Charge the Real War Criminals

[Kat]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/charge_the_real_war_criminals.html

The organizers of the Gaza-bound flotilla that Israel intercepted last Monday morning accused Israel of "war crimes," blaming it for the deaths that occurred aboard one of the six ships. Yet Israel acted within international law. It may enforce international sanctions when Hamas continues to import weapons for use against civilians. It may board ships in international waters if they refuse to stop. Its soldiers may fire if met with deadly force.

There were war crimes committed last Monday, however: They were committed by those who organized and sponsored the flotilla itself. International law forbids using civilians to achieve a military purpose. It prohibits using civilians as human shields. It outlaws launching an attack when it is clear that doing so will cause civilian casualties. And it denies protected status to civilians who choose to become combatants.

The flotilla advertised itself as a humanitarian mission, but it is clear that at least some passengers set out to "break the blockade" as their primary goal. That is a military aim, not a civilian one. Indeed, when Israel made clear it would allow the flotilla to deliver humanitarian cargo at the nearby Israeli port of Ashdod, the organizers refused. They continued onward, with hundreds of civilians aboard, to provoke a military confrontation.

It is likely, given that five of the six ships yielded to Israeli forces, that at least some of the civilians did not intend to start a fight. They may have believed their mission was truly a humanitarian one, with a strong political message. The organizers used these civilians as human shields, whose presence would either deter Israel or embarrass it. And they knowingly placed these civilians at risk when they attacked the boarding party.

Some of the civilians knew very well their purpose was a military one. That is certainly true of the passengers who brought weapons on board and attacked the Israeli soldiers. It is also true of those who joined the flotilla to break the blockade rather than to deliver aid. Those passengers -- some of whom have ties to terrorist groups -- became illegal combatants who broke international law by disguising themselves among civilians.

International treaties like the Fourth Geneva Convention were crafted to prevent exactly the kind of clash the leaders of the Gaza flotilla sought. Though the terror groups who sponsored the flotilla, and the activists who joined it, are not parties to these treaties, they are bound by their provisions as customary international law. And Turkey, which supported the flotilla, bears indirect responsibility for war crimes the flotilla committed.

The question is why no one -- not the U.S., not even Israel -- has accused the organizers and patrons of the flotilla of war crimes. Perhaps there is little chance such charges would be taken up by the U.N. Security Council, which rushed into action against Israel, though it still has not condemned North Korea for killing 46 South Korean sailors in an unprovoked attack at sea last month. Yet the case is very strong, and it ought to be made.

Israel seems to have prepared a legal defense, but not a legal attack. One of the first videos available on the Israel Defense Force's YouTube channel after the event, for example, was a justification of the use of force to stop ships from reaching Hamas-controlled Gaza. That is where the debate remains -- whether Israel was right or wrong. The Obama administration, regrettably, supports international calls for an investigation.

Instead, the U.S. and Israel ought to go on the legal offensive. We should accuse the Gaza flotilla and its sponsors -- certainly Hamas, and perhaps Turkey -- of war crimes. We should lay out the case, clearly and concisely, that the Gaza flotilla used civilians for a military purpose, and that at least some passengers forfeited their protected status as non-combatants. We should demand that the world's leaders condemn these violations.

Addressing the war crimes committed by the Gaza flotilla and its supporters would put them on the defensive and shift the debate. It would also restore the critical distinction between soldier and civilian that world leaders have labored for more than a century to enforce, and which terrorists are determined to destroy. For the good of the U.S., Israel, and the entire free world, we must point accusations of war crimes where they belong.

* * *

Joel B. Pollak is graduate of Harvard Law School and the Republican nominee for U.S. Congress in the 9th district of Illinois.

[Rich Engle]

Nice to see you doing more posting of timely articles, Kat!

I mean, we ALL know that in the Maestro's Mind<tm>, there Can Only Be One. And don't take me wrong--he is very selective about his postings; and when he does, they are always worth reading.

But I think all of us happy spouses have an acute understanding of who really wears the pants... Generally speaking, I think you ladies just let us think we do. I posted this elsewhere, but I thought you might want to print it out and put it on your fridge. I will start running, now.

Do more!

Regards,

rde

Edited June 7, 2010 by Rich Engle

[algernonsidney]

Hello, Israel, this is John Galt speaking. Back in 1776, a really great man named Thomas Jefferson penned a document we now call the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson wrote of inalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. He later stated in his inaugural address that he believed in "friendly relations with all... entangling alliances with none." The nation based on Mister Jefferson's ideas might not have gained independence without the aid of France. But eventually the nation prospered and was able to defend itself from all enemies foreign and domestic.

We call that nation the United States of America. The nation prospered and flourished and continued to do so into the 20th century. In 1947, you were born. Other nations immediately tried to kill you in your maternal crib. Perhaps out of the American sympathy for underdogs, many Americans sympathized with your cause. The American government began giving you money, billions and billions of dollars.

It's time for us to withdraw, Israel. If you can not stand on your own feet now, you never will. We do not need you. We never did need you. We never will need you. Our survival and prosperity does not depend on you. We flourished without you, and we can still flourish with you. You have nothing to offer us. You are sixty years old. It's time to grow up and support yourself. You can move out of mom and dad's house and live on your own.

Good-bye and good luck, Israel.

[Brant Gaede]

Well, I guess Israel could sell its technological expertise, including nuclear, to Brazil, Argentina, China, Russia, and even forge alliances with some Arab countries and tell one and all who pay for it what intelligence it has about the United States. Grown up Israel? R U Nutz? How ya gonna feel when it drops a few on Iran? Shame on Israel? You betcha. I suppose. Why would Israel care about what you care? If we don't have a common moral sense you'd make sense but there is a common moral sense between the U.S. and Israel. It may not smell like roses but if we improve our moral sense Israel'd follow for we speak a common language, the language of life.

--Brant

[algernonsidney]

Well, I guess Israel could sell its technological expertise, including nuclear, to Brazil, Argentina, China, Russia, and even forge alliances with some Arab countries and tell one and all who pay for it what intelligence it has about the United States. Grown up Israel? R U Nutz? How ya gonna feel when it drops a few on Iran? Shame on Israel? You betcha. I suppose. Why would Israel care about what you care? If we don't have a common moral sense you'd make sense but there is a common moral sense between the U.S. and Israel. It may not smell like roses but if we improve our moral sense Israel'd follow for we speak a common language, the language of life.

And you are free to do whatever you want. You can prostitute yourself to any soldiers. You can go work on a kibbutz. You can send them all your money. If you need Israel, then lay down your life for Israel.

[Brant Gaede]

Did I touch a nerve? You presume to indicate a proper foreign policy for the U.S. regarding Israel. That didn't work so you suggest I might be a whore to Israeli soldiers? Gee, why did such a thought never ever occur to me? This is the first time I, a non-Jew, have ever been a victim of anti-Semitism.

--Brant

Edited June 8, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[sbeaulieu]

Kat,

Found this on Fox News...

Reuters Admits Cropping Photos of Ship Clash, Denies Political Motive

Interesting development. Everyone is quick to jump to conclusions. I say wait it out and let the truth speak for itself...for the good or bad of those we support.

~ Shane

[anonrobt]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/charge_the_real_war_criminals.html

The organizers of the Gaza-bound flotilla that Israel intercepted last Monday morning accused Israel of "war crimes," blaming it for the deaths that occurred aboard one of the six ships. Yet Israel acted within international law. It may enforce international sanctions when Hamas continues to import weapons for use against civilians. It may board ships in international waters if they refuse to stop. Its soldiers may fire if met with deadly force.

There were war crimes committed last Monday, however: They were committed by those who organized and sponsored the flotilla itself. International law forbids using civilians to achieve a military purpose. It prohibits using civilians as human shields. It outlaws launching an attack when it is clear that doing so will cause civilian casualties. And it denies protected status to civilians who choose to become combatants.

The flotilla advertised itself as a humanitarian mission, but it is clear that at least some passengers set out to "break the blockade" as their primary goal. That is a military aim, not a civilian one. Indeed, when Israel made clear it would allow the flotilla to deliver humanitarian cargo at the nearby Israeli port of Ashdod, the organizers refused. They continued onward, with hundreds of civilians aboard, to provoke a military confrontation.

It is likely, given that five of the six ships yielded to Israeli forces, that at least some of the civilians did not intend to start a fight. They may have believed their mission was truly a humanitarian one, with a strong political message. The organizers used these civilians as human shields, whose presence would either deter Israel or embarrass it. And they knowingly placed these civilians at risk when they attacked the boarding party.

Some of the civilians knew very well their purpose was a military one. That is certainly true of the passengers who brought weapons on board and attacked the Israeli soldiers. It is also true of those who joined the flotilla to break the blockade rather than to deliver aid. Those passengers -- some of whom have ties to terrorist groups -- became illegal combatants who broke international law by disguising themselves among civilians.

International treaties like the Fourth Geneva Convention were crafted to prevent exactly the kind of clash the leaders of the Gaza flotilla sought. Though the terror groups who sponsored the flotilla, and the activists who joined it, are not parties to these treaties, they are bound by their provisions as customary international law. And Turkey, which supported the flotilla, bears indirect responsibility for war crimes the flotilla committed.

The question is why no one -- not the U.S., not even Israel -- has accused the organizers and patrons of the flotilla of war crimes. Perhaps there is little chance such charges would be taken up by the U.N. Security Council, which rushed into action against Israel, though it still has not condemned North Korea for killing 46 South Korean sailors in an unprovoked attack at sea last month. Yet the case is very strong, and it ought to be made.

Israel seems to have prepared a legal defense, but not a legal attack. One of the first videos available on the Israel Defense Force's YouTube channel after the event, for example, was a justification of the use of force to stop ships from reaching Hamas-controlled Gaza. That is where the debate remains -- whether Israel was right or wrong. The Obama administration, regrettably, supports international calls for an investigation.

Instead, the U.S. and Israel ought to go on the legal offensive. We should accuse the Gaza flotilla and its sponsors -- certainly Hamas, and perhaps Turkey -- of war crimes. We should lay out the case, clearly and concisely, that the Gaza flotilla used civilians for a military purpose, and that at least some passengers forfeited their protected status as non-combatants. We should demand that the world's leaders condemn these violations.

Addressing the war crimes committed by the Gaza flotilla and its supporters would put them on the defensive and shift the debate. It would also restore the critical distinction between soldier and civilian that world leaders have labored for more than a century to enforce, and which terrorists are determined to destroy. For the good of the U.S., Israel, and the entire free world, we must point accusations of war crimes where they belong.

* * *

Joel B. Pollak is graduate of Harvard Law School and the Republican nominee for U.S. Congress in the 9th district of Illinois.

Well said...

[Libertarian Muslim]

A blockade in itself is to prevent arms from going through to the country, not to prevent humanitarian goods going through. Israel changed the blockade to include almost everything including concrete, which is desperately needed to rebuild Gaza. Israel is obligated to provide a list of all goods banned and to allow those which are not banned from going in. The fact is that Israel is breaking international law by committing its actions.

From the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994 :

http://www.icrc.org/...60?OpenDocument

Blockade

93. A blockade shall be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral States.

94. The declaration shall specify the commencement, duration, location, and extent of the blockade and the period within which vessels of neutral States may leave the blockaded coastline.

95. A blockade must be effective. The question whether a blockade is effective is a question of fact.

96. The force maintaining the blockade may be stationed at a distance determined by military requirements.

97. A blockade may be enforced and maintained by a combination of legitimate methods and means of warfare provided this combination does not result in acts inconsistent with the rules set out in this document.

98. Merchant vessels believed on reasonable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be captured. Merchant vessels which, after prior warning, clearly resist capture may be attacked.

99. A blockade must not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral States.

100. A blockade must be applied impartially to the vessels of all States.

101. The cessation, temporary lifting, re-establishment, extension or other alteration of a blockade must be declared and notified as in paragraphs 93 and 94.

102. The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if:

(a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or

(b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade.

103. If the civilian population of the blockaded territory is inadequately provided with food and other objects essential for its survival, the blockading party must provide for free passage of such foodstuffs and other essential supplies, subject to:

(a) the right to prescribe the technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted; and

(b) the condition that the distribution of such supplies shall be made under the local supervision of a Protecting Power or a humanitarian organization which offers guarantees of impartiality, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross.

104. The blockading belligerent shall allow the passage of medical supplies for the civilian population or for the wounded and sick members of armed forces, subject to the right to prescribe technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted.

Zones

105. A belligerent cannot be absolved of its duties under international humanitarian law by establishing zones which might adversely affect the legitimate uses of defined areas of the sea.

106. Should a belligerent, as an exceptional measure, establish such a zone:

(a) the same body of law applies both inside and outside the zone;

(b) the extent, location and duration of the zone and the measures imposed shall not exceed what is strictly required by military necessity and the principles of proportionality;

© due regard shall be given to the rights of neutral States to legitimate uses of the seas;

(d) necessary safe passage through the zone for neutral vessels and aircraft shall be provided:

(i) where the geographical extent of the zone significantly impedes free and safe access to the ports and coasts of a neutral State;

(ii) in other cases where normal navigation routes are affected, except where military requirements do not permit; and

(e) the commencement, duration, location and extent of the zone, as well as the restrictions imposed, shall be publicly declared and appropriately notified.

107. Compliance with the measures taken by one belligerent in the zone shall not be construed as an act harmful to the opposing belligerent.

108. Nothing in this Section should be deemed to derogate from the customary belligerent right to control neutral vessels and aircraft in the immediate vicinity of naval operations.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adonis,

I fixed the automatic smileys in your post. (Just disable them and the weird character for "b" with parentheses will not appear again.) I can't do anything about the "c" with parentheses turning into a copyright symbol, though. I suppose there is some really obscure technical change I can make in the coding that would change it, but I don't have that knowledge yet.

As to blockade, as I understand it, the flotilla was denying Israel "the right to prescribe the technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted."

Also, I read reports that Hamas is not allowing humanitarian goods delivered by Israel into Gaza. That's a sort of blockade, too, isn't it?

This is a very ugly situation and my heart goes out to the innocent on both sides. As to the guilty on both sides (and there is certainly no lack of either), may they receive their just rewards.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

This is a very ugly situation and my heart goes out to the innocent on both sides. As to the guilty on both sides (and there is certainly no lack of either), may they receive their just rewards.

Michael

Sounds like war. Since Adonis mixes his politics with God he's an irrationalist. A lot of Jews have the same problem: "This land is mine, God gave this land to me." There's a reason the novel and movie Exodus isn't celebrated so much any longer, it makes nonsense out of Israel at the root. The Holocaust is not the root, just an excuse. The root is Zionism coupled with typical British political perfidiousness. The Zionists effectively declared war on Germany in WWI in exchange for Pieces of Eight, helping not a little to unleash the evil of the Holocaust. Talk about unintended consequences! I admit, mass industrialized murder wasn't rationally predictable and no Zionist is morally at fault for that. There was a practical reason for Zionism because of the way Jews were treated in Europe. (I cannot say the same about what the allies did to defeated Germany.)

"On both sides" of what? In these situations you can always find terrible people. In Vietnam I knew Americans who really did love to kill people. Most Americans didn't. Many American law enforcement enforcers are stupid, bad and even evil. If not, almost all if not all are charged with doing evil. They're out there right now with their God-damn drug sniffing dogs.

--Brant

Edited June 9, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[BaalChatzaf]

This is a very ugly situation and my heart goes out to the innocent on both sides. As to the guilty on both sides (and there is certainly no lack of either), may they receive their just rewards.

Michael

They won't (most likely). Generally, the wicked die in their own beds. The reason why the Hereafter was invented was to make sure the Wicked are punished. But that is bullshit.

Letting your heart go is silly. You need it inside yourself for yourself. I gave up shedding tears for the innocent decades ago as a moisture conserving measure.

Bad stuff will happen regardless of how we feel. If there is one lesson history teaches us it is that: Shit happens and more frequently than you or I would like.

If you hold your breath until Goodness, Mercy and Justice triumph you are likely to turn blue and die. The best one can do is settle for small victories.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If you hold your breath until Goodness, Mercy and Justice triumph you are likely to turn blue and die.

Bob,

Actually I am not holding my breath. I am running a small discussion forum with a space where intelligent people can discuss this issue from all sides.

I believe that is the only way this thing will ever resolve.

It's not a big effort, but as the little birdie who dropped water on the forest fire said, "I am doing my share."

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

If you hold your breath until Goodness, Mercy and Justice triumph you are likely to turn blue and die.

Bob,

Actually I am not holding my breath. I am running a small discussion forum with a space where intelligent people can discuss this issue from all sides.

I believe that is the only way this thing will ever resolve.

It's not a big effort, but as the little birdie who dropped water on the forest fire said, "I am doing my share."

Michael

That is what he said. But he did not extinguish the fire.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

That is what he said. But he did not extinguish the fire.

Bob,

Sure he did.

He just didn't do all of it.

He had help.

His efforts even inspired other little birdies...

Michael

[Libertarian Muslim]

Adonis,

I fixed the automatic smileys in your post. (Just disable them and the weird character for "b" with parentheses will not appear again.) I can't do anything about the "c" with parentheses turning into a copyright symbol, though. I suppose there is some really obscure technical change I can make in the coding that would change it, but I don't have that knowledge yet.

As to blockade, as I understand it, the flotilla was denying Israel "the right to prescribe the technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted."

Also, I read reports that Hamas is not allowing humanitarian goods delivered by Israel into Gaza. That's a sort of blockade, too, isn't it?

This is a very ugly situation and my heart goes out to the innocent on both sides. As to the guilty on both sides (and there is certainly no lack of either), may they receive their just rewards.

Michael

Thank you Michael, although I did kind of like those smileys but they do nothing for formatting lol.

The Flotilla didn't deny Israel those rights at all, in fact in every instance in the past where people tried to give the Israelis that chance the Israelis took over the boat and took it in to Ashdod.

Israel had no intention of inspecting the goods and instead was threatening the ship with force for trying to deliver the goods, not asking to inspect.

Israel is obligated by international law to provide a list of goods that are to be forbidden to bring in to ensure that none do but thus far has not done so and instead blocks almost everything from being brought in. The blockade is illegal because it is used to starve and force the population out rather than to prevent war. If anything it only empowers Hamas more.

[Brant Gaede]

Michael

The blockade is illegal because it is used to starve and force the population out rather than to prevent war. If anything it only empowers Hamas more.

Since the blockade isn't starving the Palestinians or forcing them out--it's legal? I'm glad you're against Hamas. I don't think Israel is. Hamas is the prison guard; Israel is the warden. When things get a little dicey Israel supplements the guard function with forceful incursions. Then there is the playing off of Hamas with Fatah, which keeps both in line to the minimally desired extent. Gaza was too expensive for Israel, so it found something cheaper. It maintained its interests in the West Bank and Jerusalem. Everybody has betrayed and used the Palestinians. Everybody. Israel has simply been short-term practical instead of making the better difference of much greater economic freedom and embracing the Palestinians when it had the chance decades ago. The greater economic freedom would have contradicted its own socialist conceits. Socialism is force interjected by government into human economic relationships which logically corrupts simple human relationships too. It is rights' violating! So Israel took the easy way and let Arafat get off the floor and take over. I suspect the Palestinians in Gaza didn't vote for Hamas so much as voted against the PLO. That's the choice Israel left the Palestinians. Etc.

--Brant

[Libertarian Muslim]

The blockade is causing starvation and malnutrition in Gaza and is an attack on the civilian population, not the military of Gaza. It is illegal.

[Alfonso Jones]

There were war crimes committed last Monday, however: They were committed by those who organized and sponsored the flotilla itself.

Good post, Kat.

Bill P

[Brant Gaede]

The blockade is causing starvation and malnutrition in Gaza and is an attack on the civilian population, not the military of Gaza. It is illegal.

Why does Gaza have a military? Is it okay to attack it?

You keep repeating this "starvation" thingy and now add in "malnutrition." The liberal Western anti-Israeli media would be all over this if true. I only read about it on OL: from you and who else? Chris? Martin? I don't remember.

--Brant

[Libertarian Muslim]

Why does Gaza have a military? Is it okay to attack it?

You keep repeating this "starvation" thingy and now add in "malnutrition." The liberal Western anti-Israeli media would be all over this if true. I only read about it on OL: from you and who else? Chris? Martin? I don't remember.

--Brant

What do you mean why does Gaza have a military? What nation does not?

Brant as you're obviously far too lazy to go and research things yourself when they don't conform to your preconceived ideas please find look at the following articles regarding the health issues in Gaza caused by the blockade.

Chronic malnutrition in Gaza blamed on Israel

Donald Macintyre reveals the contents of an explosive report by the Red Cross on a humanitarian tragedy

Saturday, 15 November 2008S

AFP/GETTY/MAHMUD HAMS

The Red Cross says the diets of those living in the impoverished Gaza Strip are deteriorating

The Israeli blockade of Gaza has led to a steady rise in chronic malnutrition among the 1.5 million people living in the strip, according to a leaked report from the Red Cross.

It chronicles the "devastating" effect of the siege that Israel imposed after Hamas seized control in June 2007 and notes that the dramatic fall in living standards has triggered a shift in diet that will damage the long-term health of those living in Gaza and has led to alarming deficiencies in iron, vitamin A and vitamin D.

The 46-page report from the International Committee of the Red Cross – seen by The Independent – is the most authoritative yet on the impact that Israel's closure of crossings to commercial goods has had on Gazan families and their diets.

The report says the heavy restrictions on all major sectors of Gaza's economy, compounded by a cost of living increase of at least 40 per cent, is causing "progressive deterioration in food security for up to 70 per cent of Gaza's population". That in turn is forcing people to cut household expenditures down to "survival levels".

"Chronic malnutrition is on a steadily rising trend and micronutrient deficiencies are of great concern," it said.

Since last year, the report found, there had been a switch to "low cost/high energy" cereals, sugar and oil, away from higher-cost animal products and fresh fruit and vegetables. Such a shift "increases exposure to micronutrient deficiencies which in turn will affect their health and wellbeing in the long term."

Israel has often said that it will not allow a humanitarian crisis to develop in Gaza and the report says that the groups surveyed had "accessed their annual nutritional energy needs". But it warned governments, including Israel's, that "food insecurity and undernutrition, including micronutrient deficiencies" were occurring in the absence of "overt food shortages".

A 2001 Food and Agriculture Organisation definition classifies "food security" as when "all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life."

The Red Cross report says that "the embargo has had a devastating effect for a large proportion of households who have had to make major changes on the composition of their food basket." Households were now obtaining 80 per cent of their calories from cereals, sugar and oil. "The actual food basket is considered to be insufficient from a nutritional perspective." The report paints a bleak picture of an increasingly impoverished and indebted lower-income population. People are selling assets, slashing the quality and quantity of meals, cutting back on clothing and children's education, scavenging for discarded materials – and even grass for animal fodder – that they can sell and are depending on dwindling loans and handouts from slightly better-off relatives.

In the urban sector, in which about 106,000 employees lost their jobs after the June 2007 shutdown, about 40 per cent are now classified as "very poor", earning less than 500 shekels (£87) a month to provide for an average household of seven to nine people.

The report quotes a former owner of a small, home-based sewing factory, who said he had laid off his 10 workers in July 2007. "Since then I earn no more than 300 shekels per month by sewing from time to time neighbours' and relatives' clothes. I sold my wife's jewellery and my brother is transferring 250 shekels every month ... I do not really know what to say to my children." Others said they were not able to give their children pocket money.

In agriculture, on which 27 percent of Gaza's population depends, exports are at a halt and, like fisheries, the sector has seen a 50 per cent fall in incomes since the siege began. Among the two-fifths classified as "very poor", average per capita spending is down to 50p a day. In the fisheries sector, which has been hit by fuel shortages and narrow, Israeli-imposed fishing limits, "People's coping mechanisms are very limited and those households that still have jewellery and even non-essential appliances sell them".

The report says that if the Israeli-imposed embargo is maintained, "economic disintegration will continue and wider segments of the Gaza population will become food insecure".

Arguing that the removal of restrictions on trade "can reverse the trend of impoverishment", the Red Cross warns that "the prolongation of the restrictions risks permanently damaging households' capacity to recover and undermines their ability to attain food security in the long term."

The detailed Gaza fieldwork for the report was carried out between May and July. An International Monetary Fund report confirmed in late September that the Gaza economy "continued to weaken".

Mark Regev, the spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, said that, contrary to hopes when Israel pulled out of Gaza, the Gazan people were being "held hostage" to Hamas's "extremist and nihilist" ideology which was causing undoubted suffering. If Hamas focused resources on the "diet of the people" instead of on "Qassam rockets and violent jihadism" then "this sort of problem would not exist", he said.

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/chronic-malnutrition-in-gaza-blamed-on-israel-1019521.html

Malnutrition in Gaza "as bad as Zimbabwe" says Clare Short

Source: Christian Aid

Date: 30 Jan 2003

The Secretary of State for International Development, Clare Short, spoke at the launch of Christian Aid's hard-hitting report on Palestinian poverty in the House of Lords on 29 January 2003.

The disturbing report, Losing ground: Israel, poverty and the Palestinians, examines in detail how Israel's occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip has been the primary cause of the destruction of the Palestinian economy. It calls for full Israeli withdrawal from the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and for international monitors to oversee the process.

International Development Secretary Ms Short told a packed meeting in the House of Lords that if there was no speedy action the possibility of a viable Palestinian state would be 'eroded'.

'Most people in the world have agreed that the answer is two states side by side, two states that both people can feel safe in and gain security.

'There would need to be lots of international intervention to make people feel safe. But if we don't move quickly, the possibility of a Palestinian state is being eroded by growing settlements and then we have no solution.

'President Bush has said he believes in two states, Colin Powell has said he believes in two states, Prime Minister Sharon has said he believes in two states. If we don't make progress on that, two states will be eroded and then we don't have any political solution around which to mobilise. Then the danger of the crisis becomes enormous.'

William Bell, co-author of the report and Christian Aid's Policy Officer for Palestinians and Israel said: 'The Palestinians are currently living in a state of extreme, worsening poverty and fear for their future. Almost three quarters of Palestinians now live on less than US$2 a day - below the United Nations poverty line.'

The report details how, in the ten years of the Oslo peace process, living standards have worsened for almost all Palestinians living in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Last year, due to Israeli closures of these regions, Palestinian earnings from agriculture fell by 70 per cent, as farmers were unable to market their produce, for instance.

Doctors report clear growth in important indicators of poverty - including child malnutrition, anaemia in pregnant women and a sharp increase in numbers of underweight babies. Stress-related conditions such as heart disease and hypertension have also increased. Since the beginning of the second intifada, in September 2000, new cases at mental health clinics have grown by 100 per cent - alarmingly, most of these cases are children.

Ms Short said that according to UNICEF figures, children in the Gaza were now as malnourished as children in the Congo and Zimbabwe.

Christian Aid recognises that the Palestinian Authority has failed to tackle poverty among Palestinians. The report calls on the international community to support reforms of the Palestinian Authority in order to serve the interests of the Palestinian people.

Christian Aid unreservedly condemns suicide bombings and all other attacks on civilians, Israeli or Palestinian. Israel's right to recognition and to safety for all its citizens, as well as its right to economic development, is not in question. Christian Aid believes that the Palestinian people should also be afforded that right.

Source: http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/AllDocsByUNID/eca4e66bb5afc53685256cbe006ddb17

Inside Gaza: Malnutrition and shortages

By Paul Wood

BBC News, Gaza

People are not starving in Gaza but there is what the aid agencies call "food insecurity". To see what this means we visited the family of Fauzi Abu Gerada in Gaza City.

It is dusk, a crescent moon was just visible overhead, and Fauzi has lit a fire. This is for cooking, heat, and light, as the electricity is still off in Gaza City.

Fauzi is 40 years old and has been unemployed since the intifada that started in 2000 prevented him from crossing into Israel to work as a labourer.

His wife and six children all live with him in a single-roomed house, scraping by on food aid from the United Nations and others.

"I have no income to feed my children. Sometimes I cannot even give them bread," he told me. "We beg some food from here, and some food from there. Our life is begging."

Looking despairingly at the breeze block and wood shack which was their home, he adds: "Eight people all live in this one room here. The water comes in in the winter but I don't even have money for a plastic sheet to put on the roof.

"We are suffering. It's like living underground. Once I thought I'd burn the house down with everybody in it just to escape this misery."

“ People were hungry, literally. There was a shortage of everything here, including food, and we actually ran out for a couple of days ”

John Ging

Head of Gaza operation, UNRWA

The family's diet is heavy in bread, rice and vegetable oil. Earlier this month, a leaked report from the International Committee of the Red Cross found that this kind of diet - carbohydrate-rich, but lacking in vitamins - was causing malnutrition among Gaza's children.

On Thursday, Israel lifted its closure of the border crossings into Gaza to allow in much needed international humanitarian aid, mainly food.

Journalists were also allowed in for the first time in weeks. We walked the quarter mile of no-man's-land between the Israeli and Palestinian checkpoints, past the ruins of buildings hit by Israeli airstrikes.

Our arrival was filmed by Gaza TV. Such is the feeling of isolation here that journalists coming in from the outside world is seen as an event in itself.

As we waited for our car to arrive, a bullet whined overhead. "Israeli," one of the Palestinian porters said, unconcerned at what was, apparently a regular event.

Empty warehouses

Over the past month, the border crossings have been open for just five days. That is why the UN's food warehouses here are empty.

The food which came in on Thursday went straight to distribution centres. There is no slack in the system.

John Ging, head of the UN's Gaza relief operations, met me in one of his empty warehouses.

He reminded me that more than a million people in Gaza depended on UN for their next meal.

"Daily life is a struggle to survive. People were hungry, literally. There was a shortage of everything here, including food, and we actually ran out for a couple of days," he said, looking back over the past month.

He went on: "The fact that it continues to get worse and worse adds to the despair… so we're searching desperately for reasons to have realistic hope."

Mr Ging called on both sides - Israel and the Palestinians - to take action that would build confidence.

Rocket fire from Gaza into Israel had to stop, he said. And Israel had to stop punishing the whole of Gaza for such incidents: "Otherwise you give the agenda to people who are firing rockets."

Crumbling ceasefire

Tension has risen in Gaza over the past month as the ceasefire with Israel has been progressively breaking down. There seems little optimism, on either side, that the already shaky truce can be sustained when it comes up for renewal in two weeks' time.

Mahmoud Zahar, perhaps the most influential member of the Hamas leadership in Gaza, told me that peace was in Israel's hands.

"It depends on the Israeli side," he said. "If they are going to commit to what we already agreed upon - stoppage of all aggression against the Palestinian people, opening the gates for free communication on a commercial level. The people will discuss this thoroughly."

He added: "We have to defend ourselves against the Israeli aggression by all means, as we are accustomed to do."

The Palestinian armed groups are meeting now to discuss their next move against what they see as continuing Israeli aggression.

Israel, too, is considering whether it will have to take what it would consider pre-emptive action against a gathering threat.

If the ceasefire is not revived, if there is closure once again, Fauzi's family and thousands of others like it can expect much more misery.

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/7766509.stm

Published: 2008/12/05 08:16:51 GMT

© BBC MMX

[Brant Gaede]

It's not that I am lazy, Adonis, it's that I have so little time. Thanks for the articles, I'll read them more closely tomrrow afternoon. I never thought Gaza was some kind of paradise. I wrote here that I considered it to be a de facto concentration camp and that Hamas and Israel were jailer and warden.

--Brant

[anthony]

It's not that I am lazy, Adonis, it's that I have so little time. Thanks for the articles, I'll read them more closely tomrrow afternoon. I never thought Gaza was some kind of paradise. I wrote here that I considered it to be a de facto concentration camp and that Hamas and Israel were jailer and warden.

--Brant

As jailer and jailed, no?

At least, that's the common perception, except one doesn't know, half the time, which is which.

Obviously Israel has all the power.

But then again, at least psychologically, Israelis feel imprisoned by this seemingly endless problem.

On top of that, their own (the majority) moral sense of justice, fairness, and compassion is just as much as a restraint.

Israel is trapped within their sense of responsibility.

Not so, with Hamas, who continue the contradiction of one day being the vulnerable victim begging humanitarian assistance; the next, making belligerent words and acts.

Actually, who really is the jailer? Who holds the key?

Tony

[dan2100]

It's not that I am lazy, Adonis, it's that I have so little time. Thanks for the articles, I'll read them more closely tomrrow afternoon. I never thought Gaza was some kind of paradise. I wrote here that I considered it to be a de facto concentration camp and that Hamas and Israel were jailer and warden.

--Brant

As jailer and jailed, no?

At least, that's the common perception, except one doesn't know, half the time, which is which.

Obviously Israel has all the power.

But then again, at least psychologically, Israelis feel imprisoned by this seemingly endless problem.

On top of that, their own (the majority) moral sense of justice, fairness, and compassion is just as much as a restraint.

Israel is trapped within their sense of responsibility.

Not so, with Hamas, who continue the contradiction of one day being the vulnerable victim begging humanitarian assistance; the next, making belligerent words and acts.

Actually, who really is the jailer? Who holds the key?

Tony

Cui bono? Who benefits from this seige mentality continuing both in Gaza and in Israel? It seems the militant elites in both camps do -- at the expense of everyone else.

[algernonsidney]

As to blockade, as I understand it, the flotilla was denying Israel "the right to prescribe the technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted."

Also, I read reports that Hamas is not allowing humanitarian goods delivered by Israel into Gaza. That's a sort of blockade, too, isn't it?

This is a very ugly situation and my heart goes out to the innocent on both sides. As to the guilty on both sides (and there is certainly no lack of either), may they receive their just rewards.

A blockade, by definition, is interference by a third party in the trade of two parties who wish to trade. If I want to sell a penicillin to someone in Gaza, what gives anyone else the right to stop it?

This is an area with a population density of over 10,000 per square mile. That's higher than Singapore or Hong Kong. The Gazans have to import food. They have to trade goods and services with other people.

If people can't get what they need to survive, what can you expect them to do? They are naturally going to try to kill the people who are keeping them from their food.