political position, though, isn’t it?….I wonder what can be behind it?.”

John, even a quick look at the website of the international committee of the red cross demonstrates this is total bollocks (And I suspect you know it). You’ll find comments on Kyrgyzstan, uzbekistan, somalia, afghanistan, the phillipines etc alongside comments on Gaza. Even the british red cross websitecontains several press releases about the way the UK deals with Asylum seekers (a hot political issue).

The only person with Israel mania here is you, seeing anti-semitic motives everywhere and cheering verything Israel does like a schoolgirl at a boy band gig.

You may agree with the statement or disagree but you have to say that it represents an engagement with a controversy of a political nature, surely.

No, actually, you don’t. And if you do, you’ve effectively argued that the Red Cross can’t say anything, anywhere, ever, about states policies or international law. By this standard, they wouldn’t be able to condemn Iran’s execution of pro-democracy activists either.

@John Meredith
“I was wondering what makes it breach its policy of neutrality when it comes to the world’s only Jewish maajority state. What do you think is behind it?”

Yes, you see, I’m just asking, I’m genuinely curious. Of course, I’ve already suggested what I think – it’s “the derangement that affects people when they discuss the world’s only Jewish majority state”.

I think it’s because “The whole of Gaza’s civilian population is being punished for acts for which they bear no responsibility” is a statement of fact that is not in dispute in any way. It’s no more a political position than “fire is hot” or “John Meredith likes to accuse people of being extreme racists but consistently shites out of backing up his statements when challenged”.

Even if the Israeli blockade were entirely aimed at intercepting weapons* and the Gazans’ deprivation were merely incidental**, they are still being punished for the crimes of others; punished collectively or, if you will, suffering “collective punishment”. This is by far the most charitable interpretation of the situation possible, mind.

Now, you accused the IRC of derangement and insinuated that it was caused by a common reaction to the world’s only Jewish-majority state. Clearly, you mean that the IRC are influenced by anti-semitism and are thus anti-semites.

Do you have the balls to accuse an international aid agency of hating Jews, or are you going to squirm around with bullshit like Oh well, what do YOU think?

*Which it isn’t. **Which it’s not.

“I believe this is what Wikipedia call “weasel words”. The Red Cross exists to provide aid to those in need, and if a State – no matter what religion – is stopping people from getting much-needed supplies it follows that the NGOs must speak up for the hungry and dispossessed. ”

No, it doesn’t follow. The Red Cross has, for good reasons, a policy of neutrality. It works to aid the injured and ill in conflict and crisis zones. It does not enter into poliical controversies in order not to endanger its humanitarian activities. That is why you have not heard it criticise the Sudanese or Chinese governments despite the much greater human right abuses of those nations (tell me if I am wrong about this, but that used to be how the Red Cross worked). Of course the Red Cross knows that it can condemn the Israelis government without fear of being prevented from working in Gaza, and that may be part of its suddden relaxation of standards, but it is very srange nonetheless.

“John, even a quick look at the website of the international committee of the red cross demonstrates this is total bollocks (And I suspect you know it). You’ll find comments on Kyrgyzstan, uzbekistan, somalia, afghanistan, the phillipines etc alongside comments on Gaza.”

I may be wrong, but I think that these statements are experssions of concern and calls for humanitarian action, not attacks on the governments in question? Attacking Israeli policy is a different sort of thing altogether and against the policy off the Red Cross, and I think you know it.

“I think it’s because “The whole of Gaza’s civilian population is being punished for acts for which they bear no responsibility” is a statement of fact ”

No, it isn’t, is is an interpretation of the factss and of the sort that the Red Cross does not enter into when discussing the Sudan, for one example. You may think the Red Cross is right but it is quuite obvious that there are other views on this.

“By this standard, they wouldn’t be able to condemn Iran’s execution of pro-democracy activists either.”

But they don’t condemn it, do they? You may have more info than me but I thought this was all they had to sdsay on the matter:

“Rival candidates challenged the election result, alleging vote-rigging, sparking
a wave of street demonstrations and violent clashes with security forces that
reportedly resulted in several deaths and hundreds of arrests.”

‘reportedly resulted in several deaths’? Not VERY condemnatory, is it?

In what sense is the blockade of Gaza “collective punishment” or indeed “punishment” of any kind? Israel made clear that it would allow any legitimate goods and humanitarian aid from the flotilla through. Israel also allows aid convoys through its land border. Egypt too opens its crossing point from time to time. The blockade may be wrongheaded, but it ain’t starving anyone to death.

The only part of Israel’s blockade that is of questionable or contested legality is its stopping and searching of ships bound for Gaza. British and/or American warships have stopped and boarded vessels bound for Aden to interdict North Korean missiles. And have done so without being in a condition of “international armed conflict” with Yemen. What’s the big difference?

John, the red cross say this regarding the gaza blockade

“”That is why we are urging Israel to put an end to this closure and call upon all those who have an influence on the situation, including Hamas, to do their utmost to help Gaza’s civilian population. Israel’s right to deal with its legitimate security concerns must be balanced against the Palestinians’ right to live normal, dignified lives.”

Hardly a one sided critique is it. you can read further on….

“Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit is about to enter his fifth year in captivity. Hamas has continued to rebuff the ICRC’s requests to let it visit Gilad Shalit. In violation of international humanitarian law, it has also refused to allow him to get in touch with his family. ”

and this comment praising Israel…

” about 80 types of goods are now allowed into Gaza – twice as many as a year ago”

Indeed the entire tone of the article – which you can read here “http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/palestine-update-140610″ is one that largely expresses concern at the humanitarian situation, and criticises the policy of both sides.

And a quick search of the website reveals they have plenty of material on Sudan or China as well.

John Meredith, you’re predictable beyond belief. Is the ‘anti-semitic’ card the only response you guys ever have?

“John Meredith, you’re predictable beyond belief. Is the ‘anti-semitic’ card the only response you guys ever have?”

‘You guys’? What can you mean?

I made a substantive point about the Red Cross abansoning its neutrilitypolicy and about the peculioarly immoderate nature of this post.

concerning arguments that start from the question: “they don’t say this about other countries, why do they say it about the Jews?”

antisemitism is one answer to that question.

another answer is that people are irrational, inconsistent and drawn to fashionable causes, especially when one protagonist is a US backed regional superpower and the other is poor and weak.

personally I think it’s a much wiser tactic to point out the inconsistency in other people’s positions than to start speculating about the source of it

Planesift, the Red Cross have thiss to say about Gaza (it is quoted in the article above):

“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.”

That is Hamas’s staated position on the blockade. It may be right and it may be wrong (or, most likely, it may be a bit right and a bit wrong), but it is a political stance and breaks the Red Cross policy on not entering into political controversies in war zones. The rules change when it comes to the world’s only Jewish majority state whose defenders, as mentioned in the article above, are never concerned with human suffering but only ever in ‘rebranding’.

“personally I think it’s a much wiser tactic to point out the inconsistency in other people’s positions than to start speculating about the source of it”

I aagree, that is why I avoided speculation about what motivates the curious and glaring inconsistencies that seem to affect so many people’s judgements when it comes oto he world’s only Jewish majority state.

Totally out of context John, as I have already demonstrated by quoting the parts of the article that criticise Hamas, and essentially reflect Israel’s position.

By the way, PLaneshift, in response to your:

“And a quick search of the website reveals they have plenty of material on Sudan or China as well.”

Here is what the Red Cross has to say about the political situation in the Sudan

“On the political front, Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir was indicted on
4 March by the International Criminal Court on charges of war crimes
in Darfur: he was still at large at year-end.”

Oddly, they don’t seem to take a view on the legality of the genocide. But then, that IS their policy.

“hey don’t seem to take a view on the legality of the genocide.”

Probably because Sudan doesn’t have a large PR campaign telling everyone the genocide is legal.

“Totally out of context John, as I have already demonstrated by quoting the parts of the article that criticise Hamas, and essentially reflect Israel’s position.”

You have not shown any part of the article endorsing Israel’s position, merely comments stating facts about aid transfers (which the Red Cross have always done and quite right too). The comment on Hamas is again, just a statement of fact relating to a single specific incident, although it is nonetheless unusual for the Red Cross to quot the law like that. What is unprecedented is for the Red Cross, in a conflict, to adopt the substantive political position of one of the combatants. I am pretty sure that has never happened before.

Sunny

John Meredith’s

‘You guys’? What can you mean? @ 27

is a rare case of a rhetorical question which really does require an answer.

‘You guys’? What can you mean?

I mean you and flowerpower – who turn up on every such thread to troll. Or are you playing it again?

ICRC report on Sudan:

http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/sudan-interview-090807?OpenDocument&style=custo_print

Luis Enrique @28: ‘personally I think it’s a much wiser tactic to point out the inconsistency in other people’s positions than to start speculating about the source of it’

Excellent response.

Thanks for the link to the Darfur report Sunny. here is a representative quote:

“The situation in Darfur is complex and has too often been depicted in simple black and white terms. The dynamics of conflicts are rarely simple, but rather multifaceted. Since 2004, numerous peace processes and political initiatives have been ongoing without any solution thus far. During that time, the armed conflict on the ground has continued …”

So, Darfur complex, mutifaceted. Israel/Palestine … well, not so much. It rather makes my point for me, I think

….It rather makes my point for me, I think

Since your “point” is the utterly insane assertion that the International Red Cross are anti-semites because they failed to use the blockading party’s preferred propaganda terms when describing their 100% deliberate strategy of throttling the Palestinian economy…

…Well, I imagine you could make your point far more eloquently if you just started posting pictures of yourself waving your winky at passers-by.

Sunny @ 36

I mean you and flowerpower – who turn up on every such thread to troll.

Unfair on three counts.

First: though Jewish, I do not obsess about Israel and to the best of my recollection have only posted comments on one or two LibCon threads about Israel Palestine ever.

Second: I do not make a habit of accusing critics of Israel of being anti-semites. Indeed, I am more cautious than you are at hurling the anti-semite accusation around. I did once post a comment defending someone who had been wrongly accused of anti-semitism by one Sunny Hundal. That was here:
http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/01/22/rush-limbaugh-slammed-for-borderline-anti-semitism/#comment-99667

Third: My comment @ 2 above took issue with the original post in a reasoned manner, setting out some of the difficulties in international law on this subject. That is hardly trolling.

“Since your “point” is the utterly insane assertion that the International Red Cross are anti-semites because they failed to use the blockading party’s preferred propaganda terms when describing their 100% deliberate strategy of throttling the Palestinian economy…”

Rodent, we have been here before. I know you would prefer to argue with a point I haven’t made but, really, you are talking to yourself.

My point was that the Red Cross had broken its own policy of neutrality in taking sides on the Palestine/Israel conflict. As Sunny has pointed out, they have been scrupulous in not making political judgements elsewhere, over, say, the Darfur crisis which many commentators consider a cut-and-dried genocide. And I wonder why they make the exception. You are one of the people who loses all sense of proprtion when discussing Israel, so I realise I am not likely to get through, but you could try a bit harder.

flowerpower: First: though Jewish, I do not
that bit is irrelevant, it’s the not-so-subtle hints that any criticism of Israel is anti-semitic that you constantly hurl that I’m referring to.
Lastly, it didn’t surprise me you defended Rush Limbaugh. He’s a right-winger like you.

“it’s the not-so-subtle hints that any criticism of Israel is anti-semitic that you constantly hurl that I’m referring to.”

I can’t see any such hints unless Flowerpower has form elsewhere. That looks like a smokescreen to me. Personally I think criticism of Israel is not only acceptable but necessary, especially its many crimes and abuses of human rights. But some people seem to want to a wee bit furtther than that, don’t they? And quite a few of them hang around here.

John Meredith: I can’t see any such hints unless Flowerpower has form elsewhere

This is a comment by you:
when it comes to the world’s only Jewish maajority state. What do you think is behind it?

I wonder what you meant to imply.

Sunny

it’s the not-so-subtle hints that any criticism of Israel is anti-semitic that you constantly hurl ….

If I am constantly doing this, you should find it easy to come up with half a dozen examples, then. The only thing I can find in your archive that even remotely comes close was this (edited for brevity) exchange with Claude:

Flowerpower: I wonder if you would call Aaronovitch a ‘zealot’ if he wasn’t a Jew? I know you don’t mean it literally, only metaphorically. But would you dream of calling Mehdi Hasan a ‘whirling dervish’ in any context? Doubt it.

Flowerpower: Did you know Moses was a Jew? Pull the other one.

- which was about the use of loaded, ad hominem language and nothing to do with branding any criticism of Israel as anti-semitic.

@John: I know you would prefer to argue with a point I haven’t made…

John Meredith, at comment 10, on why the Red Cross would use the words ‘collective punishment’: “I guess it is just another example of the derangement that affects people when they discuss the world’s only Jewish majority state. I wonder what can be behind it?”

To be clear, this is you, John Meridith, arguing that the Red Cross treat Israel differently to everyone else, because most Israelis are Jewish. We saw in previous threads that you’re happy to drop heavy implications of racism, then squeal and run away when caught. You’re doing the same thing here with the same degree of honesty.

Further, there is no controversy about what is happening in Gaza – it is absolutely clear that the Israelis are deliberately and harshly restricting the movement of goods and people. Whatever the circumstances surrounding this policy*, there is no question at all that this is an intentional act of collective punishment that badly affects over 1.5 million people, as the IRC says. When the IRC call it collective punishment, that is not a political opinion – it is a statement of verifiable and confirmed fact.

Of course, the Israeli government, plus sympathetic groups and individuals, say that they are not pursuing a policy of collective punishment. They say this because their policies are abhorrent and present a serious PR problem, hence they invent nicer-sounding descriptors or, bluntly, tell lies about the what they are doing.

The IRC is required to be neutral in its pronouncements, but it is under no obligation whatsoever to ensure that its statements don’t conflict with state propaganda. Thus, the IRC doesn’t worry about whether it is adequately reflecting Hamas’s claims of genocide or baby-eating, or whatever bullshit they’re talking today; nor does it give credence to Israel’s preferred, antiseptic nomenclature.

Brass tacks – The IRC’s statements on Gaza are 100% factual. The assertion that they are merely opinion is entirely political and the idea that the IRC operates a racist double standard is hilarious, made-up bullshit.

Further, it’s precisely because of this kind of hilarious, made up bullshit about humanitarian NGO’s that a majority of Jewish Israelis now support free speech crackdowns on aid agencies like the IRC… http://tinyurl.com/2u8se5p …Which is why I find stances like yours repellent – because you are needlessly helping liars to distort public perceptions, to the huge detriment of people and organisations who have done nothing at all to deserve it.

I hope that clears things up.

*Although we should be clear that the policy is intended to immiserate the Gazans without actually killing them all, and that those who pretend that it isn’t are either credulous or deceitful.

“To be clear, this is you, John Meridith, arguing that the Red Cross treat Israel differently to everyone else, because most Israelis are Jewish.”

No, it isn’t. I know that is what you would like it to be, but it isn’t. I wondered allowed why the Red Cross broke its own policy of neutrality with regards to Israel. It is, to my mind, another example of the derangement that Israel seems to cause among otherwise reasonable people. I wionder why it should be aand I think it is an interesting question.

“Further, there is no controversy about what is happening in Gaza – it is absolutely clear that the Israelis are deliberately and harshly restricting the movement of goods and people.”

There just is. The Israeli state for one is categorical that its intentions are purely defensive and many other organisations (as mentioned in the article above) also take that line. You or I may disagree but the Red Cross policy is to remain neutral, just as it remains neutral on the situation in Darfur which to me looks very transparent. Why people like you seem to think that this international conflict, uniquely in history it seems, lacks any moral or political complexity is something worth pondering. What is it about Israel that is different?

“Brass tacks – The IRC’s statements on Gaza are 100% factual.”

No they are not. They are interpretative and the interpretation they have adopted is the stated position of one of the sides in the conflict. You agree with their interpretation but that is not the point. It is aan interpretation, a political stance. The only facts are that there is aa blockade and many people in Gaza, including non-combatants, are suffering its consequences. that is the kind of neutral statement that the Red Cross has issued over Darfur and Iran. Why it has changed policy over Israel iis difficult to say. The Gaza situation is hardly worse that the situation in Tibet or Kashmir, say.

“Of course, the Israeli government, plus sympathetic groups and individuals, say that they are not pursuing a policy of collective punishment. They say this because their policies are abhorrent and present a serious PR problem, hence they invent nicer-sounding descriptors or, bluntly, tell lies about the what they are doing. ”

Maybe, or maybe they say it because it is true, or they believe it, or some cobination thereof. It is complicated. The Red Cross policy is not to take a position but simply to relieve the suffering.

“Further, it’s precisely because of this kind of hilarious, made up bullshit about humanitarian NGO’s that a majority of Jewish Israelis now support free speech crackdowns on aid agencies like the IRC”

The number of people who feel they have a secret rout into the innermost thoughts of Israeli Jews is amazing., Personally I don’t know why they think what they think.

Yes, yes, boo-yah, why is every one so mean about the Israelis etc. forever & ever. Facts don’t change to fit Israel’s propaganda, no more than they do to fit the Palestinians’ or the Brits’, for that matter. It is what it is, yo, and what it is is an intentional programme of deprivation aimed at a large civilian population of non-combatant men, women and children.

Personally I don’t know why they think what they think.

I put it to you that huge numbers of people don’t suddenly, with no prompting, decide that humanitarian aid agencies are pro-terrorist, unpatriotic movements determined to undermine all that is right and just. It takes a massive state, media and voluntary propaganda campaign aimed at making people believe these things. The Israeli media is filled with this kind of foolishness.

On the other hand, only the tiniest minorities in other western democracies believe anything so bluntly ridiculous, because they haven’t been subjected to the same propaganda campaigns.

This strongly indicates that public opinion can be swayed by lying bullshit of the Why are the Red Cross making factual statements? They must be anti-semites, although when pressed I will deny that I meant “anti-semites” and will pretend I meant “odd” instead genus that you are pushing here.

“It is what it is, yo, and what it is is an intentional programme of deprivation aimed at a large civilian population of non-combatant men, women and children.”

Yes, I know you think so and many others do too, but some peple don’t. That is why the Red Cross has a policy of staying neutral on political matters. It just occupies itself with the facts. You and I both know that the Iranian government is murdering political dissidents, but you won’t hear the Red Cross mention it because that would be taking sides which they don’t do except when it comes to Israel. So what is different about Israel?.

“I put it to you that huge numbers of people don’t suddenly, with no prompting, decide that humanitarian aid agencies are pro-terrorist, unpatriotic movements determined to undermine all that is right and just.”

I don’t see any evidence of huge numbers of people suddenly doing anything.

“On the other hand, only the tiniest minorities in other western democracies believe anything so bluntly ridiculous, because they haven’t been subjected to the same propaganda campaigns. ”

Or maybe they haven’t been unfairly villified for years? That would be the view of many Israelis and it might be right. If the Internationa Red Cross had issued statements supporting the IRA’s position on Northern Ireland in the 70′s you might have seeen something like it in the UK. Who can tell? The Red Cross were neutral on the British occupation of NI so we won’t ever know.

…some peple don’t.

I think we’ve already covered “some peple” here. I repeat, there is no onus on aid agencies to tailor their pronouncements to chime with state propaganda campaigns, nor should there be. That would defeat the purpose, I think.

You and I both know that the Iranian government is murdering political dissidents, but you won’t hear the Red Cross mention it because that would be taking sides which they don’t do except when it comes to Israel.

This is because reporting on political murders and repression is the realm of Amnesty and Human Rights Watch – the Red Cross alleviates humanitarian crises caused by natural disasters and wars with blankets, food and medical supplies. Confusing the two forms of NGO is a basic category error.

The Red Cross are for real identifying the nakedly obvious cause of deprivation in Gaza – should they lie and pretend that the huge restrictions on aid have nothing to do with it, because addressing the actual cause is somehow “bias”? I’ve never used the phrase “political correctness gone mad” in seriousness, but if I ever did, it’d be in situations like this – instructions to skirt around an obvious reality for fear of offending political group (x).

To be blunt, when that earthquake devastated Haiti, the Red Cross weren’t siding with plate tectonics when they identified aftershocks as an imminent threat. Anyone who pretended they were would be justifiably mocked.

I don’t see any evidence of huge numbers of people suddenly doing anything.

I’ve linked you a survey upthread that shows that more than half of Israel’s population believe that aid agencies need to be cracked down on, largely because they believe free speech is undermining the state. Feel free to dispute “suddenly” or the methodology, if you like, but you’re looking at cold, hard paranoia and authoritarianism there.

Or maybe they haven’t been unfairly villified for years?

They certainly have been, from a variety of angles. That doesn’t mean that crackdowns on NGOs are acceptable – they’re still self-serving, dishonest and scandalous.

After the raid on the Turkish ship Reuters published a factcheck on the legality of the Gaza Blockade. Reuters isn’t infallible, but I’ve always found their reporting to be unbiased.

CAN ISRAEL IMPOSE A NAVAL BLOCKADE ON GAZA?

“On the basis that Hamas is the ruling entity of Gaza and Israel is in the midst of an armed struggle against that ruling entity, the blockade is legal,” said Philip Roche, partner in the shipping disputes and risk management team with law firm Norton Rose.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65133D20100602

Flowerpot
Hope that isn’t aimed at me. I made clear in my post above that I oppose the blockade and have made clear in other comments on Israel that I am very far from being a Likud supporter.

I expect you are a conservative Thatcherite who is very similar in outlook to Likud.
I would imagine like the most of the right in Isreal and England you had sympathy for the apartheid regime and the Boer siege mentality. Hence the support of that regime by Israel and the right in this country.
Also I cannot understand the reasons why you troll on left wing sites. Surely you should be enjoying your days in the sun.

This thread isn’t very productive is it? Oh well.

The Palestine that optimists (of which I am one) expect to construct comprises two regions: Gaza and the West Bank. One region has economic growth, year on year, albeit from a low base, and the other is stagnant. Guess which one is getting richer.

I don’t get on with the idea of acts being legal or illegal according to the whims of the UN or those who interpret UN statements. Just as it is practised in international tribunals, I judge acts by morality.

Thus Israel’s inspection of goods entering Gaza is moral, given that Israel feels threatened by the regional government. I have never seen evidence of starvation in Gaza, so I presume that everyone is fed. Many people remain homeless because building supplies are controlled; or more correctly, because Israel has been useless in creating a supply mechanism that serves civilian needs whilst denying Hamas war materials. That is a logistics problem, not a legal or moral one. A problem that the UN, EU and USA should have sorted out years ago when Hamas was elected.

UK intervention in Sierra Leone: “illegal” (using mercenaries) but moral.
NATO/UK intervention in the Balkans: moral, belated, questionable at times.

I am for the Israel’s blockade if it’s reciprocal. Palestinians should have the right to search Israel for illegal nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

#10.

“I guess it is just another example of the derangement that affects people when they discuss the world’s only Jewish majority state. I wonder what can be behind it?”

#13.

”Just to clear this up here, John – you are implying that the International Red Cross are a bunch of deranged Jew-haters.”

“Certainly not. I am a big supporter of the Red Cross. I was wondering what makes it breach its policy of neutrality when it comes to the world’s only Jewish majority state. What do you think is behind it?”

#30.

“…that is why I avoided speculation about what motivates the curious and glaring inconsistencies that seem to affect so many people’s judgements when it comes oto he world’s only Jewish majority state.”

Jesus, you really are a gutless slandering bastard, Meredith. Any “substantive” point you might wish to make on the subject of this article can only be overshadowed by this disgusting trait.

Flying Rodent @ 40, 47, 49 etc.

Perhaps you would be a bit more sympathetic to John Meredith’s concerns if you bore in mind the historical context of the relations between the ICRC and Israel.

Israel’s equivalent of the Red Cross, the Magen David Adom (MDA) was denied membership of the international Red Cross/Red Crescent movement until 2006.

The ‘official reason’ was that the movement didn’t want a proliferation of symbols and offered to admit Israel only if it agreed to drop its red Star (or Shield) of David in favour of a cross or crescent. They must have known this was something Israeli public opinion wouldn’t accept.

In 2000, the head of the American Red Cross accused the international movement of discrimination (or ‘antisemitism’, if you prefer) and the US announced its intention of withholding the huge subs it paid the international organization (a large part of its revenue) unless it admitted Israel, Red Star of David and all. This was subsequently agreed.

It all left a bitter taste. Whether it was actual antisemitism on the part of the international Red Cross movement, or merely a craven surrender to the political machinations of the Islamic Red Crescent part of their membership is a distinction without much of a difference as far as many Israelis are concerned. Though formally resolved now, the ICRC is seen as an organization with some significant anti-Israel form.

In that context, John Meredith’s tentative suggestions/suspicions don’t seem so unreasonable, do they?

Israel’s equivalent of the Red Cross, the Magen David Adom (MDA) was denied membership of the international Red Cross/Red Crescent movement until 2006.

The fiends! Well, I take it all back – the Red Cross are obviously filled with hate and should be abolished in favour of an org that will shut the fuck up about deliberately-engineered impoverishment and deprivation, since that, clearly, is the goal here.

Honestly, this bullshit is so transparent it’s barely visible. I’m agnostic on whether the blockade is legal or not – no relevant expertise, you see – but I don’t think you have to be Sherlock Holmes to work out why, every time similar questions arise, a shower of bullshitters descend on every available forum to rebut it… By accusing humanitarian NGOs of racism!

Q: Israel’s blockade – legal or not? A: The International Red Cross hates the Jews. It shows exactly how insane public discourse on I/P is, I think.

Flying Rodent @ 58

an org that will shut the **** up about deliberately-engineered impoverishment and deprivation

Well it would be nice to believe that the Red Cross’s motive for barring Israel’s MDA from the worldwide brotherhood of charitable folk was its righteous indignation against the occupation of the West Bank in 1967, or even the plight of Palestinian refugees in 1948. Trouble is – the discrimination against the MDA stretches rather further back – right back indeed to 17 years before the founding of the State of Israel, a time when the MDA’s ambulance drivers could not be (mis)represented as wicked occupiers or land thieves and when the only thing known about them was that they were….er…..Jewish.

Satire is dead.

“but I don’t think you have to be Sherlock Holmes to work out why, every time similar questions arise, a shower of bullshitters descend on every available forum to rebut it… By accusing humanitarian NGOs of racism!”

Still chuntering on this thread? Nobody but you has suggested that any NGO is racist Rodent. We have just pointed out that the statement by the Red Cross breaks its stated policy of neutrality. The fact that you strongly endorse the statement is neither here nor there. The Red Cross has a policy against making statements of this sort but they have chosen to break it when it comes to Israel. It is fair to wonder why. Obviously one reason is that they are confident that they can criticise Israel without being punished for it, but is that sufficient explanation? Perhaps they think that Israel’s infractions are just worse than those of other states, Sri Lanka, say, or India, or Turkey, or Pakistan, or China, or Iran, or who knows where else?

“Jesus, you really are a gutless slandering bastard, Meredith. ”

Another reasonable voice joins the fray. Why do people get so very upset when one uses the formulation ‘world’s only Jewish majority state’? It is merely an unarguably factual and accurate description of Israel but it brings flecks of spittle to the lips of people like our Col. Richard Hindrance above. I wonder what other descriptions of nations get him so worked up?

Nobody but you has suggested that any NGO is racist Rodent.

Actually, you have. Repeatedly. And when we point to examples you just try and shift gears. The only argument you and flowerpower have is in fact that you think everyone else is being anti-semitic. It’s getting boring and you’re now trolling. Don’t bother posting anything more.

“Actually, you have. Repeatedly. And when we point to examples you just try and shift gears. The only argument you and flowerpower have is in fact that you think everyone else is being anti-semitic.”

No I haven’t. I don’t think the Red Cross is racist and I haven’t suggested they are. I have persistently raised a substantive point about the Red Cross breaking its neutrality policy when it comes to Israel and asked why. I don’t see why racism sould not be an aspect of discussion since many of Israel’s opponents are motivated, explicitly by anti-Jewish racism and racist motives are not usually deemed out of court when talking about international affairs (only when the discussion is of Israel, interestingly), but I have suggested a number of other motivations . As in most things it is likely to be a combination of factors. But it is decidedy odd that the Red Cross has abandoned in this case, uniquely (as far as I can tell) its famous neutrality policy, a policy that it has maintained against enormous pressure many times in the past.

I have persistently raised a substantive point about the Red Cross breaking its neutrality policy when it comes to Israel and asked why.

You haven’t shown any proper evidence it has other than throw unfounded accusations (we’ve all pointed to reports on Sudan) and then you keep going on about how it’s a Jewish state and therefore there must be a reason why it is being picked on. I mean you couldn’t be any clearer about your motives if you were blowing a vuvuzela.

Sunny

I have already given you one reason why many Israelis and Diaspora Jews view the ICRC with suspicion – their ban on Israeli membership until 2006.

But there are many more. The ICRC has a notoriously antisemitic past. In 1944 it collaborated with the Nazis in an “inspection” of the concentration camp at Theresienstadt, producing a document that effectively gave a clean bill of health to the Nazi concentration camp system. Survivors of those camps and their descendants understandably don’t immediately associate ICRC with humanitarianism and impartiality.

The staff of ICRC in the 30s and 40s were very often rabid antisemites. According to US government (OSS) documents declassified in the 1990s, all ICRC senior staff were assumed by the Americans to be Nazi-sympathizers until proven otherwise.

Okay – all that’s a long time in the past. However, the previous head of the ICRC to the present incumbent, became infamous in Israel for comparing the Star of David to the Swastika – after which the Israeli government refused to have any further dealings with him and vetoed his place on a UN panel.

I am prepared to accept that under its new leadership the ICRC has apologized for its Nazi past and has finally admitted Israel to its ranks and so is no longer antisemitic. But I can well understand why some people continue to regard it with suspicion.

And I don’t think it is right of you to accuse people of trolling when they allude to these facts. I know Israel can appear high-handed in its treatment of a number of international organizations – but it often has its reasons. Fair minded people should want to understand those reasons and the historical context that sheds light on them.

Jesus, you really are a disingenuous gutless slandering bastard, Meredith.

Don’t go pretending it’s your use of the phrase “world’s only Jewish majority state” that’s the problem here. ‘Cos I’m not. And nobody else is either.

Flowerpot
Didn’t a few nationalist right wing jews ask for German help in the 40′s. One was shot by the British.
Didn’t bebi host a celebration of St Davids bomb terrorist outrage in 2007 which killed soldiers and family of soldiers who had just defeated Hitler.
Didn’t your Republican party argue against entering the war, with many like Ford having Nazi sympathies.
Churchill expressed admiartion for the Nazis in the early 30′s and so did the conservative vatican
So bringing war time errors can come back to bite you

Sunny 65

>You haven’t shown any proper evidence it has other than throw unfounded accusations (we’ve all pointed to reports on Sudan)

True Sunny, but what you’ve posted has not shown the ICRC making a statement on the same lines as the Gaza statement.

Eg regarding ‘international law’ – the relevant bits from the ICRC statement on Sudan I copy below – it clearly points the finger at neither side.
Compare and contrast with their Gaza statement.

ICRC statement on Sudan, the only references to ‘law’:
==========================================
“As long as the armed conflict continues in Darfur, the rules of international humanitarian law apply and must be respected by all.

“The lack of respect for basic rules of international humanitarian law is an issue of deep concern. I am not talking here of complicated articles of law but basic humanitarian principles that are understood and respected by all cultures such as ‘civilians must not be targeted’. International humanitarian law prohibits attacking, destroying, looting, removing or rendering useless objects indispensable for the survival of the civilian population such as water points, food stock and crops.

Nick Cohen is a Tory @ 68

Churchill expressed admiartion for the Nazis in the early 30’s
Is that really true? Can you stand it up? Do you have a source?

You’re wrong about the Vatican…. and I can’t stand Bibi or the US Republicans (except Reagan) so no bite marks here.

But, regarding your main point: for Israel (indeed, for Jews worldwide) the Holocaust is more than what you call a ‘wartime error’. It has a significant impact on the way people think and act today. I find it odd you guys don’t get this…. it ain’t all that surprising, all things considered!

“But, regarding your main point: for Israel (indeed, for Jews worldwide) the Holocaust is more than what you call a ‘wartime error’. It has a significant impact on the way people think and act today. I find it odd you guys don’t get this…. it ain’t all that surprising, all things considered”

The holocaust was a dreadful part of history, unfortunately it wasn’t the first and won’t be the last genocide. Also it didn’t stop the Mossad working closely with the CIA who many ex Nazis working for them. To use it as an excuse for current behaviour sullies the memories of the individuals who died.

You’re wrong about the Vatican…. and I can’t stand Bibi or the US Republicans (except Reagan) so no bite marks here.

You defended many of the republican policies flowerman and Bibi’s administration.

As for the vatican and churchill

Churchill edited the Government’s newspaper, the British Gazette, and, during the dispute, he argued that “either the country will break the General Strike, or the General Strike will break the country” and claimed that the fascism of Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler had “rendered a service to the whole world,” showing, as it had, “a way to combat subversive forces. At one point, Churchill went as far as to call Mussolini the “Roman genius… the greatest lawgiver among men” and in a 1935 essay, entitled “Hitler and his Choice” as republished in Churchill’s 1937 book Great Contemporaries, Churchill expressed a hope that Hitler, if he so chose, and despite his rise to power through dictatorial action, hatred, and cruelty, he might yet “go down in history as the man who restored honour and peace of mind to the great Germanic nation and brought it back serene, helpful and strong, to the forefront of the European family circle”
In 1935-37, if I remember the Nazis were pretty anti semitic and had concentration camps.
As for the Vatican
In 1999, British journalist and author John Cornwell published Hitler’s Pope, a book that examines the actions of Pope Pius XII during the Nazi era and explores the charge that he assisted in the legitimization of Hitler’s Nazi regime in Germany through the signing of the Reichskonkordat. The book is critical of Pius’ conduct during the Second World War, criticizing him for not doing enough, or speaking out enough, against the Holocaust. Cornwell argued that Pius’s entire career as the nuncio to Germany, cardinal secretary of state, and pope was characterized by a desire to increase and centralize the power of the Papacy, and that he subordinated opposition to the Nazis to that goal. He further argued that Pius was anti-Semitic and that this stance prevented him from caring about the European Jews. What I will say there is counter argument that the vatican did save a substantial mount of Jews from the camps, especially in Lithuania.
Although after the war the Vatican was certainly involved in helping Nazi war criminals escape criminal procedures

Dearie me Nick Cohen IAT

If you’re going to cut and paste gobbets out of Wikipedia do have the courtesy to acknowledge it!
Though to be fair you did insert “Adolf Hitler” all by yourself in para 6.

I am surprised about Churchill.

Cornwell’s book has been superseded. A number of Jewish scholars have since been allowed to examine the Vatican archives and found that Pius’s reputation has been unfairly traduced. He also saved the Jews of Rome.

Here’s Rabbi David Dalin on the subject:

Despite allegations and misrepresentations to the contrary, it can now be documented conclusively that Pope Pius XII was responsible for saving hundreds of thousands of Jews during the Holocaust. Although the villainous “silence” of the Pope has been repeatedly alleged since the early 1960′s, there is much historical evidence to confirm that he was not silent, that before and after he became Pope he spoke out against Hitler and that he was almost universally recognized, especially by the Nazis themselves, as an unrelenting opponent of the Nazi regime.

Is it true or not true. cjcjc.

Nick Cohen is a Tory @ 74

No, it isn’t true and cjcjc has just caught you out in an act of shameless forgery!

I thought it a bit odd that Hitler would have already popped up on Churchill’s political radar (forgive the anachronism) as early as 1926. Sure enough, you have inserted the words “Adolf Hitler” into the text yourself to give a false and misleading impression that Churchill had praised him.

Who gives a fuck what you think and where I got the information. Are the FACTS true or false.
Answer me that.

Did Churchill write those things in 1936 . True or false.

No, Churchill didn’t write what you said he wrote in 1926. You made it up. The views attributed to him by you in 1935 and 1937 are also false. You have selected a passage out of context (which, in any case, merely expresses the hope that Hitler will reform his dark character) and used it to buttress another distortion. Just like your monniker (everyone knows that Nick Cohen has voted Labour all his adult life, including this time) what you write simply isn’t true.

“everyone knows that Nick Cohen has voted Labour all his adult life, including this time.”
Well he has told the world that fact whether is it true is between him and his conscience. I have met many who would differ with that view
His articles could have been written by a conservative, in fact an extreme neo Thatcherite conservative.
But I suppose you have to take a man by his word, however devious the individual comes across in print and screen.
NCISAT
PS With the Churchill comment, the remark was probably made because of his fear of soviet russia. Churchill certainly later became more anti Nazi than most.

NC is a T

The period 1935-7 was when Churchill was leading the re-armament faction in his party against the appeasers. He was the most outspokenly anti-Hitler and ant-Nazi on the Tory benches.

An occupying power has no right to self-defense