Blame Israel, says Red Cross as it ends food aid for West Bank

[DuctapeFatwa]

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is ending its emergency food programme in the West Bank, saying the economic collapse there is the direct result of Israeli military closures and that Israel must live up to its responsibility as the occupying power for the economic needs of the Palestinians.....

François Bellon, the Red Cross representative, told senior Israeli generalsthat the Palestinian Authority was on the verge of an "explosion" that could lead to "the worst ever humanitarian crisis" in the occupied territories...which would leave Israel to face the cost of providing the services they currently provide - a cost that some estimates put as high as $1.1bn (£650m) a year.

As a result of economic collapse, a fifth of Palestinian children are malnourished...The organisation has spent $46m over the past year and a half providing food and such necessities as cooking oil and matches to around 300,000 of the most needy Palestinians in the West Bank. But now the ICRC says that must stop, and that Israel must live up to its responsibility as an occupying power under the Fourth Geneva Convention...

ICRC spokesman, said: "This was humanitarian relief designed to assist in a humanitarian emergency, not to address the longer-term problems caused by curfews, closures and the collapse of the economy that has occurred. It is not our responsibility to take care of the economic needs of the Palestinians. We have repeatedly said it is the responsibility of the occupying power."..denied Israeli press reports that the food programme had been cancelled for budgetary reasons. "As the occupying power, Israel has the responsibility to minimise the humanitarian consequences of its actions," he said. "You cannot go on for ever with the curfews and closures which are destroying the Palestinian economy. ..refused to comment on a report in Ha'aretz newspaper that Mr Bellon had told senior Israeli generals at a recent meeting that the Palestinians were on the verge of a humanitarian crisis.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=464142

[bluesoul]

1. Oh oh!

now the Red Cross will be called "anti-semitic" for blaming Israel. This list just doesn't end...

[DuctapeFatwa]

3. UNRWA is also cutting most of its activities

The World Food Program is supposed to be throwing something together, but it is bound to fall way short of need.

I don't know if both the ICRC and UNRWA have been discouraged by bush and sharon regimes, it does appear to be against Israeli government policy for Palsestinians to have food. The US has had some very impressive results in Africa using this strategy.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=30972

[madrchsod]

2. what was that figure-2.2 billion ?-

for brand new jets from the good ol`e usa..isn`t it nice to let people go hunger to buy jets,oh well,the fourth geneva convention means nothing to the sharonists and their bitch

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DuctapeFatwa]

31. They are being encircled, and blocking food, water, meds is Israeli policy

That policy is one of the issues that has been brought up by the ICRC, UNRWA, and the UN itself.

It was a UN report that gave the policy its name: The Policy of Starvation. It is a policy that enjoys the full support of both Democratic and Republican parties. It is paid for by the US taxpayers/

The purpose of the apartheid wall is to lock the Palestinians into a mega-prison, and lock the Israelis into a prison even more insidious and inescapable.

Palestinian child malnutrition levels are now on a par with those in Congo. Something like 6% of Palestinian infants now have malnutrition-related brain damage.

22% of Israeli households do not have adequeate food.

It is the chidren who suffer, but those who implement, support, and proft from the policy do far worse, and irreperable damage to themselves.

At least if the children starve, they can escape from the torment.

Those who defend it and perpetuate it will never escape from that.

[Muddleoftheroad]

5. The results of the Intifada

A couple years ago, both sides were talking about economic cooperation and there was no serious discussion of a wall. Arafat brought this on his people.

Funny, I don't see the Arab world helping the Palestinians, just funding terror groups.

[Darranar]

6. What?

So by your logic, suicide bombings are all fine and okay?

After all, everything that Israel does is a direct result of terrorism and is therefore justified, according to you. By that logic, everything the Palestinians do is a direct result of IDF actions and expansion of settlements, and is therefore justified.

What's the difference?

[Muddleoftheroad]

7. Are you awake?

What are you talking about?

A few years ago BOTH sides were working together and the economic prospects for both were good. Then came the Intifadas and now the Palestinians are facing economic ruin. Instead of reaching peace, Arafat has brought destruction to people on both sides. Meanwhile, his people are starving and how much money does he have in his account?

[Darranar]

8. Are you?

A few years ago, Barak was determined to destroy the Palestinian cause with his "generous" offer. Arafat refused it, but foolishly didn't make a counteroffer.

After years of expanding settlements, brutal reprisals for suicide bombings by a few extremists, and deals that weren't really deals at all, the Second Intifadah started.

[Muddleoftheroad]

10. Counteroffer

OK, so even you blame Arafat for not countering the peace proposal. The net result of that choice and his support for Intifada has been chaos.

By the way, there are more than a "few" extremists.

[Darranar]

13. Yes, he is in part responsible...

though I think the "peacemakers" on the Israeli side who brutally responded to every suicide bombing and let the settlements expand are also responsible.

[Muddleoftheroad]

15. Would you have them ignore suicide bombings?

Trying getting away with that as a leader.

[Darranar]

19. No, I wouldn't...

I would have responded with more efforts towards peace and an effort to crack down on the terrorists in cooperation with the PA.

Not by using excessive force that only fueled anger and hatred of Israel.

[Muddleoftheroad]

43. Excessive force

Clearly, this is a phrase where you and I have different definitions.

As long as the terrorist thugs hang out in civilian areas, ANY action against them will cause civilians to be hurt or killed. But, since the Palestinians won't do anything, Israel has no choice.

[Darranar]

44. Excessive force...

in other words:

- Firing on a group of non-violent protesters who posed no security risk because they approached a security zone.

- Bulldozing houses that may or may not belong to terrorists or have some sort of relationship with terrorism; this is clear collective punishment, unless you think that the 7500 Palestinians made homeless in the conflict are all guilty of terrorism?

- Building huge security walls in the middle of occupied land, destroying farmland and disrupting the lives of hundreds of thousands of people.

- Use of lethal force in response to rock-throwing.

- Use of lethal force in response to curfew violations.

- Reckless use of firepower to not only destroy terrorists but also many people alongside them.

- Incursions that are long, damaging, and pointless (as all too many of them are.)

and a number of other things.

A very effective way to weed out the terrorists would be to reduce popular support for them by reducing the use of excessive force.

[MikeGalos]

45. Been there, tried that (repeatedly), didn't work

It not working is what got Likud and Sharon in power.

Care to suggest something that will get the hard-liners out of power in the PA side rather than put them in place in both sides?

Perhaps a start would be acknowledging how much Arafat and his cronies have crippled the Palestinian cause and how their allies in Saudi Arabia and the frontline states have kept the refugee camps running decades longer than even larger, more problematic refugee settlement issues so that they could keep the focus away from their own corrupt governments.

[Darranar]

48. Tried? When?

[Muddleoftheroad]

47. You aren't there

Nowt try looking at those things as a military man might in the same situation:

* First off, I think the non-violent protesters were shut down in as non-violent a way as possible. Shock grenades and tear gas broke them up.

* It is obvious from Gaza and the West Bank that the terrorists use houses to hide weapons, tunnels, etc. I think simply destroying such houses or improving the field of fire for defensive positions is only natural in a combat zone. Yes, the people this happens to get screwed. They should complain to the terrorists who cause the problem.

* No matter where Israel built the wall, it would disrupt Palestinian lives. Lacking a peace treaty to establish a border, Israel is creating a de facto border to force Palestinians to negotiate. Somehow, they still won't.

* Have you ever had a rock thrown at you? Ten? Twenty? It's only natural that, when attacked, some soldiers are going to fear for their lives. Sometimes, they will be right to so fear. Other times will be an overreaction. In either case, you can't simply blame the soldiers when the provocative act belongs to the rock throwers.

* Use of lethal force in response to curfew violations is fairly standard when you have a widespread movement among a group of people to kill YOUR people.

* If the Palestinians didn't allow the terrorists to hide among them, then firepower would not be necessary. They do, it is.

* So, you oppose incursions. That means Israel should simply let the Palestinian terror groups do whatever they want. My God, do you have any idea what that would mean?

[Darranar]

49. Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

* First off, I think the non-violent protesters were shut down in as non-violent a way as possible. Shock grenades and tear gas broke them up.

Yah, yah, they only beat and gassed them, it was all completely non-violent. :eyes:

They should complain to the terrorists who cause the problem.

Oh, now I get it! Hamas is holding a gun to Sharon's head and is forcing him to demolish the houses! Thanks for your enlightening remarks!

And, btw, bulldozing people's houses tends to make them angry. A populace angry at you is not what you want when trying to conduct counterinsurgency operations...

No matter where Israel built the wall, it would disrupt Palestinian lives. Lacking a peace treaty to establish a border, Israel is creating a de facto border to force Palestinians to negotiate. Somehow, they still won't.

So tell me how a wall on the Green Line would destroy arable land and interfere with the jobs of farmers?

You know, how exactly do you force someone to negotiate by making them and their populace even MORE angry at you? Sorry, it just doesn't work that way.

Have you ever had a rock thrown at you? Ten? Twenty? It's only natural that, when attacked, some soldiers are going to fear for their lives. Sometimes, they will be right to so fear. Other times will be an overreaction. In either case, you can't simply blame the soldiers when the provocative act belongs to the rock throwers.

Okay, no more blaming suicide bombers. The provocative act belongs to the IDF.

Use of lethal force in response to curfew violations is fairly standard when you have a widespread movement among a group of people to kill YOUR people.

Aha! So, next time a settler i swalking or drving in the WB, the Palestinians should fire on him. After all, there's a chance he's a soldier. No more paying attention; just shoot, shoot, shoot. Or is that privilege only awarded to the most moral army in the world?

If the Palestinians didn't allow the terrorists to hide among them, then firepower would not be necessary. They do, it is.

Not firepower used recklessly.

So, you oppose incursions. That means Israel should simply let the Palestinian terror groups do whatever they want. My God, do you have any idea what that would mean?

No, I oppose highly destructive incursions, like the ones which make thousands of people homeless and kill and wound a considerable number of innocent civilians.

[drewb]

50. Wow....

You ripped that response to threads line by line...

Very impressive!

I fear that it is about as useful as bashing your head against the wall, but I admire your response non the less...

[Paschall]

9. "Arafat brought this on his people"

Arafat is to be blamed for the fact that Israel has, by law, humanitarian responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention?

Funny, the Convention was passed in 1949 principally in reaction to the unprecedented inhumane--not to say barbaric--treatment of civilians during the war. The Holocaust, remember?

[Muddleoftheroad]

11. Arafat

Rejeced peace, pushed violence and steals money from his people.

Yes, Arafat is to be blamed.

[Darranar]

14. There are four major problems with Arafat...

1. He does nothing to stop the bigotry that is all too common in the Palestinian media.

2. He is a brutal leader who has killed many innocent Palestinians.

3. He tolerates terrorism, and I doubt that he'll ever cease to do so.

4. He undermines moderates and therefore undermines the peace process.

Corruption is all too common in this world; I do not beleive many of the exxagerated accounts, though it would be foolish to believe that he has never stolen money from his people.

But Arafat is NOT responsible for Israel's inhumanitarian policies in the West Bank and Gaza. Arafat is NOT responsible for the refusal of Sharon to make peace. Arafat is NOT responsible for the security wall.

The GOI is responsible for all those things.

[Muddleoftheroad]

17. Some clarifications

While I don't disagree a lot with your assessment of Arafat, I think you go too easy on him.

. He does nothing to stop the bigotry that is all too common in the Palestinian media.

This is an understatement

2. He is a brutal leader who has killed many innocent Palestinians.

What about the Israeli deaths he is responsible for?

3. He tolerates terrorism, and I doubt that he'll ever cease to do so.

He does more than tolerate terrorism. He advocates, supports and facilitates it.

4. He undermines moderates and therefore undermines the peace process.

He doesn't just undermine moderates, he destroys any chance they have at success.

As for peacemaking, Arafat set all that is going on now in motion by refusing to counteroffer. He screwed up the peace process. Given all even you say about Arafat, why SHOULD Sharon negotiate with him?

The security wall to protect against the terrorists which Arafat won't take care of.

[Darranar]

18. This is where we part ways...

. He does nothing to stop the bigotry that is all too common in the Palestinian media.

This is an understatement

So what do you want me to say? "Arafat despicably refuses to stop the vile hatred and bigotry that emanates from the wildly racist PA media"?

2. He is a brutal leader who has killed many innocent Palestinians.

What about the Israeli deaths he is responsible for?

Those are in the past - I like to concern myself with the present. If you are speaking of the suicide bombings, Arafat is not responsible for them; he simply abandons his responsibility to do what he can to stop them.

3. He tolerates terrorism, and I doubt that he'll ever cease to do so.

He does more than tolerate terrorism. He advocates, supports and facilitates it.

No he doesn't. The only group which the PA - and not neccesarily Arafat - may have an association with is the Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade, from what I have read.

4. He undermines moderates and therefore undermines the peace process.

He doesn't just undermine moderates, he destroys any chance they have at success.

That's done with Sharon. He alone lacks the pwoer to do such a thing without Sharon refusing to face the real issues behind the conflict.

As for peacemaking, Arafat set all that is going on now in motion by refusing to counteroffer. He screwed up the peace process. Given all even you say about Arafat, why SHOULD Sharon negotiate with him?

The security wall to protect against the terrorists which Arafat won't take care of.

No, that's simply not true.

That was done with Barak. And even if Arafat had counteroffered, do you think Barak would have accepted?

The "security" wall is a land-grab under the guise of a security structure.

[Jack Rabbit]

21. Why there is a security wall is irrelevant

We don't need to argue here about whether the wall is needed and, if so, whether it should be built along the Green Line or well into the occupied territories.

We don't even need to argue here about whether there is a Palestinian Authority and whether it is corrupt and incompetent.

The only issue here is that Israel is the occupying authority and, as such, is ultimately responsible for the well-being of the Palestinian people. If there is starvation in the territories, what is Israel prepared to do about it?

[drdon326]

22. Hold on...

There is something called the PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY last time
I checked... thay has been in charge for x number if years.
They hold "elections", they control spending and they control
armed forces. To claim that Israel is the "occupying authority"
is to ignore recent history. The pa CONTROLS the above functions
of elections and spending...What have THEY done about it ??

hopefully, theyll retrieve the $ 3,000,000,000 ripped off by
his nobel-ness. That could buy a alot of prime rib.lol

[Darranar]

23. No, they don't...

not until there is a Palestinian state do the isarelis cease to be an occupyign power.

[Jack Rabbit]

24. Exactly

Until then, Israel is repsonsible for the well being of people who live under its occupation, PA or no PA.

[drdon326]

25. I disagree...

they control money...they can buy food.

[Jack Rabbit]

26. The PA is not to be condoned in this case

Arafat is corrupt and incompetent. He has squandered a great deal of money that doesn't belong to him.

However, Israel is still responsible for the well-being of the people in the land under occupation. That is one of her obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention. If Arafat and the PA can't be trusted to deliver relief to the people, then there is nothing that says the Israelis need to work through them.

[drdon326]

27. If Arafat and the PA can't be trusted ......

then the palestinians have a major problem on their hands.

And they can blame arafat and his seemingly hand-picked
PA for their misery.

Does the Fourth Geneva Convention , mention anything about the
PALESTINIAN authorities responsiblities about spending money
on propaganda textbooks and weapons (see korine-a ) rather
than on food?

Im sorry...the pa was set up to run its own affairs with respect
to this. Israel would be raked over the coals if they tried
to gain control of the billions given to the pa and told them
what and where they should do with it.

[Jack Rabbit]

28. The Fourth Geneva Convention

EDITED to fix link

The Fourth Geneva Convention was adopted in 1949. Obviously, it says nothing about the PA.

The PA was a creation of the Oslo Accords. Its purpose was to be a transition from Israeli occupation to independent statehood. In no way did the creation of the PA relieve Israel of its obligations under the Geneva Convention. It remained an occupying power throughtout the process and was accordingly ultimately responsible for the welfare of the people living in the territories.

Can we say Oslo is dead? I think it is, and we don't need to argue about who killed it. That's irrelevant, too. The only thing that matters is that Israel, the occupying power, is responsible for making sure hamnitarian relief gets to the people who need it.

[bluesoul]

29. And if Israel doesn't want to be responsible

for it under the 4th Geneva Convention, then they should stop being the occupying power and get out! Their choice...

[Jack Rabbit]

30. To underscore that point

It really doesn't matter if a Palestinian state is declared. As far as I am concerned, one can be declared and it would change nothing in terms of the occupation. As long as there are Israeli troops on Palestinian soil, it's an occupation.

And Israel has obligations as an occupying power under the Fourth Geneva Convention. States, authorities, quasi-states, etc., are irrelevant.

[drdon326]

32. ok....Jack...

so lets review...

The PA can....

a.buy guns and weapons and thats their responsibility
b. can buy filthy textbooks advocating religious murder
and thats their responsibility
c.can set up television stations exposing the most
vile anti-semitic crap and thats their responsibility
d. can allow the theft of 3 BILLION DOLLARS and thats
their resposibity.

But if PA doesnt buy food for its people,.......

THEN THATS ISRAELS RESPONSIBILITY.

Do i have that right, Jack??

[Jack Rabbit]

33. Yes

If Israel doesn't like arrangement, they can dismantle the PA (we know that will cause a hue and cry, but they are the occupying power) or they can quit the Palestinian territories. However, the Israelis cannot allow a humanitarian disaster to go unrelieved.

The Israelis responsible for the welfare of residents within the OT.

[drdon326]

35. I understand now...

The PA can do ANY horrible,disgusting,immoral and inhuman

thing they want with no consequences but Israel has to play

by rules that did not envision this scenario while at the

same time trying to stop a jihadfascist war thats only

goal is to kill as many jews as possible.




makes perfect sense to me.

[DuctapeFatwa]

37. It would be more honest for Israel to unratify 4th Geneva

and any other human rights treaties to which it may be signatory, and withdraw from the UN.

That would solve the problem.

[Jack Rabbit]

38. Actually, no

The Palestinian people have the right to resist occupation. However, even irregular armies have obligations under international law that have been violated in this conflict. You and I have both decried these violations on this forum. An IDF patrol on the West Bank is a legitimate target for resistance fighters; a crowd of people eating lunch in a cafe in Haifa is not. To strike the former is an act of war; to strike the latter is a war crime.

Yes, Israel has to play by rules as well. The Israelis have a right to attempt to suppress the resistance. However, they can't allow a humanitarian disaster to go unrelieved. They cannot inflict collective punishment on the residents of the occupied land. Israel cannot transfer parts of her own population to the occupied land, as has been done, nor transfer the residents of the occupied land out of it, as has been suggested even by members of General Sharon's cabinet.

[hossdiddy]

39. actually

Israel hasn't transferred any people to the occupied land. They have moved willingly, so this is not a Geneva convention violation.

[Darranar]

40. The encouragement of such movement is a violation....

That Israel is guilty of.

[Jack Rabbit]

42. Thank you, Mr. Darranar

Exactly my point

[Jack Rabbit]

41. The settlements are still illegal

As I said on the other thread. The fact that no individual settler was forced to move to the OT is irrelevant. The settlements could not exist without support from the GOI and paid for by the Israeli taxpayer.

The purpose of the clause (in Article 49) is to prevent just this kind of thing where the occupying power makes use of occupied land for its own purposes.

Nevertheless, the important point on this thread is that Israel as the occupying power has an obligation to prevent a humanitarian crisis. If there is famine among the Palestinians on the West Bank, it must be relived.

[Forkboy]

36. It's the resposibility

of decent humans to do the right thing Don.Who is right and who is wrong should irrelevant.If people need food,and someone has the ability to provide it then they should do so,not hold people hostage because they have a shitheel in charge.It's simply a matter of doing what's right even if others should be doing so anyways and aren't.

[Gimel]

51. Arafat's faults

You admitted here to some very serious faults in a leader, an autocratic leader at that, who weilds most of the power in the political establishments, yet you call him not responsible for measures to deal with the results of his "negative behavior".

by your reasoning, a criminal who is tried and sentenced to jail is not responsible for being in jail. An obvious logical falicy.

But Arafat is NOT responsible for Israel's inhumanitarian policies in the West Bank and Gaza.

The policies are not inhumane, they place restrictions on the Palestinian people because of Arafat's continued call for Jihad and resistance against Israel's actions to root out terrorism. If all the people resist this sweep for terrorists, they, by their actions, are also responsible. The make the effort much more difficult than it neeeds to be, and put their lives and their children's lives in danger.

[bluesoul]

52. If you don't see the inhumane policies

then you just don't see any faulty at Israel's policy, whatever they may do. You just blame the other side for everything, as though Israel is not part of the whole problem...

[MikeGalos]

16. Well, it was only a matter of time

until the Arafat family started playing their cards to keep themselves in power.

As people here hopefully know, Palestinian Red Crescent, the official IRC agency in both the PA and the refugee camps in the surrounding Arab states, is headed by Yasser Arafat's brother.

Anyone care to bet that the press release that was sent to the Independent came from Arafat's mother-in-law's PR firm?

Looks like the Arafats will starve their own people to keep Yasser in his position to loot his people and keep the rest of the family happy, wealthy and safe in Paris.

[Jack Rabbit]

20. Concurring in part and dissenting in part

You'll get no argument from me that Arafat is a crook and that the Palestinian people would be better off with another leader.

However, the ultimate responsibility for the well-being of people in an occupied land is with the occupying power. If Palestinians in the occupied territories are starving, it is up to the Israelis to do something about it. If the humanitarian crisis comes as a result of military closures, then it is all the more the responsibility of the occupying power.

Moreover, the article from the Independent does not quote any official from the Palestinian Red Crescent, but from the International Red Cross. The administration of Red Crescent is a red herring in this issue. If it is so incompetent or corrupt that it cannot be trusted to be worked with as a partner in humanitarian relief, deal them out. The tantamount concern is that relief be brought to those who need it.

[hossdiddy]

34. Goot point,

I forgot it was Yasser's brother heading the Red Crescent.

Yasser and family, and the corrupt leaders in much of the Arab world would shed a crocodile tear if Palestinians starved, but think of the great anti-Israeli photo ops.

[Paschall]

46. Dr. Fathi Arafat is actually...

...Honorary President of the Palestinian Red Crescent Society.

George W. Bush is honorary chariman of the Boy Scouts of America. So what?

http://www.palestinercs.org/prcsindepth/who'swho.htm

Today, PRCS has grown to represent the largest Arab Red Crescent Society, constituting a vast network of more than 70 hospitals, 300 clinics and tens of health and social welfare centers serving the Palestinian people wherever they may be.
http://www.palestinercs.org/prcsindepth/