Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently met with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to ask for UN assistance to stop the planned flotilla scheduled to break the Gaza blockade in late May, 2011.
He argued to the UN Secretary General that the flotilla is a conglomerate of “extreme Islamists that are interested only in provocation” and hell bent on the destruction of Israel. Nothing could be further from the truth. We, who are actively engaged in the U.S. Boat to Gaza, named The Audacity of Hope, are appalled by this flagrant misrepresentation, so typical of right-wing Israeli propaganda. The organizers and passengers of the U.S. Boat, a committed, non-violent, human rights mission sailing as part of the International Flotilla, are people from all walks of life—lawyers, social workers, artists, fire fighters, midwives, writers, doctors, film makers, retired US army personnel, veterans, women’s rights organizers, teachers, nurses, etc.--all of whom share one common commitment: ending the insupportable oppression of the Palestinian people both in the West Bank and Gaza. In the West Bank we see one of the last colonial occupations left in the Middle East since the French, British and Italians withdrew a half century ago. The lives of all Palestinians are confined by this brutal occupation which constrains movement, impoverishes lives, disrupts education and is aimed at destroying their land, their dignity, their personhood, and in essence Palestine.
Gaza, the largest open air prison in the world, has deprived 1.5 million civilians of the basic necessities of life—building materials, food, housing, clothing, employment and free travel in and out. The siege of Gaza results in a gross denial of human rights which the world can no longer ignore. The U.S. flagged ship –and all the ships in the Flotilla-- that sails to Gaza in May - will sail in peace and with a single nonviolent message—“The people of Gaza are entitled to the same life, liberty and pursuit of happiness that are the right of every human being.”
Ban Ki-moon should remind Benjamin Netanyahu that Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, siege of Gaza, expansion of settlements, destruction of homes, usurpation of water and air rights, walls of confinement , brutal military presence, and daily sniper attacks on innocent civilians constitute the paramount violence and terrorism in the Mideast, conduct that we all abhor. The 2nd International Freedom Flotilla comprised of 22 countries and many boats, heading toward Gaza, including The Audacity of Hope, is not the problem. Israel’s conduct in Palestine is the problem and should be condemned by the UN, the U.S. and all people who care about freedom and justice.
Jane Hirschmann and Richard Levy are volunteers with the US Boat To Gaza.
Reason why Israel is so violently against any of flotillas are simple. When flotillas start to enter to gaza, its bye bye to gaza closure.
Good work Jane and Richard !
Little or no coverage by the US media is expected. Of course no special notice will be taken of the ship’s name, Audacity of Hope.
Well said. It’s quite audacious — no pun intended — that Israel is asking the UN to condemn those who seek to break a siege that contravenes International Law, as collective punishment.
But, since when does Israel and its leaders look in the mirror?
If Israel were a person and I were that person, I would either hang my head low and disappear into the wilderness in shame, or I would donate all my bodily organs to save the life of several of my victims who may still be alive.
But, Israel is far from that. Israel is a Jeffrey Dahmer, unrelenting, unaffected and unrepentant.
I hope this comment wasn’t too morbid. But, such is life under occupation.
Israel is a Jeffrey Dahmer
oh my
You know, I actually lived through that scare when it happened (not personally, but when one of the most warped serial killers in history lives in the same city as you and grew up in the same sort of environment as you…) and I don’t disagree with Avi comparing Israel to Jeffrey Dahmer. I will say the one significance is difference is Dahmer knew he was insane. He didn’t try to justify what he was doing.
When you compare Israel with atrocities that happen around the globe, they are not most bloody nor most destructive. Instead, they are most planned and pedantic, measured with doses — how much can we get away with on a given day? And this pedantic process lasts decade after decade. Thefore, my criminal comparison of choice is raping a women in someone’s basement
thank you jane
“He (Netanyahu) argued to the UN Secretary General that the flotilla is a conglomerate of “extreme Islamists that are interested only in provocation” and hell bent on the destruction of Israel. Nothing could be further from the truth.”
Will those “extreme Islamists” retired Col Ann Wright and former Ambassador Peck be on the new flotilla?
Was so great when Keith Olbermann busted another bubble on his program and had Ambassador Peck on
link to youtube.com
Interviews with Col Ann Wright/flotilla
link to youtube.com
link to livestream.com
Kudos to Hirschmann and Levy for a well-reasoned response to Netanyahu.
*****
I knew I had heard the name Peck before. The following is from his endorsement on the back cover of Grant Smith’s Spy Trade: How Israel’s Lobby Undermines America’s Economy
“Meticulously detailed in this riveting addition to his earlier exposes, Grant Smith reveals yet another facet of the extent to which the pro-Israel lobby is beyond dangerous, and has become a serious threat to a broad range of American ideals, objectives, and interests abroad as well as here at home. This book contains many highly disturbing, documented revelations. Read it.” – Ambassador Edward L. Peck, former Chief of Mission in Iraq and former Deputy Director, Cabinet Task Force on Terrorism, Reagan White House
Jane and Richard,
If you later found out that others on other boats adopted an entirely different reason for participating, and an entirely different mode of conducting their ‘non-violent’ civil disobedience, would you reconsider your participation?
In other words, if IDF attacks boats, will you be sorry to be there after all….
No,
If you find out that some ships are carrying weapons for Gazans, will you renounce?
If you find out that some passengers intend to resist violently, will you renounce?
What ships have carried weapons to gaza ?
Why are you trying to divert this thread with your unfounded insinuations and less than subtle smearing of the activists. There were no weapons on the Marmara. End of story. Maybe the Palestinians should stop the enormous shipment of arms to Israel, given its violent and illegal use of them against civilians. A no fly zone would be a start.
directly to Gaza, none, the reason for the blockade.
I think that in some video i saw a can opener. And that is quite deadly weapon against merkava tanks. ;)
So no weapons ships has been sent to gaza. Because those are delivered through tunnels. And gates. But it is reason for blockade. Nice try anyway DBG….
That’s an outright lie. But, you are used to making this false claims.
The permanent siege was imposed after Hamas won elections in 2006.
And if Israel’s aim was to stop Hamas from acquiring weapons, then it has failed miserably as Hamas can smuggle them through the tunnels.
The purpose of the siege is simple, Israel wants to see Hamas disappear and Palestinians to acquiesce to an Israeli annexation of their land, especially the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Hamas is an obstacle in achieving that.
Weapons? Rockets? Those are simply sideshows for gullible pathetic Zionists.
Anyone else totally unshocked that Witty and DBG are lying? Like, outright?
Zionism.
If you later found out that Israel lied about its policy on Gaza, lied about its illegal assault and murder of activists on the Marmara, stole thousands of dollars’ worth of mobile phones and computers in order to suppress the evidence, lied about the activists and their intent, lied about the legality of its piracy, lied about the actions of their thugs (or soldiers as they like to call them) would you reconsider your constant pleas not to upset Israelis because they must vote for a nice party which is the only solution? Thankyou for trying to divert the discussion on to those scary activists, armed only with medicine, building materials and some ethical principles (that last one must really terrify Israel).
Witty hates aid workers and activists. I guess lobbyists are more his speed.
The gall of Yahoo and his mafia gang is unbelievable. Going whining to the UN after everything Israel has done to undermine its resolutions, ignore its human rights declarations and kill its observers is beyond satire. It should be the Palestinians getting headlines for requesting the isolation of Israel until it starts acting in accordance with international norms of civil behaviour and ethics. Mafia boss pleads with police to protect him from those who want to break his protection racket and supply his victims with food and medicine. Pathetic.
Justice, human rights have nothing to do with what’s going on and neither do qassams over Sderot, it’s all about stealing the Palestinians’ natural gas off Gaza’s coast and the PA is in on it. This is why no ship is allowed to approach Gaza and no Gaza fishermen allowed out beyond a couple of miles. Israel doesn’t want anyone to see what is going on. Israel’s stated fear of seeing arms delivered to Gaza is as phony as mostly everything else that has to do with Israel. It’s all about the natural gas. Natural gas off Gaza’s shores was also at the root of Israel’s asault on Gaza in 2006. From JPost a couple of months back:
Israel, PA may open natural gas fields off Gaza coast
By TOVAH LAZAROFF
02/06/2011 02:54
Netanyahu, Blair announce potential resumption of project; “I think this is good for prosperity and peace,” PM says.
Israel expects to resume talks with the Palestinians on the development of two natural- gas fields off the Gaza coast with an eye toward opening them within a year and a half.
link to jpost.com
This is abolutely correct. Cast Lead II fufills the IDF goal to “clean
out Gaza” – the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza having occurred prior to the knowledge of the gas fields. The current scenario of Gaza leaders
offering a truce and cease fire with Israel becoming increasingly
lethal, incursive and provative (so that a ceasefire becomes politically
untenable) is eerily parallel to the situation prior to Cast Lead I. The
motives are economic. Also, consider the strategic and economic importance of a deep water port in Gaza in combination with light rail and air transport, especially if a free Palestine were to develop economic
free trade zones throughout the middle east.
Surely, Walid, you don’t suspect that Israel’s (tentative) plan to build an artificial island off Gaza is anything other than way of providing the people of Gaza with a port and airport.
Any suggestion that it might also provide a base for Israeli exploitation of the offshore gas field would be simply an insult to Israeli generosity.
Folks might want to think about contacting the UN and reminding General Ban Ki Moon that Israel is in violation of more UN resolutions than any other nation.
link to un.org
On March 22, 1979, the Security Council adopted Resolution No. 446. Israel’s violation of Resolution 446 (sections quoted below) represents the most flagrant violation of Israel, not only of the UN but also the stated policy of our government under successive administrations:
(The Council) Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East; Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind it’s previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories.
ertinent United Nations Security Council Resolutions Since 1967 As They Relate to Israel
No.
Date
Substance / Summary of Content
233 6 June 1967 Calls for an immediate cease-fire and cessation of all military activities.
234 7 June 1967 Demands a cease-fire.
237 14 June 1967 Calls upon the Government of Israel to ensure the safety, welfare and security of the inhabitants, facilitate the return of those inhabitants who have fled the areas since the outbreak of the hostilities and recommends the scrupulous respect of the humanitarian principles contained in the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949.
242 22 Nov 1967 Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include: withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; and termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.
248 24 Mar 1968 Deplores the loss of life and heavy damage to property. Condemns the military action launched by Israel in flagrant violation of the U.N. Charter and the cease-fire resolution. Calls upon Israel to desist from acts or activities in contravention of resolution 237 (1967). (This was an attack against Karameh, Jordan.)
250 27 Apr 1968 Calls upon Israel to refrain from holding the military parade in Jerusalem which is contemplated for 2 May 1968.
251 2 May 1968 Deeply deplores the holding by Israel of the military parade in Jerusalem on 2 May 1968 in disregard of the unanimous decision adopted by the Council on 27 April 1968.
252 21 May 1968 Deplores the failure of Israel to comply with General Assembly resolutions 2253 (ES-V) and 2254 (ES-V) of 4 and 14 July 1967. Considers that all legislative and administrative measures taken by Israel, including the expropriation of land and properties thereon, which tend to change the legal status of Jerusalem, are invalid and cannot change the status. Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind all such measures taken and to desist from further actions changing the status of Jerusalem.
259 27 Sept 1968 Deplores the delay in implementation of resolution 237 (1967) because of the conditions still being set by Israel for receiving a Special Representative of the Secretary-General. Requests the Secretary-General to urgently dispatch a Special Representative to the Arab territories under military occupation by Israel following the hostilities of 5 June 1967 and to report on the implementation of resolution 237 (1967).
267 3 Jul 1969 Reaffirms the established principle that the acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible. Deplores the failure of Israel to show any regard for the resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council. Censures in the strongest terms all measures taken to change the status of the city of Jerusalem. Urgently calls once more on Israel to rescind all measures taken by it to change the status of Jerusalem and in the future to refrain from all actions likely to have such an effect
271 15 Sep 1969 Grieved at the extensive damage caused by arson to the Holy Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem on 21 August 1969 under the military occupation of Israel; calls upon Israel to scrupulously observe the provisions of the Geneva Conventions and international law governing military occupation.
298 25 Sep 1971 Deplores the failure of Israel to respect previous U.N. resolutions concerning measures and actions by Israel purporting to affect the status of the city of Jerusalem. Confirms that all legislative and administrative actions taken by Israel … are totally invalid and cannot change that status. Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind all such measures….
338 22 Oct 1973 Calls for an immediate cease-fire and termination of all military activity. Calls upon the parties concerned to start immediately after the cease-fire the implementation of Security Council resolution 242 (1967) in all of its parts….
339 23 Oct 1973 Refers to resolution 338 (1973); confirms its decision on immediate cessation of all military actions; and requests the Secretary-General to take measures for immediate dispatch of U.N. observers to supervise observance of the cease-fire.
381 30 Nov 1975 Expresses concern over the continued state of tension in the area. Decides to reconvene on 12 January 1976 to continue the debate on the Middle East problem including the Palestinian question, taking into account all relevant U.N. resolutions.
425 19 Mar 978 Calls for the strict respect for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon. Calls upon Israel immediately to cease its military action against Lebanese territorial integrity and withdraw forthwith its forces from all Lebanese territory. Decides to establish immediately under its authority a United Nations Interim Force in Southern Lebanon (UNIFIL).
446 22 Mar 1979 Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East. Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories.
452 20 Jul 1979 Calls upon the government and people of Israel to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem.
465 1 Mar 1980 Determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel’s policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East. Strongly deplores the continuation and persistence of Israel in pursuing those policies and practices. Calls upon the government and people of Israel to rescind those measures, to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem.
Calls upon all States not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connection with settlements in the occupied territories; and requests the Commission to continue examining the situation relating to settlements, to investigate the reported serious depletion of natural resources, particularly water, with a view to ensuring protection of those important natural resources of the territories under occupation.
468 8 May 1980 Recalling the Geneva Convention of 1949 and expressing deep concern at the expulsion by the Israeli military occupation authorities of the Mayors of Hebron and Halhoul and of the Sharia Judge of Hebron, calls upon Israel as occupying Power to rescind these illegal measures and to facilitate the immediate return of the expelled Palestinian leaders.
469 20 May 1980 Strongly deplores the failure of Israel to implement resolution 468 (1968). Calls again upon the Government of Israel, as occupying Power, to rescind the illegal measures taken by the Israeli military occupation authorities in expelling the Mayors of Hebron and Halhoul and the Sharia Judge of Hebron.
471 5 June 1980 Expresses deep concern that the Jewish settlers in the occupied Arab territories are allowed to carry arms thus enabling them to perpetrate crimes against the civilian population. Calls for the immediate apprehension and prosecution of the perpetrators of these crimes and condemns the assassination attempts on the lives of the Mayors of Nablus, Ramallah and Al-Bireh. Expresses deep concern that Israel, as occupying Power, has failed to provide adequate protection to the civilian population in the occupied territories in conformity with the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Calls again upon the Government of Israel to respect and comply with the provisions of the Convention as well as with the resolutions of the Council, calls once again upon all States not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connection with settlements in the occupied territories. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem.
476 30 June 1980 Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem. Strongly deplores the continued refusal of Israel, the occupying Power, to comply with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly. Reiterates that all measures taken by Israel which have altered the geographic, demographic and historical character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council. Reaffirms that all such measures and actions constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Reaffirms its determination in the event of non-compliance by Israel to examine practical ways and means in accordance with relevant provisions of the U.N. Charter to secure full implementation of this resolution.
478 20 Aug 1980 Censures in the strongest terms the enactment by Israel of the “basic law” on Jerusalem and the refusal to comply with relevant Security Council resolutions. Affirms that the enactment of the “basic law” by Israel constitutes a violation of international law and does not affect the continued application of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since June 1967, including Jerusalem. Determines that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and the status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and in particular, the recent “basic law” on Jerusalem, are null and void and must be rescinded forthwith. Decides not to recognize the “basic law” and such other actions by Israel that, as a result of this law, seek to alter the character and status of Jerusalem. Calls upon all members of the United Nations (a) to accept this decision, (b) and upon those States that have established diplomatic Missions in Jerusalem to withdraw such Missions from the Holy City.
484 19 Dec 1980 Expressing grave concern at the expulsion by Israel of the Mayor of Hebron and the Mayor of Halhoul, calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to adhere to the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Declares it imperative that they be enabled to return to their homes and resume their responsibilities.
508 5 June 1982 Calls upon the parties to the conflict to cease immediately and simultaneously all military activities within Lebanon and across the Lebanese-Israeli border. Requests all Member States which are in a position to do so to bring their influence to bear upon those concerned so that the cessation of hostilities declared by Security Council resolution 490 (1981) can be respected. (Beginning of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.)
509 6 June 1982 Demands that Israel withdraw all its military forces forthwith and unconditionally to the internationally recognized boundaries of Lebanon and demands that all parties observe strictly the terms of paragraph 1 of resolution 508 (1982).
512 19 June 1982 Expressing deep concern at the suffering of the Lebanese and Palestinian civilian populations, calls upon all the parties to the conflict to respect the rights of the civilian populations, to refrain from all acts of violence against those populations and to take all appropriate measures to alleviate the suffering caused by the conflict.
513 4 Jul 1982 Expressing alarm at the continued sufferings of the Lebanese and Palestinian civilian populations in southern Lebanon and in west Beirut, calls for respect for the rights of the civilian populations without any discrimination and repudiates all acts of violence against those populations. Calls further for the restoration of the normal supply of vital facilities such as water, electricity, food and medical provisions, particularly in Beirut.
515 29 Jul 1982 Demands that the government of Israel lift immediately the blockade of the city of Beirut in order to permit the dispatch of supplies to meet the urgent needs of the civilian population.
516 1 Aug 1982 Confirms its previous resolutions and authorizes the Secretary-General to deploy immediately, on the request of the Government of Lebanon, U.N. observers to monitor the situation in and around Beirut.
517 4 Aug 1982 Confirms once again its demand for an immediate cease-fire and withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon. Censures Israel for its failure to comply with the above resolutions. Takes note of the decision of the Palestine Liberation Organization to move the Palestinian armed forces from Beirut and authorizes the Secretary-General to increase the number of U.N. observers in and around Beirut.
518 12 Aug 1982 Demands that Israel and all parties to the conflict observe strictly the terms of Security Council resolutions relevant to the immediate cessation of all military activities within Lebanon and, particularly, in and around Beirut. Demands the immediate lifting of all restrictions on the city of Beirut
520 17 Sep 1982 Condemns the recent Israeli incursions into Beirut in violation of the cease-fire agreements and of Security Council resolutions. Demands an immediate return to the positions occupied by Israel before 15 September 1982, as a first step towards the full implementation of Security Council resolutions.
521 19 Sep 1982 Condemns the criminal massacre of Palestinian civilians in Beirut; reaffirms its resolutions 512 (1982) and 513 (1982), which call for respect for the rights of the civilian populations without any discrimination, and repudiates all acts of violence against those populations. Requests the Secretary-General, as a matter of urgency, to initiate appropriate consultations and, in particular, consultations with the Government of Lebanon on additional steps which the Security Council might take, including the possible deployment of United Nations forces, to assist that government in ensuring full protection for the civilian populations in and around Beirut. (Massacre of Sabra and Shattilla refugee camps while eastern Beirut was under Israeli military occupation.)
573 4 Oct 1985 Condemns vigorously the act of armed aggression perpetrated by Israel against Tunisian territory in flagrant violation of the U.N. Charter, international law and norms of conduct; and demands that Israel refrain from perpetrating such acts of aggression or from threatening to do so. (Israeli raid against PLO Headquarters in Hammam Al-Shut)
592 8 Dec 1986 Strongly deplores the opening of fire by the Israeli army resulting in the death and the wounding of defenseless students at Bir Zeit University. Calls upon Israel to abide immediately and scrupulously by the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949. Calls upon Israel to release any person or persons detained as a result of the recent events at Bir Zeit University.
605 22 Dec 1987 Strongly deplores those policies and practices of Israel, the occupying Power, which violate the human rights of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories, particularly the opening of fire by the Israeli army, resulting in the killing and wounding of defenseless Palestinian civilians. Calls once again upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide immediately and scrupulously by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
607 5 Jan 1988 Calls upon Israel to refrain from deporting any Palestinian civilians from the occupied territories; and strongly requests it to abide by its obligations arising from the Fourth Geneva Convention.
608 14 Jan 1988 Reaffirming resolution 607 (1988) of 5 January 1988, deeply regrets that Israel, the occupying Power, in defiance of U.N. resolutions, has deported Palestinian civilians. Calls upon Israel to rescind the orders and to desist from forthwith deporting any other Palestinian civilians from the occupied territories.
611 25 Apr 1988 Having noted with concern that the aggression perpetrated on 16 April 1988 in the locality of Sidi Bou Said (Tunisia) has caused loss of human life, particularly the assassination of Mr. Khalil Al-Wazir, condemns vigorously the aggression perpetrated against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Tunisia in flagrant violation of the U.N. Charter; and urges Member States to take measures to prevent such acts against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all States. (Al-Wazir (Abu-Jihad) was the Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Palestine Liberation Organization.)
636 6 Jul 1989 Deeply regrets the continuing deportation by Israel, the occupying Power, of Palestinian civilians. Calls upon Israel to ensure the safe and immediate return to the occupied Palestinian territories of those deported and to desist forthwith from deporting any other Palestinian civilians. Reaffirms that the Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable to the Palestinian territories, occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, and to the other occupied Arab territories.
641 30 Aug 1989 Deplores Israel’s continuing deportation of Palestinian civilians. Calls upon Israel to ensure the safe and immediate return to the occupied Palestinian territories of those deported and to desist forthwith from deporting any other Palestinian civilians. Reaffirms that the Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable to the Palestinian territories, occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, and to the other occupied Arab territories.
672 12 Oct 1990 Reaffirming that a just and lasting solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict must be based on its resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) through an active negotiating process which takes into account the right to security for all States in the region, including Israel, as well as the legitimate political rights of the Palestinian people. Expresses alarm at the violence which took place on 8 October at Al-Haram Al-Sharif and other Holy Places of Jerusalem, resulting in over twenty Palestinian deaths and the injury of more than one hundred and fifty people, including Palestinian civilians and innocent worshippers. Condemns especially the acts of violence committed by the Israeli security forces, resulting in injuries and loss of human life. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention.
673 24 Oct 1990 Deplores the refusal of the Israeli Government to receive the mission of the Secretary-General to the region in violation of resolution 672 (1990).
681 20 Dec 1990 Expresses its grave concern over the rejection by Israel of its resolutions 672 (1990) and 673 (1990). Deplores the decision by the Government of Israel, the occupying Power, to resume the deportation of Palestinian civilians in the occupied territories. Urges the Government of Israel to accept the de jure applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to all the territories occupied by Israel since 1967
694 24 May 1991 Declares that the action of the Israeli authorities of deporting four Palestinians on 18 May is in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which is applicable to all the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem. Deplores this action and reiterates that Israel refrain from deporting any Palestinian civilian from the occupied territories and ensure the safe and immediate return of all those deported.
726 6 Jan 1992 Strongly condemns the decision of Israel, the occupying Power, to resume deportation of Palestinian civilians. Reaffirms the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 to all the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem. Requests Israel to ensure the safe and immediate return of all those deported.
799 18 Dec 1992 Strongly condemns the action taken by Israel, the occupying Power, to deport hundreds of Palestinian civilians (on 17 December 1992). Expresses its firm opposition to any such deportations by Israel. Reaffirms the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to all the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem. Demands that Israel ensure the safe and immediate return to the occupied territories of all those deported.
904 18 Mar 1994 Strongly condemns the massacre in Hebron committed against Palestinian worshippers in Al-Ibrahimi Mosque, on 25 February 1994, during the holy month of Ramadan, and its aftermath which took the lives of more than 50 Palestinian civilians and injured several hundred others. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to continue to take and implement measures, including, inter alia, confiscation of arms, with the aim of preventing illegal acts of violence by Israeli settlers. Calls for measures to be taken to guarantee the safety and protection of the Palestinian civilians throughout the occupied territory, including, inter alia, a temporary international or foreign presence, which was provided for in the Declaration of Principles, within the context of the ongoing peace process.
1073 28 Sep 1996 Expresses its deep concern about the tragic events in Jerusalem and the areas of Nablus, Ramallah, Bethlehem and the Gaza Strip, which resulted in a high number of deaths and injuries among the Palestinian civilians. Calls for the immediate cessation and reversal of all acts which have resulted in the aggravation of the situation and which have negative implications for the Middle East peace process. Calls for the safety and protection of Palestinian civilians to be ensured. Calls for the immediate resumption of negotiations within the Middle East peace process on its agreed basis and the timely implementation of the agreements reached. (The draft resolution was issued officially as a presidential text, which normally indicates unanimity prior to the vote.)
1322 7 Oct 2000 Reaffirms that a just and lasting solution to the Arab and Israeli conflict must be based on its resolutions 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 and 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973, through an active negotiating process. Deplores the provocation carried out at Al-Haram Al-Sharif in Jerusalem on 28 September 2000, and the subsequent violence there and at other Holy Places, as well as in other areas throughout the territories occupied by Israel since 1968, resulting in over 80 Palestinian deaths and many other casualties. Condemns acts of violence, especially the excessive use of force against Palestinians, resulting in injury and loss of human life. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and its responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva. Calls for the immediate cessation of violence, and for all necessary steps to be taken to ensure that violence ceases, that new provocative actions are avoided, and that the situation returns to normality. Stresses the importance of establishing a mechanism for a speedy and objective inquiry into the tragic events of the last few days with the aim of preventing their repetition.
List of Israel’s UN violations
link to foreignpolicyjournal.com
This statement by Judge Goldstone is weak and pathetic.
““I had hoped that our inquiry into all aspects of the Gaza conflict would begin a new era of evenhandedness at the U.N. Human Rights Council, whose history of bias against Israel cannot be doubted.”
Just look at Israel’s violations. Goldstone really went limp
I’ve seen Goldstone speak. He truly believes this. When the HRC refused to investigate Sri Lanka he was absolutely livid. But to be frank, this is sort of beside the point. Goldstone doesn’t challenge the substance of criticism against Israel, only that Israel gets quite a lot of attention. This in no way reflects on the content of the resolutions Israel violates, and no one in their right mind could honestly argue otherwise.
I dont really back it up so much when human rights counsil is targeted from biased view I/P conflict. If we really spent so time to read actually council reports, there are various cases under investigation from various countrys. I/P is somewhat big business in their menu, but it is not as big as some like to claim it is.
Also we must take notice that I/P conflict is one of primary things that UN must do, since palestinian case is under UN jurisdiction. Which is major reason why UN bodys, including human rights council must see things that happen in palestine.
I agree that the UN should focus on Palestine, but I can’t really say I’ve honestly looked into the idea of “bias” against Israel. Maybe it’s true, maybe it isn’t. The fact doesn’t change that it’s entirely irrelevant.
Maggie, i dont mean that UN should focus on palestine completely of course. But since british left the burning building 1948 and handed palestine mess to UN, it has been under UN jurisdiction since. To the day when finally palestinian case is solved.
And i have twisted arm numerous times about human rights council case ( bias ), are they really so blind only to Israel wrongs as has been claimed. All of them who have been claimed about this, i have asked that have you actually visited HRC site and read those reports, total silence. That is hardly convenient and professional like approach searching information, if one doesnt check what has been claimed for.
If we read someone claiming that earth is flat, and we read only those sites which back this up, we believe blindly that flat it is. Too bad that there is quite lots of those black and white seeing peoples around of us…..
it’s amazing how entirely uninformed most hasbarists are, isn’t it? i think they have to be that way to remain zionists
So true. So sad
Again,
My question for Richard and Jane is about their participation or not in non-violent civil disobedience.
If you discovered that not everyone undertaking the voyage adopted the reasoning and discipline of non-violent civil disobedience, would you participate?
richard, can you not read:
The organizers and passengers of the U.S. Boat, a committed, non-violent, human rights mission sailing as part of the International Flotilla, are people from all walks of life—lawyers, social workers, artists, fire fighters, midwives, writers, doctors, film makers, retired US army personnel, veterans, women’s rights organizers, teachers, nurses, etc.–all of whom share one common commitment: ending the insupportable oppression of the Palestinian people both in the West Bank and Gaza.
do you know what committed means? i am sure if it was discovered a participant did not share the commitment of the group they would not be included. however a commitment to non violence doesn’t mean you do not defend yourself when someone is attacking you. the evidence revealed in the video that escaped confiscation plus the many testimonies of participants makes it clear the idf started shooting at the boat. you’re just trying to create a trap for the authors. they are not stupid.
This is a stupid question, because you’re attempting to malign the use of violence as a legitimate means of self-defense. How dishonest of you.
Do you support my right to walk down a public street if and only if I commit to “non-violent civil disobedience” in the event a thug tries to steal my purse or rape me? If I carry pepper spray, or openly admit that I intend to use my car keys as a potential weapon if I am attacked on my way home, do those actions nullify my right to be on that street?
What you don’t understand, Richard, and what so many of you hasbarists seem to forget, is that the flotilla is sailing in international waters. Israel has no jurisdiction over international waters, and the flotilla is not heading to attack Israel or come into its sovereign territory. Just like when I’m heading down the street to your neighbor’s house, I’m not on your private property. If Israel boards any of the flotilla ships it is doing so illegally. Israel will be initiating violence. Anything the flotilla members do to defend themselves, whether violent or non-violent, is self defense. Flotilla members have a legal right to defend themselves from an act of aggression, in the same way that I can pepper-spray you if you attempt to force me into your home as I walk down the street to my friend’s house. Now if I shoot you in the head, that’s not a reasonable form of self defense.
What you’re trying to do is intellectually dishonest, Richard.
Maggie: The possibility of another Mavi Marmara terrifies Richard, and deeply troubles his conscience. So he is preparing his alibi.
He uses the Hamas rockets to justify everything Israel did during its invasion of Gaza, and he finds other nits to pick to defend other Israeli policies.
But Israel’s assault on the Freedom Flotilla left him at such a loss for words that he disappeared from Mondoweiss for two solid weeks. Nor has he ever even tried to justify Israel’s destruction of the cameras etc that the flotilla people carried, to prevent them from telling their side of the story.
He is terrified that Israel will attack this coming flotilla, and hurt “Richard and Jane” and the other brave people who will be taking part. His unspoken aim in repeatedly posing his irritating questions is to protect his own conscience. If they do not promise him — Richard Witty — that every single person on the flotilla will remain nonviolent despite all provocations, he washes his hands of their fate.
The question was a sincere one for Jane and Richard.
They haven’t responded here to anyone.
James grossly misrepresents my views. Its disturbing, for me and for the world, in that his representation is therefore not confidently trustable.
I definitely fear a repeat of the Mari Mavmara. If you read my blog post, I criticized Israel’s policies, Israel’s actions, AND the actions of the “non-violent civil disobedients”.
The discipline of non-violence is CRITICAL in the formation of public opinion. To dismiss the concern is really cynical on your part.
The same status of absence of proposal remains relative to an open Gaza port. If Gazans import arms (say after the blockade is broken) and uses them, then the Gazan civilians will be far far more caught in the middle between the IDF and Hamas than even in Cast Lead.
It requires a solution that is conformance with international law, say international governance of a Gazan port as Meshaal (unelected Meshal) proposed last year.
“He uses the Hamas rockets to justify everything Israel did during its invasion of Gaza, and he finds other nits to pick to defend other Israeli policies.”
He doesn’t even have to do that now, since Goldstone gave his stamp of approval to Israel’s hypocrisy. Now all they have to do is kill who they want and then, if there’s pressure, do some token investigations, clear themselves of any wrongdoing, and once again demonstrate to the world that it’s only Arabs who are capable of savagery.
I’ve been angry about this since I found out about Goldstone’s hideous column yesterday, but why should I be surprised? It’s the way of the Western world–all those nasty savages do bad things deliberately, but us civilized white people are at most negligent. (In this case, for “civilized white people” read “Israelis”.) I grew up around people (not my immediate family, thank God) with that attitude and obviously things haven’t changed that much.
You are not being concise and disciplined in your thinking. You are projecting wildly.
Goldstone opined that Israel’s military approach was not the cynical, sadistic approach that solidarity claimed. In the op-ed he did NOT state that he felt that Israel’s policies or practices were right, just that they were not intentional targeting of civilians.
And, as the report’s scope was to insist on internal investigations, he stated that he was at least partially satisfied that Israel had conducted those investigations sincerely, and that they appeared to be taking the report itself seriously and instituting reforms to guarantee compliance with international law subsequently.
I am not confident that Israel will do that perfectly in the slightest, and I am also confident that Hamas will act to attempt to paint Israel as demon, to support their primary thesis that Israel is interloper and does not have the right to exist in Israel.
War will ALWAYS cause destruction and always more civilian destruction than military.
You are flailing in describing some racism on the basis of us “civilized white people”.
If you are honest in reviewing your value system, you will continue to maintain a balance, to condemn violations on all civilians, whether “successful” violence or “unsuccessful”. And, more importantly, to use your imagination and mutual respect to construct institutions and relationships of peace.
Thats if your committed to anything of merit.
RW, you sure do talk a lot while saying nothing at all.
Richard: Now you’ve done it. Donald was one of the last regular visitors to Mondoweiss who took you seriously, and first you enrage him with your double standards, then you lecture him about his “value system.”
The more you comment here, the more you drive people away from your position. Visitors are going to start to wonder if Phil and Adam secretly pay you to undermine the pro-Israel position.
On the other hand, if you are really here only to hide from your own conscience, those 5286 posts last year have have been a success.
More insights from our respected James North.
Its more convenient of you to attack persons than to address arguments?
Richard: It is a fact that, as I say above,
“The more you comment here, the more you drive people away from your position.”
Cite me one single instance in your years at Mondoweiss when anyone has said, ‘Richard, you’ve helped me to look at this from a new angle.’
So why do you comment here (5286 times in 2010)?
P.S. Your total comments since July 3, 2009: 9271.
“Goldstone opined that Israel’s military approach was not the cynical, sadistic approach that solidarity claimed. In the op-ed he did NOT state that he felt that Israel’s policies or practices were right, just that they were not intentional targeting of civilians.”
That’s right Richard–when Israel targeted civilian infrastructure and destroyed thousands of homes and killed hundreds of civilians none of it was intentional. It’s just sad. Now on the other hand, when Goldstone condemns Hamas rocket fire as a deliberate attack on civilians, he’s just being fair, like all civilized white people tend to be.
It’s unfortunate, Richard, that Israel has to deal with such unpleasant savages. You see, James is wrong–you have persuaded me. I have seen the light. Israel can inflict massive death and destruction and all it means is that they aren’t perfect.
I mean, for God’s sake, they’re white people. Or Jews or Zionists or something. You can explain it better. But when those nasty Ay-rabs launch rockets at southern Israel, it’s a WAR CRIME. Unambiguous.
You said this all at Dan’s blog “Realistic Dove” a year or so ago, how Hamas was guilty of war crimes, but you couldn’t tell if Israel was or not, and at the time I thought “What a racist ethnocentric jerk.” So predictable of me, so emotional. But I hadn’t realized at the time how civilized you were . My mistake.
Now we can move forward into the future, hand in hand, confident in the knowledge that those Palestinians can be redeemed and are worthy of a peace agreement plus whatever table scraps that might be flung their way if only they will renounce “PALESTINIAN TERRORISM”. The Israelis can do their part by acknowledging that they “AREN’T PERFECT”. That seems fair.
But then, I’m a civilized white guy myself.
>> If you are honest in reviewing your value system, you will continue to maintain a balance, to condemn violations on all civilians, whether “successful” violence or “unsuccessful”. And, more importantly, to use your imagination and mutual respect to construct institutions and relationships of peace.
Well, that ties it all together nicely. You are not honest at all about reviewing your value system.
1. ” … you will continue to maintain a balance, to condemn violations on all civilians, whether ‘successful’ violence or ‘unsuccessful’.”
- You do not maintain such a balance. You support the past ethnic cleansing of Palestinians as “necessary”. You are unwilling (or unable) to condemn ethnic cleansing – everywhere and always – as unjust and immoral. You continue to excuse and justify Israel’s on-going “belligerent reprisals” even if they “started it”.
2. “And, more importantly, to use your imagination and mutual respect to construct institutions and relationships of peace.”
- You wish to see constructed a supremacist “Jewish state”. You appear to show disdain for universal human rights, and a preference for tribalism.
You remain an immoral, Zio-supremacist hypocrite.
You are so fixated on the word “war crime”. What difference does the word make?
I’ve stated often that once a military gets involved the logic of action is very different than when an objective is civilian. That is that a military has only two dimensions of responsibility. They are to accomplish what they are ordered to accomplish, and to so in a manner that does not violate international law.
That civilian infrastructure was destroyed, does not make it an illegal target of war. And yes, it is similar to Lebanon.
The scope selected was large. It was large based on the desire to be definitive, assertive. And, it was large and careful because of Hamas very threatening assertions and history of their resistance.
The pandora’s box was how the conflict got to war rather than skirmish. At war, the logic of war prevails.
I described Hamas as primarily responsible to my mind, to that shift from skirmish to war. Specifically, that they escalated after being warned by the IDF clearly that continuing would result in a state of war.
We are in control of neither of the two.
Actually, I wish to see a healthy Jewish state next to a healthy Palestinian state, BOTH.
Do you see that as possible?
>> Actually, I wish to see a healthy Jewish state next to a healthy Palestinian state, BOTH.
>> Do you see that as possible?
No, I don’t, but I’m not a supremacist. I would like to see a healthy, secular, democratic and egalitarian Israel next to a healthy, secular, democratic and egalitarian Palestine (or whatever it ends up being named).
Nice dodge, though. Gets you out of having to “review your value system”. Not that you appear prepared to do that any time soon: You have “rationalized terror” and, therefore, you have “invested” in it.
(link to mondoweiss.net
Why do you care about terrorism, Richard? Some people say that rocket fire at southern Israel or suicide bombing attacks are legitimate resistance. Does that matter to you, or do you think it should be called terrorism? It must not matter, I guess, if it doesn’t matter whether Israel committed war crimes. You must be some sort of Nietzschean superman, above good and evil.
Oh wait, that’s not it. Palestinian violence is bad, because they’re evil and they target innocent Israelis. Israeli violence is good, because it’s self defense and Hamas starts it and gosh, nothing that Israel does ever makes them culpable about anything much, except sometimes they’re not as careful as they should be.
If only the Palestinians could be brought to see it in that light. If only they could see your beautiful soul, Richard, so full of good intentions and peace and lovingkindness and willingness to justify Israeli actions in almost any circumstance. If Palestinians and all those nasty icky solidarity types could just see the goodness of you and your ideology peace and happiness couldn’t help but break out, and everyone would have ponies. The pathway to peace can only be realized once people understand and admit that Israel is fundamentally innocent, only guilty of a bit of carelessness sometimes. Yes, that’s it.
More personal ranting.
Terror directed at civilians is very bad. And, it is the responsibility of the IDF to protect Israeli civilians from assaults from beyond Israeli borders.
There is really no way that you can get past that obligation of a state. It is inherent and will not be neglected by the IDF.
The reason that I care about terrorism is that it causes traumas, imprinting of hatred (permanent and unconditional) over angers (temporary and conditional).
The encouragement of militancy ADDS to the tension in the region, that is already on the border of violence.
All violence sucks. Better that it stop. It will never succeed at improving the lot of Palestinians.
Have you seen the film, “The Mission”? I think you would find it interesting if you haven’t seen it.
This is just not true. It is not easy to find an armed conflict as lopsided as the last two wars of Israel, but Russian-Georgian war qualifies. Compared with Israel, Russian troops behaved with utmost restrained, killing quite few civilians and destroying quite few non-military structures.
In a telling omission, Russians did not touch Georgian international airport even that it was used to bring home 2000 troops. Russians correctly view that force as irrelevant. Israel could simply declare a ban on flights to Beirut, instead, IDF bombed crap out of the airport. And blocks of apartment buildings. And countless more. And the final, post-ceasefire agreement heap of cluster bombs.
That last hurray of the Lebanon war tells volumes about the mindset. It was like a giant defecation planned by Israeli Cabinet. There was no purpose, just “expressing the feeling”.
Since then I decided that Hezbollah is a more moral force than IDF. Perhaps a low bar … indeed, a very low bar …
“Terror directed at civilians is very bad. And, it is the responsibility of the IDF to protect Israeli civilians from assaults from beyond Israeli borders.
There is really no way that you can get past that obligation of a state. It is inherent and will not be neglected by the IDF.”
An argument that would make sense if Israel were not in constant violation of international law every single day. Its settlements are illegal, its blockade is illegal, and much of its violence is illegal. In some very different world I could imagine an Israel which didn’t impose settlements and only used violence in self defense and only calibrated, never indiscriminate firepower used against civilians. That world is not this one, but it exists in your head, obviously.
And so once again you make my point for me. In your worldview Palestinian terrorism is bad, but IDF violence is self defence. I remember the slowly increasing disgust I felt when I first realized that your “liberal Zionism” amounted to this vicious hypocrisy. Not all liberal Zionists are like you, Richard and I have to remind myself of that. Slater isn’t, and I’ve met others online at other blogs who aren’t. They don’t play this sick twisted neverending game you play of “Palestinian violence is evil and Israeli violence is good”. I came here and now I don’t know what to think. If you represent the mainstream of “liberal Zionism”, it’s no different in any morally significant way from the white racism I saw constantly growing up.
The really important question is what fraction of the liberal Zionist world is closer to you and what fraction is closer to Slater and the others I’ve seen. If the majority is like you, my sincere advice to the Palestinians would be to expect nothing from them except support for Israeli violence and slaughter. Go for nonviolent peaceful resistance, work with Israelis who they can tell see Palestinians as equals. Maybe with help from the outside world things will change. But Palestinians can’t expect peace or justice from people who won’t face up to the crimes of their own side.
You can call that a rant if you want. I’ll repeat that I have had no trouble recognizing liberal Zionists who weren’t vile apologists for Israeli brutality. You are in the apologist class. Only you can change that and you refuse.
Donald: You captured exactly how my own feelings about Richard evolved over time,
“I remember the slowly increasing disgust I felt when I first realized that your ‘liberal Zionism’ amounted to this vicious hypocrisy.”
I used to take him seriously, but no longer.
“I used to take him seriously, but no longer.”
In one sense you have to. Not for his arguments, but for whatever number of people he represents. It’s very depressing to think of how many people might think like him. No wonder the conflict has dragged on for so long, if he represents the “liberal” side.
I’m not a racist.
I will continue to speak my convictions to urge that Israel elect a government that will negotiate a fair and mutually satisfying reconciliation agreement.
I will not engage in struggle to remove one or the other from the map, from the right to self-govern, from the right to defend themselves.
I will criticize policies that I become aware of that I find repugnant.
“from the right to defend themselves.”
Euphemisms again. They never stop.
“I will criticize policies that I become aware of that I find repugnant.”
A couple of built-in escape clauses there. It’s hard to become aware of things you refuse to acknowledge and what RW finds repugnant depends on the ethnicity of the person being killed.
You are most definably a racist, Witty. Your support for the murder of Furkan Dogan proves that much. Not to mention your support for Operation Cast Lead. Oh, and the home demolitions in the West Bank. And the notion that Jews shouldn’t be forced to live in the same society with Arabs as equals.
>> I’m not a racist.
You’re a supremacist.
>> I will not engage in struggle to remove one or the other … from the right to defend themselves.
Every time you excuse Israel’s “belligerent reprisals” even if it “started it”, you struggle to remove the Palestinians’ right to defend themselves. That is to say, you “rationalize terror” and, therefore, “invest in it”.
>> I will criticize policies that I become aware of that I find repugnant.
Well, that sure lets ethnic cleansing and a supremacist “Jewish state” clean off the hook! I wonder what other immoral and unjust policies you will fail either to “become aware of” or to find repugnant.
You’re one hell of a “humanist”…
RW, do you think it makes you open-minded, liberal, and unbiased to criticize victims AND victimizers equally? if so, let me enlighten you. it doesn’t. it just makes you an apologist and an ass.
I think that non-violence is an important part of what is communicated to the world about the character of what is being done.
If it is militant, it will be seen, and not nicely.
The boats will still make an impression, but it will be an impression without a path, just more heat.
Which would be why Israel is a pariah state, and you are a pariah for endorsing its bloodlust.