Forums | MacLife

resedit wrote:

In that other thread I provided a link to an Arab source stating that Israel was letting some humanitarian aid into Gaza.

Some ≠ enough to stop people from starving. According to you, one loaf of bread through the border per day would mean there was no "stranglehold".

HeadonaStick wrote:

resedit wrote:

In that other thread I provided a link to an Arab source stating that Israel was letting some humanitarian aid into Gaza.

Some ≠ enough to stop people from starving. According to you, one loaf of bread through the border per day would mean there was no "stranglehold".

I'm not aware of any starvation in Gaza.
Hunger sure, but I've not seen any pictures that indicate starvation (IE extended bellies, sunken eyes, etc).

Curious though that if their people are "starving" - Hamas chooses to smuggle arms through the tunnels they dug rather than food.

The Methodist Church is calling on the UK Government to put pressure on Israel to lift its blockade of the Gaza Strip as aid agencies and human rights groups warn that the already dire humanitarian situation is deteriorating rapidly.

"In recent years, Gaza's isolation has devastated the economy. The lifeline of food and fuel has become crucial and half of the population depends on UN food supplies," said Steve Hucklesby, Methodist Church Policy Adviser.

"Palestinians have a right under international law to receive essential humanitarian aid.

"We appeal to the UK and EU to exert pressure on Israel to ensure that the border crossings are kept open."

The Methodist Conference adopted a motion in the summer calling on Methodists to write to their MPs and MEPs to demand urgent action on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and to pray for peace and justice for all God's people in the Holy Land.

Israel said it was keeping its border crossings with Gaza closed, now for the tenth day running, to pressure Hamas, despite pleas from the UN, EU and numerous NGOs for the immediate resumption of humanitarian convoys into Gaza, where 80 per cent of the population is dependent on aid.

A UN statement said Secretary General Ban Ki-moon was "deeply concerned at the deterioration of the humanitarian and security situation in Gaza and southern Israel".

"Measures which increase the hardship and suffering of the civilian population of the Gaza Strip as a whole are unacceptable and should cease immediately", the Secretary General said according to the statement.

Philip Luther, deputy director of Amnesty's Middle East and north Africa programme, said, "Israel's latest tightening of its blockade has made an already dire humanitarian situation markedly worse.

"This is nothing short of collective punishment on Gaza's civilian population and it must stop immediately."

Link.

From March, 2008:

The humanitarian situation in Gaza is worse now than it’s been at any time since the beginning of the Israeli occupation in 1967, according to a new report published by a coalition of leading humanitarian and human rights organisations. The weekend’s upsurge in violence and human misery underlines the urgency of this report.

In their new joint report, the coalition - comprising Amnesty International, CARE International UK, CAFOD, Christian Aid, Médecins du Monde UK, Oxfam, Save The Children UK and Trócaire - warns that Israel’s blockade of Gaza is a collective punishment of the entire Gazan civilian population of 1.5 million. The report concludes that the Israeli government’s policy of blockade is unacceptable, illegal and fails to deliver security for Palestinians and Israelis alike.

Link.

bratboy wrote:

In 2007, 87 percent of Gazans lived below the poverty line, more than a tripling of the percentage in 2000. In a November 2007 report, the Red Cross stated about the food allowed into Gaza that people are getting "enough to survive, not enough to live."

Since June, Israel has limited its exports to Gaza to nine basic materials. Out of 9,000 commodities (including foodstuffs) that were entering Gaza before the siege began two years ago, only 20 commodities have been permitted entry since. Although Gaza daily requires 680,000 [pounds] of flour to feed its population, Israel had cut this to 90 tons per day by November 2007, a reduction of [73] percent. Not surprisingly, there has been a sharp increase in the prices of foodstuffs.

When Israel limited commercial shipments of food--but not humanitarian relief--into Gaza in 2006, a senior government adviser, Dov Weisglass, explained that "the idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet but not to make them die of hunger."

UNRWA has almost depleted the stocks of emergency food aid it had previously built up in Gaza. Only thirty-two truckloads of goods have been allowed to enter Gaza since Israel imposed its total closure on January 18; 250 trucks were entering every day before last June, and even that was insufficient to meet the population's needs.

    On January 30 UNRWA warned that unless something changes, the daily ration that it will distribute on the 31st to 860,000 destitute refugees in Gaza will lack a protein component: the canned meat that is the only source of protein in the food parcels--which even under the best of circumstances contributes less than two-thirds of minimum daily nourishment--is being held up by Israel, and the stock of those cans inside Gaza has been exhausted. The World Food Program, which feeds another 340,000 people in Gaza, has brought in nine trucks of food aid in the past two weeks; in the seven months before that, it had been bringing in fifteen trucks a day.

Gazans have been ground into poverty by years of methodical Israeli restrictions and closures; 80 percent of the population now depends on food aid for day-to-day subsistence. With the aid, they were receiving "enough to survive, not to live," as the International Red Cross put it. Without it, they will die.

On this, I believe Israel is acting immorally. I understand they don't want to supply the enemy, but starving a whole population is quite another thing entirely. They should verify that only food is shipped, and I wouldn't have a problem with them unloading, verifying, and reloading goods to prevent arms from entering, but to willfully starve a people is wrong.

Folks, it's a free fire zone. If you enter it, the army is entitled to shoot you.
Folks, it's a nuclear target. If you live there, the air force is entitled to incinerate you.
Folks, it's a concentration camp. If you shirk work, the SS is entitled to make of you an example to the others

jerwin wrote:

Folks, it's a free fire zone. If you enter it, the army is entitled to shoot you.

Do these even exist? If so, and you stick around, then you can't really complain too much when you get shot. I find it better to AVOID areas where weapons are being discharged - such as iraq, or south DC.

Folks, it's a nuclear target. If you live there, the air force is entitled to incinerate you.

Yes. I live near one, and I know that if we ever got into a nuclear war with Russia or China, I'd be among the first to go.

Folks, it's a concentration camp. If you shirk work, the SS is entitled to make of you an example to the others

These are banned under the Geneva conventions. However, if you find yourself in an illegal concentration camp, I would suggest keeping a low profile. They have guns, you don't.

Also:

Israel's Supreme Court lifts ban on Arab parties running in elections

JERUSALEM (AP) — Israel's Supreme Court has ruled that two Arab parties can run in upcoming elections.

The parties were recently barred by a parliamentary committee on the grounds that they "supported terrorism."

The ban came during Israel's offensive against Hamas militants in Gaza and reflected the heightened tensions between Israel's Jewish majority and Arab minority. Many Israeli Arabs have relatives in the Palestinian territories and identify with their cause.

Lawmakers from the Arab parties have traveled to some of Israel's staunchest enemies, including Lebanon and Syria.

A spokesman for Israel's Courts Administration says judges overturned the ban in an unanimous vote Wednesday.

Link.

JakeTheTall wrote:

Its good that ban was lifted, but the fact the government tried to ban them shows what kind of bad environment exists in Israel towards people who aren't Jewish.

Not sure it shows their is a bad environment towards those who are not Jewish, note that they did not try to ban all the arab parties - just those two.

It does show the Judges did not feel their was ample evidence to declare them as terrorist supporters.

I would imagine it was more retribution than anything (which has certainly played a large part in the blockade).

Some Jewish leaders say the very qualities that may appeal to the Obama administration — Mitchell’s reputation as an honest broker — could spark unhappiness, if not outright opposition, from some pro-Israel groups.

“Sen. Mitchell is fair. He’s been meticulously even-handed,” said Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League. “But the fact is, American policy in the Middle East hasn’t been ‘even handed’ — it has been supportive of Israel when
it felt Israel needed critical U.S. support.
“So I’m concerned,” Foxman continued. “I’m not sure the situation requires that kind of approach in the Middle East.”

source

Last edited by jerwin (2009-01-21 10:57 pm)

Mitchell’s reputation as an honest broker

Some time in the past couple years (maybe around the Lebanon fiasco, but I'm not certain of that) I heard an interview streamed on BBC. I don't recall who exactly but he was a Brit very familiar with these issues (MidEast in general, this issue perhaps in particular, I can't recall). One thing I do recall vividly is how he stated in a matter of fact fashion )in much the same way neocons would 'create' history) that the U.S. role in the MidEast had gone from 'honest broker' to "responsible broker". I did not like the sound of that then.

It seems to have gained traction.

radarman wrote:

bratboy wrote:

In 2007, 87 percent of Gazans lived below the poverty line, more than a tripling of the percentage in 2000. In a November 2007 report, the Red Cross stated about the food allowed into Gaza that people are getting "enough to survive, not enough to live."

Since June, Israel has limited its exports to Gaza to nine basic materials. Out of 9,000 commodities (including foodstuffs) that were entering Gaza before the siege began two years ago, only 20 commodities have been permitted entry since. Although Gaza daily requires 680,000 [pounds] of flour to feed its population, Israel had cut this to 90 tons per day by November 2007, a reduction of [73] percent. Not surprisingly, there has been a sharp increase in the prices of foodstuffs.

When Israel limited commercial shipments of food--but not humanitarian relief--into Gaza in 2006, a senior government adviser, Dov Weisglass, explained that "the idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet but not to make them die of hunger."

UNRWA has almost depleted the stocks of emergency food aid it had previously built up in Gaza. Only thirty-two truckloads of goods have been allowed to enter Gaza since Israel imposed its total closure on January 18; 250 trucks were entering every day before last June, and even that was insufficient to meet the population's needs.

    On January 30 UNRWA warned that unless something changes, the daily ration that it will distribute on the 31st to 860,000 destitute refugees in Gaza will lack a protein component: the canned meat that is the only source of protein in the food parcels--which even under the best of circumstances contributes less than two-thirds of minimum daily nourishment--is being held up by Israel, and the stock of those cans inside Gaza has been exhausted. The World Food Program, which feeds another 340,000 people in Gaza, has brought in nine trucks of food aid in the past two weeks; in the seven months before that, it had been bringing in fifteen trucks a day.

Gazans have been ground into poverty by years of methodical Israeli restrictions and closures; 80 percent of the population now depends on food aid for day-to-day subsistence. With the aid, they were receiving "enough to survive, not to live," as the International Red Cross put it. Without it, they will die.

On this, I believe Israel is acting immorally. I understand they don't want to supply the enemy, but starving a whole population is quite another thing entirely. They should verify that only food is shipped, and I wouldn't have a problem with them unloading, verifying, and reloading goods to prevent arms from entering, but to willfully starve a people is wrong.

I find it amazing that so few people seem to recognize the pattern of Israeli conduct in this conflict. Like Hamas, Israel has consistently targeted the civilian population. Of course it's strangling Gaza, but it's also bombing the smurf out of civilian targets (including the university, hospitals, parliament, and more). Clearly it's aimed at breaking the will of the people, punishing them until they "do the right thing" and kick out Hamas.

Of course I can't think of a single instance in the history of the human race in which this strategy has worked, but surely it's going to work in Gaza!