LET GAZA LIVE! - a global outcry

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

A bit impossible for me to do "more" research, since I already know everything they say on the subject.

oralloy wrote:

Israel is not targeting civilians with white phosphorus. (Nor are they targeting civilians with any other weapon for that matter.)

White phosphorus is a perfectly legitimate weapon. There is certainly nothing wrong with Israel using it.

White phosphorus can be legitimately used to create a smoke screen.

The usage as a chemical weapon (where chemical weapon is defined as a weapon "dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare") is prohibited by the Chemical Weapons Convention.

The usage as an incendiary weapon in civilian areas is banned by Article 1 of Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.

So you can easily argue that there is a lot wrong with using white phosphorus as a chemical or incendiary weapon, particularly in civilian areas - even when not specifically targetting civilians. On the other hand, you can certainly argue that Israel has refused to sign and ratify Article 1 of Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and that it has only signed, but never ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Well, there was the false allegation that Israel was violating the law by using white phosphorus.

There was the false allegation that Israel is targeting civilians.

There was the false allegation that Israel was using experimental weapons (which was expressed in a tone that would lead someone to think that this was a horrific crime if they didn't stop to think about it).

Look, I'm getting tired of this, orralloy. There is little point in going over the same ground, over & over & over ...

What you call "falsehoods" above is being reported in the media as having happened. And not in the crank media, respected media sources. Perhaps this is another one of your famous examples of "anti-Semetism"?
... Or "lies", or however else you choose to refute what is being reported. I'm sorry, but I don't see you as any great authority here .. which is why I said you were ignorant & bigotted ... because (sigh) all you were offering in response to the media material was that the information is false! (Because you said so!)

Sorry, orralloy, I have no desire to discuss you any further. Howver, I should I wish to respond to anything at all here about the Gaza situation, I would appreciate it if you refrained from labelling me "anti-Semetic". I suggested yesterday that you are perfectly free to find any anti-Semetic statements made by me, on any thread at all here. You are still most welcome to. Just don't confuse anti-Semetism with disagreeing with your preferred version of events. It gets very tiresome.

OK, orralloy. I have more interesting things to do now. I am not discussing you any further.

1 Reply

I remember reading a book about the Holocaust written by a Catholic priest. I forgot the author's name. Regardless, he pointed out his belief, that in history, Jews are oftentimes the bellwether for the rest of decent humanity. For example, the Nazis were not content to exterminate Jews; they continued by waging war on many other countries.

My point is, if the day comes, when some terrorist group can get rockets that reach Europe, I would guess the reaction might be greater than white phosphorus. So, in my humble opinion I have to question whether there is a portion of the world-wide concern for Gazans, based on who is inflicting the casualties - Jews that historically went like sheep to the gas chambers. Perhaps, there is too much cognitive dissonance to accept the reality that Israel has a modern army, and fights like a modern army.

And for those that understand that Israel has a modern army, and protects its citizens like any modern army would, I applaud their ability to see that Israel has no choice when dealing with the same group of people that were dancing after 9/11. People who literally dance on the graves of Americans, I for one, have little pity for. Sorry if that offends the caring people out there. Hamas did not even have the sense, in my opinion, to stop firing rockets after Israel today declared a unilateral seize fire.

1 Reply

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

oralloy wrote:
A bit impossible for me to do "more" research, since I already know everything they say on the subject.

Feel free to try to show something I don't know about their reporting.

old europe wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Israel is not targeting civilians with white phosphorus. (Nor are they targeting civilians with any other weapon for that matter.)

White phosphorus is a perfectly legitimate weapon. There is certainly nothing wrong with Israel using it.

White phosphorus can be legitimately used to create a smoke screen.

Quite true.

And it is also true that no one has shown that Israel has used WP for any purpose other than this.

old europe wrote:

The usage as a chemical weapon (where chemical weapon is defined as a weapon "dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare") is prohibited by the Chemical Weapons Convention.

That is also true.

But it is also true that no one has ever used (or will ever use) WP in this manner.

(And by saying "no one at all" I do include Israel as being among those who will never use it this way.)

old europe wrote:

The usage as an incendiary weapon in civilian areas is banned by Article 1 of Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.

That, on the other hand, is incorrect.

That convention requires extra measures to prevent collateral damage, but it does not otherwise prevent its use on a military objective contained within a civilian area.

old europe wrote:

So you can easily argue that there is a lot wrong with using white phosphorus as a chemical or incendiary weapon, particularly in civilian areas - even when not specifically targetting civilians.

Perhaps wrong with using it as a chemical weapon. But no one will ever do that.

Using it as an incendiary in an urban area, on the other hand, is not necessarily wrong.

old europe wrote:

On the other hand, you can certainly argue that Israel has refused to sign and ratify Article 1 of Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and that it has only signed, but never ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Quite true.

And I can also point out that no one has shown that Israel has used this for any purpose other than as a smokescreen.

(Not that I'm saying they didn't use it as an incendiary. But if people are going to demonize alleged incendiary use, it would help if they actually showed that such use occurred.)

BTW -- while your questioning of my knowledge of BBC reporting was a bit silly, your entry into this thread is most welcome. It is nice to have an opponent who is actually worthy of my intellect.

1 Reply

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

What you call "falsehoods" above is being reported in the media as having happened. And not in the crank media, respected media sources.

I'd ask for a cite, but you've already shown that the result of such a query would be to dodge the request with an insult.

So I'll just say this: You are lying about what is reported in the reputable media.

msolga wrote:

Perhaps this is another one of your famous examples of "anti-Semetism"?
... Or "lies", or however else you choose to refute what is being reported.

Ah, but it isn't being reported (at least not in any reputable media).

Anti-Semitic lies indeed. But the anti-Semitic lies are yours, when you lie about what is being reported.

msolga wrote:

I'm sorry, but I don't see you as any great authority here .. which is why I said you were ignorant & bigotted ... because (sigh) all you were offering in response to the media material was that the information is false! (Because you said so!)

No, you said I was ignorant and bigoted because you are an anti-Semite who doesn't like it when your lies are pointed out.

msolga wrote:

Sorry, orralloy, I have no desire to discuss you any further. Howver, I should I wish to respond to anything at all here about the Gaza situation, I would appreciate it if you refrained from labelling me "anti-Semetic". I suggested yesterday that you are perfectly free to find any anti-Semetic statements made by me, on any thread at all here. You are still most welcome to. Just don't confuse anti-Semetism with disagreeing with your preferred version of events. It gets very tiresome.

I'll denounce your anti-Semitism whenever you post it.

msolga wrote:

OK, orralloy. I have more interesting things to do now. I am not discussing you any further.

Somehow I suspect that you'll pop up and attack me with more lies soon enough.

Until that time, good riddance.

0 Replies

@Foofie,

Foofie wrote:

dealing with the same group of people that were dancing after 9/11. People who literally dance on the graves of Americans, I for one, have little pity for. Sorry if that offends the caring people out there.

Doesn't offend me.

Every time I hear whimpering about a dead Gazan child, the only thing I can manage to think of is the way these monsters cheered the collapse of the World Trade Center.

(Of course, most of the time when you hear of a dead Palestinian child, it turns out to have been a 17-year-old who was carrying a machinegun and wearing a suicide vest.)

0 Replies

@gungasnake,

Gunga...you wrote:

Quote:

Quote:
There is no way I am an anti-Semite…nor am I anti-Jew.”

Not on a conscious level perhaps...

Okay, Gunga...I am willing to concede a part of that!

On a level hidden to me, I may harbor some resentment or dislike of Jews. That would not be an extraordinary trait in a human being. We do tend to lump ourselves into “us” and “them”…and maybe there is some of that at work.

But we all have prejudices…and how we handle them matters, in my opinion, more than whether we have them or not.

You use disparaging terms for Muslims. What you are doing is no different from using “nigger” or “spick”, “wop” or “kike.” The fact that you have the prejudice against Muslims or Arabs says a lot less about you than the fact that you deal with the prejudice the way you do.

In any case, because I have conceded that I may harbor prejudices…still does not mean I am an anti-Semite or that I am anti-Jew. Anti-Semite is not a charge that should be leveled because a person has a prejudice…but as a consequence of how the person deals with it"and way, way too many Jews work things differently on that issue.

While we are on this, I think it appropriate to mention something I’ve written about a couple of times in the past.

Jews ARE achievers. They just are. I’ve attended Bar Mitzvahs and Bas Mitzvahs…and I realize that Jewish youngsters are at a huge advantage over non-Jewish kids. (Actually, the recent immigrant Asian kids have the same advantage over non-Jew, non-Asian kids.) The Jewish and Asian kids are pushed toward excellence so much more generally than the non’s…that they simply start with a more solid foundation.

It is easy to envy and be jealous of those kinds of advantages…and rather than show respect for them and learn from them"that is what many people do.

Terrible, isn’t it!

But maybe that is at the root of what you alluded to…the general bias towards Jews.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Gunga...you wrote:

Quote:
Quote:
There is no way I am an anti-Semite…nor am I anti-Jew.”

Not on a conscious level perhaps...

Okay, Gunga...I am willing to concede a part of that!

On a level hidden to me, I may harbor some resentment or dislike of Jews. That would not be an extraordinary trait in a human being. We do tend to lump ourselves into “us” and “them”…and maybe there is some of that at work.

But we all have prejudices…and how we handle them matters, in my opinion, more than whether we have them or not.

You use disparaging terms for Muslims. What you are doing is no different from using “nigger” or “spick”, “wop” or “kike.” The fact that you have the prejudice against Muslims or Arabs says a lot less about you than the fact that you deal with the prejudice the way you do.

In any case, because I have conceded that I may harbor prejudices…still does not mean I am an anti-Semite or that I am anti-Jew. Anti-Semite is not a charge that should be leveled because a person has a prejudice…but as a consequence of how the person deals with it"and way, way too many Jews work things differently on that issue.

While we are on this, I think it appropriate to mention something I’ve written about a couple of times in the past.

Jews ARE achievers. They just are. I’ve attended Bar Mitzvahs and Bas Mitzvahs…and I realize that Jewish youngsters are at a huge advantage over non-Jewish kids. (Actually, the recent immigrant Asian kids have the same advantage over non-Jew, non-Asian kids.) The Jewish and Asian kids are pushed toward excellence so much more generally than the non’s…that they simply start with a more solid foundation.

It is easy to envy and be jealous of those kinds of advantages…and rather than show respect for them and learn from them"that is what many people do.

Terrible, isn’t it!

But maybe that is at the root of what you alluded to…the general bias towards Jews.

I think your introspection and honesty is admirable. Let me just interject that an objective definition for anti-Semitism is really the same definition for any prejudice: If one thinks that Jews are INHERENTLY different, by virtue of being born from a Jewish family, then that is anti-Semitism, I believe.

Now this allows a lot of wiggle room, I believe. Since it does not condemn a person to be anti-Semitic, if that person does not care for the cultural ways of some Jews. For example, I prefer not to be close to someone that is "talking with his/her hands," so to speak. Now, there are more than only Jews that might have this historical cultural trait. So, am I anti-Southern European? I do not think so; I just do not like seeing hands flailing in the air, as I try to listen to someone talk.

So, I do think that when one thinks Jews have INHERENTLY any negative traits, that is anti-Semitic, I believe. Any negative traits, might just be cultural traits, or socio-economic traits, but not traits based on some genetic trait inherent in Jews. Now, this can be argued, I believe, by saying Jews tended to marry within their own gene pool, and some cultural traits could have become part of the gene pool, by virtue of staying within the gene pool?
For example, to not have converted to the surrounding faith, over thousands of years, might reflect a degree of obstinacy that might show itself as a genetic trait. Who knows.

Then there is the fact that Jews lived in squalor in Europe. Perhaps, the weak ones died of TB hundreds of years ago, since I have been told that Jews have a lower level of TB?

Regardless, I still think the photos in the LL Bean catalog reflect tallish, WASP's that some ethnics would like to use as a role model. As the old saying goes, "Dress British, think Yiddish."

1 Reply

@Foofie,

Quote:

I think your introspection and honesty is admirable.

Thank you.

Quote:

Let me just interject that an objective definition for anti-Semitism is really the same definition for any prejudice: If one thinks that Jews are INHERENTLY different, by virtue of being born from a Jewish family, then that is anti-Semitism, I believe.

I cannot accept that at all...and I would ask you to reconsider it.

I think women are INHERENTLY different from men, by virtue of being born female…but I don’t think that makes me anti-Women.

I think blacks are INHERENTLY different from caucasians, by virtue of being born negro…but I don’t think that makes me anti-Black.

You get the idea...that kind of list could go on and on.

Why would my thinking Jews are INHERENTLY different from non-Jews by virtue of being born Jewish...make me an anti-Semite?

I just don’t buy into that definition at all.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

old europe wrote:
The usage as an incendiary weapon in civilian areas is banned by Article 1 of Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.

That, on the other hand, is incorrect.

That convention requires extra measures to prevent collateral damage, but it does not otherwise prevent its use on a military objective contained within a civilian area.

You're right. It's not Article 1, it's Article 2 of the CCCW that prohibits use of incendiary weapons in civilian areas:

Quote:

Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons
Protocol III
Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons.
Geneva, 10 October 1980

Article 2
Protection of civilians and civilian objects

1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.
2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.
3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
4. It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives.

So, even when not specifically targetting civilians or civilian objects, Article 2 prohibits the use of all air-delivered incendiary weapons even on military targets, and also prohibits the use of non-air-delivered incendiary weapons even on military targets when those military targets are not clearly separated from a concentration of civilians.

In the case of the attack on the UN Relief and Works Agency headquarters - which is located in Gaza City, not clearly seperated from any concentration of civilians and was even used as a shelter for hundreds of civilians - Israel would definitely be in violation of Article 2 of Protocol III of the CCCW.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
I think your introspection and honesty is admirable.

Thank you.

Quote:
Let me just interject that an objective definition for anti-Semitism is really the same definition for any prejudice: If one thinks that Jews are INHERENTLY different, by virtue of being born from a Jewish family, then that is anti-Semitism, I believe.

I cannot accept that at all...and I would ask you to reconsider it.

I think women are INHERENTLY different from men, by virtue of being born female…but I don’t think that makes me anti-Women.

I think blacks are INHERENTLY different from caucasians, by virtue of being born negro…but I don’t think that makes me anti-Black.

You get the idea...that kind of list could go on and on.

Why would my thinking Jews are INHERENTLY different from non-Jews by virtue of being born Jewish...make me an anti-Semite?

I just don’t buy into that definition at all.

Your thought from above:
"Why would my thinking Jews are INHERENTLY different from non-Jews by virtue of being born Jewish...make me an anti-Semite?"

In my opinion, because all babies can be raised to be whatever. A Jewish baby can be raised to be Muslim or Christian. However, in my opinion the anti-Semite believes that a Jewish baby, even if raised by a Christian family (for example) will likely SHOW stereotypical Jewish behavior as an adult. That is pre-judging, or prejudice, or as Jews call it anti-Semitism.

In other words, anti-Semites treat Jews like they have a genetic disease; it goes from generation to generation, regardless of who raises a Jewish baby.

I would not call you an anti-Semite, if this is what you believe. I would call the society that you lived in anti-Semitic. It is very hard to transcend one's environment. Brain washing by society starts at a very young age for many people.

Your thought from above:
"I think blacks are INHERENTLY different from caucasians, by virtue of being born negro…but I don’t think that makes me anti-Black."

It is not about you really. It is about whether our pre-judging people makes life harder for anyone in society. To think that Black people are inherently different from caucasians lends itself to others treating them differently, based on that belief, regardless of whether or not you think of yourself as anti-Black. And, just for your own knowledge, Black people are no different from caucasians, since their blood saved white soldiers lives, and vice versa, in wars.

The fact that you are a person, I believe, that treats all people decently, and does not want to act in a negative manner to anyone, does not erase the fact that your beliefs (relative to this subject) may be false beliefs that you might have learned from the society around you. Perhaps, you should ask a priest if Jews or Blacks are inherently different? He might be better able to explain things to you, since I would guess his education is far better than mine. Remember, the key word is "inherently" (natural and inseparable quality)

Also, when you brought up women, that was adding apples to oranges. It is without question that there are physical differences between men and women; however, women can think as well as men, and be as competent as men in any endeavor that does not require having more height or strength than the average man.

P.S. You must be aware of the bigotry that Italian-Americans have endured, based on the belief that they are different than Anglo-Saxon Americans. That is why no one is inherently different. Italian-Americans are no different than other Americans.

0 Replies

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

oralloy wrote:
old europe wrote:
The usage as an incendiary weapon in civilian areas is banned by Article 1 of Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.

That, on the other hand, is incorrect.

That convention requires extra measures to prevent collateral damage, but it does not otherwise prevent its use on a military objective contained within a civilian area.

You're right. It's not Article 1, it's Article 2 of the CCCW that prohibits use of incendiary weapons in civilian areas:

Article 2 has an exception that allows incendiaries in civilian areas:

"except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects"

old europe wrote:

Quote:
Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons
Protocol III
Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons.
Geneva, 10 October 1980

Article 2
Protection of civilians and civilian objects

1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.
2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.
3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
4. It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives.

So, even when not specifically targetting civilians or civilian objects, Article 2 prohibits the use of all air-delivered incendiary weapons even on military targets,

True, but the WP that Israel used in Gaza (and that the US used in Fallujah) was not air delivered.

old europe wrote:

and also prohibits the use of non-air-delivered incendiary weapons even on military targets when those military targets are not clearly separated from a concentration of civilians.

Yes. It requires that if a non-air incendiary is used in a civilian area, the target be clearly separate from the civilians.

But that is not a prohibition -- just a requirement for a lot of extra measures to make sure there is no collateral damage.

old europe wrote:

In the case of the attack on the UN Relief and Works Agency headquarters - which is located in Gaza City, not clearly seperated from any concentration of civilians and was even used as a shelter for hundreds of civilians - Israel would definitely be in violation of Article 2 of Protocol III of the CCCW.

I agree that if the UN compound was targeted with incendiaries, it probably would have violated Article 2 if Israel were a party to the treaty. Not because of a supposed ban, but because it would have violated the requirement to take extra measures to prevent collateral damage.

But I still have seen no evidence that this was an incendiary attack as opposed to a smokescreen. And has Israel even said they were targeting the compound? Maybe it was an honest mistake and they fired at the wrong coordinates. Or they fired at it in the heat of battle not realizing that it was the UN compound. There are many possible explanations, and many of them are not so sinister.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

The consequences of anybody following your sugestion for the near east would be catastrophic to world Jewry.

I agree that in the case of Israel and the "palestinians", somebody has to move or be moved; I don't see how that could or should be Israel. To my knowledge, history offers no example of a sophisticated nation with complex infrastructure simply packing its bags and moving to some other part of the world for the benefit of savages and rabble.

My advice to the PM of Israel should he want it would be as follows: Do what I'd do; walk into the general assembly of the UN and announce something more or less like

Quote:

Dear hearts, the state and people of Israel have come to the conclusion that we can no longer allow you to keep and maintain any of your little collections of kept savages on our door step.

We are going to be generous: You have thirty days to find a place within the slammite world, that is, the gigantic swath of territory between the wall of China and the west coast of Africa which shows as green on maps indicating nations under the sway of the peculiar form of devil worship known as I-slam, in which to put the "palestinian" savages, and that place needs to be at least 1000 kilometers from Israel.

Any which we find any closer than that on day 31, we're going to simply ******* kill. **** you and have a nice day.

Exceptions might of course be made for any Christians who might still be found amongst the palis, but that proposition gets more problematical with every passing day.

1 Reply

There is also the question of the rational arab states and the fact that none of them have any particular problem dealing with Israel:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/4279297/Why-Arab-states-are-unmoved-by-plight-of-Hamas-most-fear-Muslim-militancy-despite-their-dislike-of-Israel.html

0 Replies

@gungasnake,

Well to be honest with you, Gunga...that makes a hell of a lot more sense than any of the other stuff "let's all get along" babble that has been making the rounds.

One side has got to exterminate the other...or everybody just gotta realize that everyone over there is gonna live in ****...and shut the **** up about it.

They are NEVER going to get along.

One side leaves the area completely...or gets exterminated.

I think your proposal might actually move this problem off square one...where it has been for six decades.

I say, "Go for it!"

Do it as soon as possible!

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

You got it.

Have you had any sort of a look at that Palestinian Media Watch website??

www.pmw.org.il

Kind of like a wannabe nation with something like Adolf Hitler's mindset but without Adolf Hitler's army to try to do anything with it...

0 Replies

i have tried for weeks to write about Gaza, but i'm not able to do so. The facts speak for themselves - so i will share my research here.

I read this report just days before Israel bombed Gaza

THE BLOCKADE OF GAZA

Quote:

The blockade of Gaza, which began in June 07 and has been compounded by the recent full closure, has caused the degradation of daily life for most of the 1.5 million Palestinians living in the Gaza " half of them children. The lack of fuel shut Gaza’s sole power plant on 9 and 10 Disasters Emergency Committee Gaza Appeal BroadcastNovember, resulting in blackouts of up to eight hours per day in most areas. The only line to import fuel into the Gaza Strip remains closed by the Israeli authorities except on two days, leaving 70 per cent of Gazan residents without electricity.

• The poverty rate stands at 76% and the unemployment rate at 45%.
http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_weekly_briefing_note_2008_11_25_english.pdf

• UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) has been forced to suspend financial support to just under 100,000 of the poorest refugees in November due to a lack of available currency in the Gaza - the grants enabled refugees to buy basic food.

Food

Israel blocked all provision of essential supplies to the Gaza Strip in November, except for allowing in a “token” amount of goods on 4 days.
According to OCHA-OPT’s report, ‘the amounts of supplies imported remain wholly insufficient to meet the basic needs of the population and restore any semblance of normal life.’

*The level of imports since the closure of the crossings on 5 November stands at an average of less than five truckloads a day, compared to 123 in October 08 and 475 in May 07. UNRWA alone needs at least 15 trucks per day to sustain normal humanitarian operations.

*A Red Cross report, based on the situation in May and June 2008, found that the blockade of Gaza means that [/B]‘chronic malnutrition is on a steadily rising trend and micronutrient deficiencies are of great concern’. [/B]
The report says the siege is causing "progressive deterioration in food security for up to 70 per cent of Gaza's population". http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/chronic-malnutrition-in-gaza-blamed-on-israel-1019521.html

• There is a daily struggle to obtain clean running water, fuel for cooking, and fresh foods to maintain families.

• Half of Gaza's bakeries have closed down and the other half have resorted to using animal feed to produce bread
http://www.metimes.com/International/2008/11/24/hungry_gazans_resort_to_animal_feed_as_un_blasts_israel/9217/

Fuel/water/sewage
• Without electricity and back-up fuel, most basic services and utilities including the sewage system, are on the brink of disaster - having received only limited maintenance and spare parts, and no investment in more than a year.

• UNICEF states 80% of Gaza’s water wells (115 wells) are only partially functioning due to intermittent electricity, shortages of backup fuel and the lack of spare parts. As a result, 20% of the Gaza population has six hours water access every five days, 40% of the population have access to water every four days and 40% of the population has access to water every three days.

Medicine

• Palestine Monitor reports that the lack of fuel means Shifa hospital, the largest in the Gaza Strip, could see patients die as it is now dependent on a faulty generator.

• Stocks of about 160 essential medicines have run out, while about 120 other healthcare drugs are running low. Additionally Gaza's health ministry has run out of over 300 essential medicines as Israel bans the imports of these.

• UNRWA have expressed concerns about rising anemia amongst children as a result of malnutrition.

http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_protection_of_civilians_weekly_2008_11_18_english.pdf
http://www.palestinemonitor.org/spip/spip.php?article704
http://www.metimes.com/International/2008/11/24/hungry_gazans_resort_to_animal_feed_as_un_blasts_israel/9217/

Back in November Israel issued a written list of goods banned from import into Gaza. These included spices, kitchenware, glassware, yarn and paper. Shoes and some clothing.

The UN Humanitarian Coordinator for the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Maxwell Gaylard, described the Gaza blockade as “an assault on human dignity with serious humanitarian implications.”

That was the situation in Gaza, leading up to Christmas, 2008.

Below are quotes taken from the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs GAZA HUMANITARIAN SITUATION REPORT 28 December 2008 16:00

Quote:

On 27 December, at around 11:30 AM, the IDF launched a large-scale attack on the Gaza Strip called, "Operation Cast Lead".

Although no official numbers of Palestinian casualties are currently available, as of 4:00 PM, according to preliminary reports from the MoH (collected by the World Health Organization), at least 280 Palestinians were killed during the air strikes, and some 900 others were treated at hospitals, 650 of whom were admitted for further treatment with 115 in critical condition. Reports from Al Mezan Centre for Human Rights in Gaza indicated that most fatalities were civilian police...

Widespread panic was reported among student population, exacerbated by the attack's timing"during school hours. Classes were in session at the time of IAF air strikes, with some students sitting for midyear exams. Other students were either on their way to school for the afternoon shift, or returning home.

OFFICE FOR THE COORDINATION OF HUMANITARIAN AFFAIRS
P.O.Box 38712, East Jerusalem www.ochaopt.org

Gaza is a heavily populated, heavily urbanized, 25-mile-long strip of land. 1.5 million people live there. The majority are children.

In the initial surprise attack, 88 aircraft simultaneously struck 100 preplanned targets within a record span of 220 seconds.

http://english.aljazeera.net/mritems/Images/2008/12/30/2008123093133782734_2.jpg

The result of Israel's onslaught?

More than 1,300 dead Gazans

5,500 wounded

430 children dead (so far)

UN Compound bombed

4,000 to 5,000 homes destroyed

20,000 damaged

50,000 or more homeless

400,000 without water

50 U.N. facilities, 21 medical facilities, 1,500 factories and workshops, and 20 mosques in ruins.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00469/gaza_uni_469319a.jpg

The university of Palestine, bombed

Schools, bombed

Ambulances, bombed

Obliterated estate blocks and government buildings

Phosphorus and other non-conventional munitions used.

Children shot dead in the street

Blockade of aid and food

More than 2,300 air strikes launched by the Israelis against a defenseless enclave

http://english.aljazeera.net/mritems/Images/2009/1/15/20091151174402734_2.jpg

I'm not sure everyone understands this, but it is illegal to inflict ANY bombing, conventional or otherwise, on densely populated urban areas.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Society/Pix/pictures/2009/1/15/1232028065546/Gallery-Save-the-Children-002.jpg

continued....

1 Reply

(continued from above post)

Quote:

Fact-Checking the Ceasefire Breaches
Killing Palestinians Doesn't Count

By ALISON WEIR

On January 27th media headlines trumpeted that Palestinians had broken the latest cease-fire: a bomb had killed one Israeli soldier and injured two or three.

Virtually every media outlet reported this action as a major breach in the ceasefire that had begun on January 18th: CNN, AP, NPR, the New York Times, The Washington Post, Fox News, ABC, CBS, the Christian Science Monitor, the LA Times, the McClatchy Newspapers, etc, all pinned the resumption of violence on Palestinians.

There’s just one problem. Israeli forces had already violated the ceasefire at least seven times:

* Israeli forces killed a Palestinian farmer in Khuza'a east of Khan Yunis on Jan 18
* Israeli forces killed a Palestinian farmer east of Jabalia on Jan. 19
* Israeli naval gunboats shelled the Gaza coastline, causing damage to civilian structures
* Israeli troops shot and injured a child east of Gaza City on Jan 22
* Israeli gunboat fire injured 4-7 Palestinian fishermen on Jan 22
* Israeli shelling set a Palestinian house on fire on Jan 22
* Israeli tanks fired on the border town of Al Faraheen, causing damage to homes and farms on Jan 24

Yet, Americans who rely on American media for their news on Israel-Palestine are being led to believe that Palestinians initiated the violence (the death of one Israeli soldier) that has now led to Israel’s latest onslaught:

By the end of the day, according to reports, Israeli forces had already killed a 27-year-old Palestinian farmer by tank fire; had closed the crossings into Gaza, denying the entire population (1.5 million) access to desperately needed shipments of food, medicine, and other humanitarian aid; had launched a military drone that fired a missile into the city of Khan Yunis, injuring a Hamas member on a motorcycle and apparently at least one Palestinian child nearby; had sent 20 tanks and seven military bulldozers into Gaza; and had occupied a Palestinian home near the town of Deir Al Balah.

This is not the first time that the media have reversed the chronology of Israeli-Palestinian violence. While the media widely reported that Israel’s three-week-long massacre of Palestinians begun on Dec. 27th was a reaction to Palestinian rockets, the fact is that Israel had initiated the violence by breaking the truce on Nov. 4th by killing six Palestinians and injuring another six, and on Nov. 5th by killing yet another Palestinian. Only after this Israeli violence (and its continued suffocating closure of Gaza, another extremely significant truce violation) did Hamas rocket fire resume.

For Hillary, too, Palestinians don’t count

Meanwhile, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton held her very first news conference at the State Department, announcing: "We support Israel's right to self-defense. The [Palestinian] rocket barrages which are getting closer and closer to populated areas [in Israel] cannot go unanswered."

Most Palestinian rockets are homemade projectiles constructed of scrap metal. They began to be launched only after Israeli invasions of Gaza and the West Bank had killed and injured hundreds of civilians. In six years, these rockets have killed a total of 28 Israelis. Israel killed at least 40 Palestinian men, women, and children in a few minutes on Jan. 6th when it struck a UN school. During its Dec-Jan invasion Israeli forces killed over 1,300 Gazan men, women, and children and injured over 5,000; Palestinian resistance fighters killed 9 Israelis, 4 of them civilians.

Hillary is only able to get away with such absurd and offensive statements, giving a green light for further carnage, and Israel is only able to continue its murderous rampages, because mainstream media coverage of Israel-Palestine is so abysmal.

It is time for all of us to tell the media we want the facts on Israel-Palestine, and to tell our neighbors, our Congressional representatives, and our new president what they are. We voted for change. It’s time we got it.

Alison Weir is executive director of If Americans Knew (www.IfAmericansKnew.org), which has produced a small flyer for people to distribute with the facts on the ceasefire.

http://www.counterpunch.org/weir01292009.html

Israel's Leaders Are Frantically Trying to Prevent War Crimes Proceedings for Their Gaza Atrocities

By Jonathan Cook January 26, 2009.

http://www.alternet.org/audits/122875/israel%27s_leaders_are_frantically_trying_to_prevent_war_crimes_proceedings_for_their_gaza_atrocities/?page=entire

http://english.aljazeera.net/mritems/Images/2008/12/30/20081230164855281621_2.jpg

Video: CBS 60 Minutes Exposing Israeli Apartheid

Prominent People Speak out over BBC DEC appeal

Disasters Emergency Committee Gaza Appeal Broadcast

Report: BBC Manchester occupied

Video: Latest news on the Student occupations

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/

Mr Tony Benn - on the Gaza Appeal

Palestinian men bear trauma of war
By Zeina Awad
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/01/2009127174123702455.html

It's not about politics - it's about humanity
Endy

0 Replies

@Endymion,

Endymion wrote:

I'm not sure everyone understands this, but it is illegal to inflict ANY bombing, conventional or otherwise, on densely populated urban areas.

That is incorrect. It is legal to bomb military targets even if they are in an urban area.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

According to whom? I'd be interested in the definition of "military targets", particularly in densely populated civilian areas.

I note in media reporting today, that a number countries (which had no part in the destruction) are contributing financially to rebuilding the devastation that is now Gaza. Can you tell me what Israel's contribution will be?

2 Replies

LET GAZA LIVE! - a global outcry

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know