Robinson criticises Israel for continued blockade on Gaza

[Violet_Crumble]

FORMER IRISH president Mary Robinson castigated Israel and the international community at the weekend for maintaining the blockade on Gaza.

Leading a delegation from the global “Elders” on a 24-hour visit to the strip on Saturday, Mrs Robinson said: “I was last here in 2008, just before the Gaza war. The situation has deteriorated to a shocking extent since then. This is not a humanitarian crisis – it is a political crisis, and it can be solved politically.

“It is unconscionable and unacceptable that Israel and the international community have not lifted the blockade fully to allow Gazans to rebuild their lives and be part of the interconnected world that we take for granted.”

Following a meeting with de facto prime minister Ismail Hani- yeh, Mrs Robinson declared that Hamas, which won the 2006 parliamentary election and controls Gaza, should not be excluded from Palestinian-Israeli negotiations. She revealed that there is “encouraging news” about reconciliation talks between Hamas and Fatah, which administers West Bank Palestinian enclaves.

Delegation member and former Algerian foreign minister, Lakhdar Brahimi urged Palestinian leaders to finalise the unity pact drafted by Egypt and called for an end to the blockade.

“Holding 1.5 million people in what is effectively an open prison is deepening the sense of anger and injustice Palestinians.”

Indian human rights activist Ela Bhatt observed that Gazans “have the right to develop their economy” but face worsening conditions.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/1018/1224281341037.html

[Tripmann]

1. Good on ye Mary, still doing the Irish proud!

The most beloved president in the history of the Irish state and a woman of immeasurable conscience.

[Violet_Crumble]

2. She's a great person...

Her work in support of human rights is something I really admire her for and probably the reason she's the only Irish president I even know the name of...

[shira]

3. Mary Robinson's admission: "This is not a humanitarian crisis".

Making matters worse, she presided over the infamous World Conference Against Racism in Durban in 2001. She repeatedly ignored the pleas of distinguished human rights activists including the late Congressman Tom Lantos and the US secretary of state at the time Colin Powell to stop the Durban conference from degenerating into an orgy of Israel- and Jew-bashing.

In fairness, eventually she herself was so appalled by a cartoon the Arab Lawyers' Union distributed equating the Star of David with the Swastika that she proclaimed at an official dinner "When I see something like this, I am a Jew."

Nevertheless it was too little, too late. And in her closing remarks Robinson declared "we... succeeded," a shocking statement considering that anti-Zionists hijacked the conference, demonizing Israel, bullying Jewish participants and distributing crude anti-Semitic images of hooked-nose Jews at the parallel NGO forum.

For at least three years after the conference, Mary Robinson continued to celebrate Durban's success. It was only in response to public campaigns at McGill University (which, full disclosure, I led) and at Emory University against her receiving honorary doctorates in 2004 that she began to acknowledge Durban’s legacy as mixed.

As such, she was also responsible for trying to sanitize the historical record and soft-pedal the Durban disgrace.

For many in the human rights community, when they hear Durban, Mary Robinson, Human Rights and the UN, their knees go wobbly. For others of us, we hear Durban - and everything associated with it - and our stomachs get queasy.

Mary Robinson failed at Durban. Mary Robinson failed when in the Regional Conference in Teheran in February, 2001 leading up to Durban she watched as Israel was targeted and demonized, allowing the anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism to fester.

Mary Robinson failed when in that already inflamed atmosphere she allowed the Palestinian conflict to be singled out, acknowledging on August 9, 2001 the need for "Recognition of the accumulated sense of grievance and frustration because of prolonged military occupation, now in its fourth decade."

This behavior violated the UN protocols whereby at human rights world conferences such as at the UN Vienna World Conference on Human Rights in 1993, and the UN Beijing World Conference on Women in 1995, no single state or conflict was to be singled out.

And Mary Robinson failed when she refused to distance herself from the conference - in fact boasted about it.

http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/troy/entry/honoring_mary_robinson_obama_honors1

[Tripmann]

7. For the honest brokers around here..The full, NON-SELECTIVELY QUOTED quote from President Robinson.

“I was last here in 2008, just before the Gaza war. The situation has deteriorated to a shocking extent since then. This is not a humanitarian crisis – it is a political crisis and it can be solved politically. It is unconscionable and unacceptable that Israel and the international community have not lifted the blockade fully to allow Gazans to rebuild their lives and be part of the interconnected world that we take for granted. The easing of the blockade may mean more goods can be imported, but people are not free to come and go, reconstruction materials are still highly restricted, there is no real economy to speak of, and I have no doubt that things are not just stagnant – they are going backwards.”

[oberliner]

9. That is in the article itself (most of it in the excerpt posted in the OP)

Not sure why it was necessary to reprint it twice when anyone who read the article (or even just the excerpt) can see the quote in its full context.

[Tripmann]

10. I leave it to the regulars to disseminate the correct context of President Robinsons statement.

Notwithstanding a blatant attempt to selectively quote part of her statement, contrary to the rules of I/P, for the purpose of changing the overall quotes context.

[shira]

23. Same context as Ethan Bronner's article. See post #22 below. Claims of starvation...

....and a humanitarian crisis were a lie.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[shira]

27. And now she's being clear it's not a humanitarian crisis. But you'd rather believe the lie, why?

Also, is Ethan Bronner of the NYT a liar peddling filth? See his article in post #22.

How about Time Mag?

Gaza's residents will concede that there is no hunger crisis in the Strip. Residents do love the beach, and the store shelves are stocked. But if you're focused on starvation, they say, you're probably missing the point. To them, the word prison speaks more to the effect that years of conflict and political and economic isolation have had on the Gaza psyche. "We are talking about continuous stress and ongoing trauma," says Hasan Zeyada, a psychologist at the Gaza Community Mental Health Program (GCMHP), the territory's main psychological treatment and research NGO. "It's not one incident, but all of the time. We are at a continuous level of high stress and human-rights violations and traumas through Israeli invasions and war."

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2010064,00.html

Or Slate?

Gaza is not Darfur!
http://www.slate.com/id/2262805

All liars peddling the same filth as your dear Mary Robinson?

[Tripmann]

29. If shes being clear, then why cherrypick 6 words? If your cause is so righteous, why the dishonesty?

Every aid agency on the planet has called it a humanitarian crisis. The ICRC itself has called it a humanitarian crisis.

Who do we believe? The experts......or you, who won't even condemn bombs being dropped on the same innocent people you claims aren't suffering a humanitarian crisis


Hmmmmmmmm.......

[shira]

30. Why ignore and deny 6 words that echo the NYT, Slate, and Time Magazine? n/t

[Tripmann]

31. Why misrepresent the woman to defend your beloved israel collectively punishing innocent women

and children.

[shira]

33. There is no misrepresenting. She's echoing the Director of the UN Development program from 2008...

...as well as the NYT, Slate, and Time Magazine recently.

Reports that as many as 50 per cent of children are suffering from malnutrition are exaggerations, says Khaled Abdel Shaafi, director the United Nations Development Program.

"This is not a humanitarian crisis," he said. "It's an economic crisis, a political crisis, but it's not a humanitarian crisis. People aren't starving."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/article727614.ece


All peddlers of filth, right? :shrug:

[Tripmann]

37. I'm sure if the internet had been around in the 1940s we would have seen the following......

Humanitarian expert says "There is no humanitarian crisis in the concentration camps, there is a crisis of our very humanity"

'Good germans' post all over the internet 'See, the expert says "theres is humanitarian crisis in the concentration camps"

Good girl :applause:

[shira]

38. Reputable sources admit no humanitarian crisis in Gaza, so why do you ignore/deny it?

If you want Liberal Leftwing Zionists to join you in your cause, you have to at least be honest and realistic.

Otherwise, it's obvious your goal is deligitimization, slandering, and sliming.

In short, filth.

[Tripmann]

43. President Robinson also says its collective punishment. You deny it. Picking and choosing the words

she says that suit your excusing of the inexcusable again.

[shira]

44. First things first....the claim about starvation & a humanitarian crisis was a lie, right?

[azurnoir]

47. I have already answered that n/t

[shira]

49. Why are you answering for Tripmann? n/t

[Tripmann]

51. Caught ya. As usual you cherrypick the words that suits you. Wash rinse repeat, Its pathetic.

:rofl:

Let us all know when you're ready to discuss her whole statement with the grown ups.

Cheers

[shira]

52. Compare what she said to TIME, SLATE, NYT, and the UN Director. It's the same, right?

No obfuscation this time, okay?

Be honest.

You can do it.

[Tripmann]

53. Does it fill you with pride for Israel to excuse the collective punishment of women and children?

After all, the person you have cherrypicked 6 words from, Mary Robinson, also considers what Israel has wrought on the gazans to be collective punishment. And, suddenly, you're all about MAry Robinsons opinion on the siege. Can we assume that includes her defining it as collective punishment?? :rofl:

http://www.theelders.org/media/mediareleases/elders-visit-gaza-call-lifting-blockade

"Mary Robinson, Ela Bhatt and Lakhdar Brahimi say the isolation of Gaza is not only illegal collective punishment, but also an impediment to peace. President Carter will join his fellow Elders in Egypt on their return from Gaza."

Yet you deny collective punishment. Oh I get it, ignore the context while waving around the cherrypicked words.

Pity the rest of what the elders have to say, besides the 6 words that suit you, slams the crime against humanity your beloved israel has wrought on innocent women and children.

[shira]

54. You can't admit there's no humanitarian crisis, can you? Claiming so was a lie, right?

Let's see whether you're really all about empathy, compassion, and human rights or just slander, hatred, and other assorted filth.

We'll know the answer to that soon...

[Tripmann]

56. Why do you ignore her previous comments calling it a humanitarian crisis, but cherrypick 6 words?

Even oberliner concedes the point, yet you continue to purposely quote her out of context.

Nobody believes you shira. look at the thread. You're the last person excusing the inexcusable.

[shira]

58. Why should I believe anything liars say about Israel? You can't admit claims of starvation...

...and a humanitarian crisis were lies - why not?

It's not about compassion and empathy for you, it's about piling on Israel - right? :shrug:

[Tripmann]

60. Israel was very careful to keep its victims NEAR starvation, but not quite let them starve to death.

However, I don't think the mass malnourishment of a million innocent people is something you should wear with pride.

Dov Weisglass, adviser to former prime minister Ehud Olmert: "The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger"

[shira]

63. You're still using the claims and arguments of known, unrepentant liars - why? n/t

[Tripmann]

75. LOL! The red cross is a known unreopentant liar? It calls gaza a humanitarian crisis.

Before you call ANYONE a liar, think about this. When nobody believes you anymore, the only person you are really lying to is yourself.

[shira]

77. So TIME, SLATE, the NYT, and several UN reps are liars for saying there's no humanitarian crisis?

[Tripmann]

79. You're the only person here accusing people of lying shira. And nobody believes you.

[shira]

85. So reports and claims by TIME, SLATE, NYT, and UN reps are....? Tell us please. n/t

[Tripmann]

92. I believe the experts from the ICRC,the de facto commentators on humanitarian matters.

[shira]

95. Jimmy Carter claimed Gazans were starving. You believe him? n/t

[Tripmann]

102. No. But I'm not the one dropping his name in reverence when it suits my agenda.

Only to accuse him of dishonesty when it doesn't.

Its actually hilarious.

[shira]

107. No? Why not? Do you think he lied, or was just honestly misinformed? n/t

[Tripmann]

126. Who? Jimmy Carter, that guy whos name you drop in reverence when you agree with him??

:rofl:

[shira]

134. Can't answer that one either, can you? This must be so confusing for you, never being able...

...to answer the simplest questions.

[Tripmann]

136. Any other names you want to drop while you're quoting out of context for your agenda??

[shira]

139. Are you denying Robinson is retracting just like the NYT, SLATE, TIME, and the UN?

[Tripmann]

146. Who the fox news filth tactics? Why dishonesty to excuse the mass malnourishment of innocent kids?

[shira]

148. No filthy tactics at all. Why did Robinson deny a humanitarian crisis in Gaza? No deflections...

...or ad hominems, okay?

[Tripmann]

153. Shira, its pathetic when hannity does it, and he's getting paid. Whats YOUR excuse??

[shira]

32. self-delete (n/t)

[Violet_Crumble]

93. I think the attempts to selectively quote from that are incredibly dishonest n/t

[Tripmann]

103. Thats it VC. And I'm more than happy to repeatedly expose this dishonesty.

Using a quote out of context to claim something when the person has said the opposite on many occasions is the last refuge of the desperate.

[Violet_Crumble]

117. That one is a very good example of a quote that needs the context around it...

There's quite a few quotes I've seen in the past where reading them in their context makes it clear that what they're saying isn't what the person taking them out of context is trying to argue. And in this case it really is dishonest imo to try to make out that Mary Robinson thinks it's all healthy living and a luxury lifestyle in Gaza. The quote in context shows that she thinks things are not good at all there. I'd be curious to know if there was any humanitarian crisis existing that can't be fixed by political means, coz I think that humanitarian and political crisises aren't mutually exlusive...

[shira]

118. So why did Mary Robinson claim "no humanitarian crisis" if there really is/was one? n/t

[Tripmann]

119. Why the fox news tactics shira. Why the selective quotation. Why the dishonesty??

Whos backing you up? Whos believing you? Whos agreeing that 6 words taken out of context trumps multiple quotations in the past.

[shira]

122. Why did she say it? She did say it, right? Why? n/t

[Tripmann]

125. ROTFLMAO! THATS WHERE I'VE SEEN THIS CRAP BEFORE!! Know what this reminds me of boys and girls????

That BIG story on fox news about the photo showing Obama checking out a girls ass on a staircase. The cherrypicked snapshot in time. Oh, the SCANDAL!! Hours and hours of obama being made out to be pervy because of one phoho out of context, just like shira is now trying to make Mary Robinson out to be a liar using 6 words out of context.

Then when we saw the video, the CONTEXT, and we see Obama was doing no such thing and was in fact assisting someone.

That photo, the snapshot, or in this case a 6 word snapshot, all to suit an agenda. A personal attack on a good person.

When you see the context, the video clip of Obama, the speech of President Robinson, you see the full picture, AND THE DISINGENUOUS FILTH BEING PERPETRATED ON AN HONOURABLE PERSON FOR AN AGENDA.


Fair play to ya shira, you're doing a first rate job of being a third rate fox 'news' anchor.

:rofl:

[shira]

128. You're deflecting. Why did she say it? Let's face it, she wasn't taken out of context - was she?

You can't explain it.

And maniacally laughing with ROTFLMAO and smilies isn't an explanation.

[Tripmann]

130. I explained it numerous times in this thread. Why the fox news filth tactics??

[shira]

131. No you haven't. She shouldn't have said it if were false, so why'd she say it at all?

All you wrote is that you believe she still thinks Gaza is a humanitarian disaster but not necessarily a humanitarian crisis.

:eyes:

[Tripmann]

138. Seriously, Who are you fooling with your fox news filth tactics?

You think there is a SINGLE person around here buying your bullshit?

Well??

[shira]

140. No ROTFLMAO? No smilies? Again, why did Mary Robinson say there's no humanitarian crisis?

[Tripmann]

145. Why did you say gazans were starving due to the crisis if you don't believe it?

[shira]

149. What are you talking about? Starvation has always been a BS claim. n/t

[Tripmann]

152. Then why did you post it??

[polly7]

197. I do too.

But it happens every time, on every topic brought up regarding the blockade ....... it's impossible to post here anymore because of the lying and spinning, cherry-picking ... all to defend the indefensible. It's beyond sickening.

[oberliner]

4. Do you agree with her when she says the situation in Gaza is not a humanitarian crisis?

Is that a controversial statement to you?

[azurnoir]

6. no not in context it is not controversial n/t

[shira]

22. Robinson is merely echoing what Ethan Bronner reported recently...

"But the broader point many of these advocates are making — that the poverty of Gaza is often misconstrued, willfully or inadvertently — is correct. The despair here is not that of Haiti or Somalia. It is a misery of dependence, immobility and hopelessness, not of grinding want. The flotilla movement is not about material aid; it is about Palestinian freedom and defiance of Israeli power."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/world/middleeast/23gaza.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss

Claims of a humanitarian crisis were nothing but lies.

[azurnoir]

25. are they now? well let's look at another snip other than your fav-0-rite one

But symbols are a risky business, and Israel’s fiercest defenders have seized upon the mall for their own purposes as well. Wielding glossy photographs of the new shops, they ask: Is this the land of deprivation that you have heard about? How did they build a mall if no building materials are permitted into Gaza? How badly off can a place be that has just opened up a luxury mall? Those aid flotillas are sailing to the wrong place, they say.

I think you prove Bronner's point

[shira]

28. The point is that claims of starvation and a humanitarian crisis were nothing but lies. n/t

[azurnoir]

34. there is no starvation , but the crisis is politically or artificially induced

where as most "humanitarian crisis's " are the result of natural disasters

[shira]

35. So you agree with the UN Director of Development in 2008, and now the NYT, Slate, Time...? n/t

[azurnoir]

40. I agree that there is/was no starvation n/t

[shira]

41. So Mary Robinson, the NYT, Time Magazine, Slate, the UN Director.... they're all wrong? n/t

[azurnoir]

42. I believe that Mary Robinson's quote taken in context was correct

the crisis is politically or artificially induced

[shira]

45. Robinson's quote isn't similar to the NYT, Time Mag, Slate, and the UN Director claim in your view?

[azurnoir]

46. Similar perhaps but not the exact same either n/t

[shira]

48. Compare the statements, they're the same. n/t

[shira]

55. Here's John Ging of UNRWA worming his way out of the "humanitarian crisis" lie...

Instead of dealing with the obvious facts on the ground, the truth is either denied or ignored and instead a debate rages around whether there is a humanitarian crisis or not and whether adjusting or easing an illegality is the appropriate response. Let me say unequivocally that there is a crisis that is far larger than a “humanitarian crisis”; there is a crisis that affects every aspect of public and private life in Gaza.

As the Elders will see, the water and sanitation infrastructure is a state of collapse with 80 million cubic litres of untreated sewage pumped into the Mediterranean every day; 90% of the water unsafe to drink by World Health Organization standards. They will also see the poverty and staggering levels of aid dependency, where 80% of the population are dependent on handouts of food from the United Nations. Yes the shops are full of consumer goods, now from Israel rather than the tunnels, but very few can afford to buy them. Unemployment is at record levels with 95% of the private sector businesses closed and the ban on commercial imports and exports still firmly in place.

The result of this and much more is that 100% of the innocent civilians despair at the mismatch between the political rhetoric of the international community and their refusal to take effective action to uphold international law,

http://theelders.org/middle-east/blogs/john-ging/gaza-simple-truths-go-untold

[Tripmann]

57. LOL! You're worming around definitions of the crime against humanity your buddies are committing on

innocent women and children.

Project much??

[shira]

59. And who is accusing Israel of these crimes? Liars who once claimed starvation & humanitarian crisis

[Tripmann]

61. You excuse their bombardment, malnourishment, imprisonment and opression.

Now you claim there is no humanitarian crisis because you have purposely and maliciously taken out of context a person who has claimed there IS one many times.

Who do we believe, you, or the aid agencies?

If you need to know the answer, look at how many of your pro-israel buddies are backing you up. Even they know you cannot lay siege to people for 3 years without causing immeasurable suffering.

[shira]

62. I excuse nothing. You're denying that claims of starvation/crisis were lies.

I've also taken nothing out of context as Robinson's statement matches recent statements in TIME, SLATE, NYT, by John Ging of UNRWA, and also a 2008 statement by the UN Director of Development.

As to no one else commenting, I'm certain they feel it's a complete waste of time trying to have an intelligent discussion/debate with you.

[Tripmann]

81. Oh, so now you condemn israel for dropping bombs on areas populated with innocent women & children??

[shira]

84. First things first. Were claims of starvation and a humanitarian crisis true or false? n/t

[Tripmann]

88. Refusing to condemn the bombardment of innocent women and children? Tisk tisk

Funny how your debating skills revolve around asking people questions when questions are your kryptonite.

:)

Of course, everyone here can understand how a person who refuses to condemn the killing of innocent women and children can claim they are not also suffering a humanitarian crisis.

[shira]

90. Just waiting for you to answer first, but then you don't answer tough questions. n/t

[Tripmann]

104. You've refused to condemn the bombardment of innocent women & children every time its been put to

you to do so.

Yet we're supposed to believe you over the red cross when you claim the same innocent people aren't suffering a humanitarian crisis???

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[shira]

108. I'm always against cruel unethical terror against innocents. Now please answer me. n/t

[Tripmann]

110. Ok, so you don't consider the women and children Israel bombarded to be innocent?

[shira]

112. What? Where'd I say that? Do you consider any military Israeli defense against rockets as terror?

[Tripmann]

121. You condemn innocents being bombarded but refuse to condemn women & children in gaza being bombarded

ergo...you do not consider the women and children of gaza to be innocents.

Seems plain enough, and your posts excusing every crime against humanity committed against them certainly back this up.

[shira]

123. Many bombed in Gaza were innocents who shouldn't have been harmed but do you think Israel....

....deliberately and cynically murdered them?

Is any military response by Israel cruel, evil terror if any civilians are harmed?

[Tripmann]

127. You bombard a densely populated area, you make a concious decision to kill innocent women & children

You consistently refuse to condemn these killings. Or to refer to the women and children of gaza as innocent.

[shira]

132. So any military response by Israel to effectively stop rockets, etc.. is wrong?

Self defense against rockets is a cruel and evil terror attack, right?

Civilians of Gaza who didn't participate in hostilities are by definition innocent.

[Tripmann]

137. So you ARE excusing Israel bombarding areas densely populated with innocent women and children.

[shira]

141. Where'd I say that? Do you think it's wrong for Israel to respond militarily to hundreds of rocket

...attacks?

[Tripmann]

143. Rather than condemn the bombardment of children, you rattle off cliched soundbites. Thats excusing

[shira]

150. LOL, coming from the king of cliched sanctimonious soundbites. n/t

[Tripmann]

155. So you're condoning israel bombarding innocent women and children.

Why should anyone believe you when you say there was no humanitarian crisis in gaza when you don't condemn bombs being dropped on the same innocent women and children??

[shira]

156. Not at all. What's with you resorting to Fox News tactics by attributing views to me I don't have?

To be very clear, no country - including Israel - has any right to terrorize or oppress innocent groups of people. Any country that does so deliberately and/or for no rational reason is always wrong for doing so and deserves condemnation. If for no other reason, Israel will have to fight future wars against terrorists on Arab land and it's to Israel's benefit that they fight as cleanly as possible. The people in those foreign lands are Israel's neighbors and Israel should do its very best to be as ethnical and humane as possible while defending her own citizens.

Now you tell me - if Palestinians are launching rockets and missiles at Israel, threatening Israeli lives, hitting schools or community centers, is it your opinion that Israel has no right to stop the rocketeers if even one innocent Palestinian is hurt?

[Tripmann]

157. Oh, so you're condemning israel bombarding innocent women and children then. Yes?

[shira]

158. Read my last post again and then answer me. No more Faux Noise tactics from you, okay? n/t

[Tripmann]

159. Why should we believe you about the crisis when you can't even condemn kids being bombarded?

[shira]

160. Still waiting for you to answer me. Here's my answer to you again...

To be very clear, no country - including Israel - has any right to terrorize or oppress innocent groups of people. Any country that does so deliberately and/or for no rational reason is always wrong for doing so and deserves condemnation. If for no other reason, Israel will have to fight future wars against terrorists on Arab land and it's to Israel's benefit that they fight as cleanly as possible. The people in those foreign lands are Israel's neighbors and Israel should do its very best to be as ethnical and humane as possible while defending her own citizens.

Now you tell me - if Palestinians are launching rockets and missiles at Israel, threatening Israeli lives, hitting schools or community centers in which dozens of Israelis are hurt or killed - is it your opinion that Israel has no right to stop the rocketeers if even one innocent Palestinian is hurt?

===========

You believe that if even one Palestinian innocent is harmed in defense, Israel should be condemned for that?

===========

Failure to answer will lead me to conclude your answer is yes to both questions above.

Show me I'm wrong about you.

[Tripmann]

161. We're not talking about 'one palestinian', so can the rhetoric. We're talking about hundreds of dead

palestinian women and children. You refuse to condemn this. You refuse to even acknowledge them as innocent, lest you implicate your beloved israel in the killing of so many innocent people.

[shira]

162. So you certainly do condemn Israel for daring to defend its citizens.

As long as the terrorists shield themselves safely among hundreds or thousands of innocents, women, children, elderly, invalids.......Israel can do absolutely nothing in defense. Terrorists can fire at will from such a place....forever, if they wish.

And Israel's citizens should just take it and drop dead.

Got it, thanks!

[Tripmann]

163. I condemn israel for bombarding an area densely populated with women and children.You refuse to.

We all get it, thanks!

[shira]

164. No, you condemn Israel for daring to defend its citizens...see my last post again.

And worse, what the terrorists do by using civilians this way is perfectly acceptable to you. Any citizen's death is entirely Israel's fault and in no way the fault of those using them as shields.

[Tripmann]

166. Israel already killed hundreds of gazans during the rocket attacks (which killed 20 israelis)

So how can you condone dropping bombs on built up areas by israel when they knew they'd kill hundereds more innocents?

The blood of how many palestinian children is worth the blood of one israeli?

A dozen?

A hundred?

All of them?

Any crimes against humanity you're willing to find unacceptable by your beloved israel?

[shira]

168. You're still deflecting, diverting, and obfuscating.

Here's a simple question for you to answer...

Terrorists from Gaza are launching rockets and missiles at Israel, causing destruction, death, maiming, etc. They're embedded purposely among hundreds of innocents. They can keep launching and firing away for many more hours, perhaps hitting a school or hospital in the process.

Israel can do absolutely nothing in response militarily, right?

I'm assuming your advice to Israelis under attack is to take it and drop dead? :shrug:

If you obfuscate again, I can only assume that's what you believe.

===============

And once more...

You apparently believe it's perfectly okay for those terrorists to use innocent Palestinians as their shields. It's not the terrorists' fault at all if Israel shoots back and kills those civilian shields. No reason to even criticize Palestinian terrorists for doing this....

I'll assume your answer to this one is 'YES' if you don't respond.

[Tripmann]

169. Not really.I'm not the one who condones the killing of kids once the killers wearing a star of david

[shira]

170. So you're against the IDF acting to protect Israelis and you have no problem w/Hamas using shields.

Got it.

Thanks.

[Tripmann]

171. Thats the problem with imprisoning and opressing other people, you may find your own citizens

need defending. Doesn't mean you have the right to kill hundreds of innocent women and children, then carry on with the imprisoning and opression, does it.

So you condone the regional superpower killing hundreds of innocent women and children, to protect its citizens from attack from homemade low-yield rockets with no guidence systems, fired by the people said superpower is imprisoning, opressing and malnourishing??

[shira]

172. There was no siege happening, no occupation, no oppression when Israel left Gaza to the Palestinians

And yet, the rockets were still flying.

Why?

And why doesn't Israel have any right to do anything about that?

Because Israel's citizens deserve being targeted, terrorized, maimed, and killed?

:shrug:

To answer you even more clearly, Israel has the right to defend its citizens with reasonable and proportionate force - like any other nation. However, Israel's enemies don't get to define what is "disproportionate" when they are unable to articulate what an effective and realistic "proportionate" response to aggression is.

[Tripmann]

174. So, you consider the killing of hundreds of kids 'proportionate' to the deaths of 20 israelis.Cheers

[shira]

175. Define proportionate first, and when comparing numbers....

...is the problem in your view that not enough Israelis were killed?

Or that Israel should have stopped when the number of Palestinian casualties equaled the number of Israeli casualties?

Is that proportionate in your view?

[Tripmann]

176. Its quite simple. You consider 100s of dead gazan children to be proportionate to 20 israelis.

Do you have a formula you use for calculating these proportionate responses?

1 rock thrown at a soldier = 1 bullet in the head
1 dead israeli = 280 dead gazan children

Why don't you reveal to us liberals how the regions superpower using state of the art weaponry to kill hundreds of innocent womena and clildren is 'proportionate' to militants firing homemade rockets and killing 20 people.

[shira]

177. So genius, what would be a proportionate response to rocket attacks at all hours day and night?

And according to your twisted logic, does Israel get to wait until 200 Israelis get killed before "legitimately" killing 200 Palestinians?

Is that the liberal way in your view?

Seems the problem to you is that not enough Israelis were killed. :eyes:

[Tripmann]

178. So, whats the 'proportionate response' to the dogs you beat, starve and imprison biting you?

Nice try sweetheart. Try it on the new people while the rest of us laugh. Israel is no victim.

[shira]

179. Again you ignore that these rockets started before a siege when the Gaza occupation ended.

If you can't define a proportionate response for Israel WRT dealing with rocket attacks, then essentially you're against any type of Israeli defense.

Thus, in your view, Israelis should just "take it".

Nice.

:eyes:

[Tripmann]

181. The only 'ignoring' here is you ignoring the killing of 100s of kids by your beloved israel.

[shira]

182. Besides Israelis, who else do you deny the right of self-defense? Or is it just Israelis? n/t

[Tripmann]

183. So, proportionate is hundreds of dead children? Thought so.

[shira]

184. Who else besides Israelis do you deny the right of self-defense?

Also, no one likes to see 100's of innocent children being killed.

So what do you propose as an effective, ethical PROPORTIONATE military response to the daily/nightly rocket attacks?

[Tripmann]

185. So, now dropping bombs on children is defense from homemade rockets?

[shira]

186. So please propose an effective, proportionate military response to rockets

Good Israelis in the IDF want to know what to do so that there won't be any children killed in any military response against Hamas.

They're waiting for your educated opinion.

==========

If you can't, then it's clear you don't believe Israelis have human rights worth defending.

[Tripmann]

187. Aww,poor abuser.Forced to murder hundreds of kids because their victims bite back.And you condone it

So, again, how many palestinian childrens lives are worth the death of one israeli.

The liberals would like an answer.

[shira]

188. So after the Gaza disengagement in 2005 before any siege, if you and your family got rockets...

...at all times of the day and night, you would advise the Israeli government to do ________________ in response?

Remember, it's your family under constant attack after the occupation of Gaza ended, before the siege.

-----------

Here's Amos Oz, about as dovish a liberal in the Israeli peace camp you'll find....

"Israel must defend its citizens"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x327212#334287

You're on the wrong side of history, Mr. Tripmann.

[Tripmann]

189. Oh, you mean before your beloved israel mass malnourished 1 million innocent women & children?

Like I said, poor abuser.

Doesn't really surprise me. Had the internet been around in 1943 there would be no end of 'good germans' excusing the killing and collective punishment of people in the warsaw ghetto following the uprising.

I mean, what is the fatherland supposed to do? Just ignore the uprising? I mean, that is the theme for this discussion isn't it. Condoning a superpower crushing uppity oppressed people, Right shira??

[shira]

190. More diversion, evasion, & irrational demonization. Read Amos Oz from my last post to you.

You're on the wrong side of history.

[Tripmann]

191. And condoning the deaths of innocent women & children is the 'right side of history'?

When has history judged punishing 100% of a population for the actions of less than 1% 'right' exactly? Even if it's your guys handing out the punishment. When has history, or humanity for that matter, looked favourably on the enablers and excusers?

[shira]

192. When you oppose liberal doves like Amos Oz and David Grossman, you're on the wrong side of history.

I linked to Amos Oz on defending Israelis from rocket attacks a few posts up.

Here's David Grossman (see the bold part)....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x327212#334625

You're siding with the most extreme nastiest Rightwingers who believe it's okay for Israelis to just "take" rockets and drop dead, while the terrorists hide behind civilians trying to maximize Palestinian casualties.

You can't even muster up any criticism of Hamas for deliberately endangering Palestinians while using them as human shields.

What kind of liberal purporting to be pro-Palestinian fails to criticize such behavior from Hamas AND supplies no rational response from Israel against daily/nightly terror against innocent Israelis?

:shrug:

[Tripmann]

193. When did I ever say israel should just 'take rockets'? Do you bring anything besides dishonesty??

[shira]

195. You're against any military response that could cause Palestinian civilian casualties.

I've asked you at least a dozen times to describe a proportional response.

You can't do it.

Therefore, I can only assume Israel is not allowed to proportionally respond at all to Hamas aggression.

Thus, Israelis should just take it.

[Tripmann]

198. And where did I say that? Dishonesty wrapped in bullshit to excuse the inexcusable.

[shira]

199. What? Where'd you define a proportionate response? Where have you ever detailed what you believe..

...Israel is allowed to do in response to Hamas aggression?

Oh wait. Never.

:eyes:

Anything Israel does is disproportionate or collective punishment. Israel can do.........nothing.

Thanks again.

===============================

You're playing games attempting to divert with your disingenuous ad hominem attacks.

The only one here being dishonest is yourself.

[Tripmann]

200. A few posts back I gave my answer, so why the dishonesty? You think nobodys noticing you refuse to

condemn the deaths of 100s of innocent women and children by your beloved israel??

[shira]

201. I call BS. I just looked many posts up and there's nothing there. Please identify the exact post.

Don't accuse me of being dishonest when trying to back out of your indefensible positions.

[Tripmann]

202. LOL! Indefensible?? I'm not the one 'defending' the bombardment of innocent women & children.

And your contention that somehow israel had no choice but to bombard densely populated areas killing hundreds of children is nothing but excuser filth.

[shira]

203. Still waiting for you to identify that exact post where you explained what Israel can do...

...to defend its citizens against terror.

Or did you just simply make that one up while accusing me of dishonestly misrepresenting you?

[Tripmann]

205. I told you already, use the state of the art weaponry to target militants. Go into gaza and fight.

The IDF went into gaza during OCL and killed far less innocent women and children fighting street by street then when they cowardly dropped bombs on innocents.

Of course, jewish blood being worth FAR more than palestinian blood, I guess dropping bombs on innocent women and children is far less risk to the worlds most moral armys brave warriors. Right??

Realistically, not malnourishing, dehumanising, opressing and imprisoning the gazans would be the most effective way of stopping the rockets permanently. But, of course, israel being the innocent victim, isn't doing anything wrong so doesn't have to change its behaviour. Correct??

[shira]

206. They did that in Jenin and were still accused of a massacre.

The ratio of civilians to combatants killed in Gaza was better than the US and UK record in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So as terrible as you believe Israel is, I want you to be honest and use the same standard to argue that the US and UK are worse. Can you do that?

[Tripmann]

207. So,they may as well drop bombs on kids rather than risk their lives,cos they'll be demonised anyway?

Cheers for that.

[shira]

208. No, it means you'll bash Israel no matter what they do.....

....also, given Israel's record in Gaza compared to USA, UK, NATO efforts recently, why are you reluctant to admit those countries are worse WRT war crimes, collective punishment, etc.?

[Tripmann]

210. Are you REALLY asking why I'm 'bashing' israel & not the US/UK......in the ISRAEL/Palestine forum???

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Would you like me to give you a hint??

[shira]

212. No, that's not what I'm asking you....

But based on recent history, would you say the UK, USA, and NATO have done far worse damage in the form of collective punishment, oppression, etc.?

[Tripmann]

213. This is the israel/palestine forum, despite your best efforts to make it about everthing else.

Hence those darn uppity liberals posting here about your beloved israels crimes against humanity.

[shira]

214. It's just a yes/no question. I suspect you can't answer it for the simple reason...

....that you enjoy portraying Israel as a horrible offender of human rights, and certainly far worse than NATO, the USA, and UK who - by your standards - make Israel look very good in comparison.

Am I right?

[Tripmann]

215. I'm discussing israels crimes on the I/P forum. You're excusing them. My conscience is clear. Yours?

[shira]

216. It's a yes/no question. I want to know if you have one standard for Israel...

...and one for the rest of humanity.

Prove me wrong.

Yes or No?

I'll wait.

[Tripmann]

217. LOL!! No I don't, actually. You're the one consistently practicing double standards around here.

We see it everytime you condemn hamas for their use of human shields, but refuse to condemn israel for dropping bombs on these same human shields.

This is hilarious. You accusing ANYBODY of practicing double standards is like Hannibal Lecter accusing somebody of having too much red meat in their diet.


:rofl:

[Tripmann]

204. So, should the british army have dropped bombs on catholic area in Nothern Ireland?

The IRAs campaign killed many more people than hamas rockets and cost the british exchequer countless millions. By your logic, the british army would be justified in bombarding catholic areas of Belfast, killing hundreds of innocent women and children, to target the militants?

Right?

[shira]

209. Nope, and neither should NATO have bombed Kosovo as they did, right? n/t

[Tripmann]

211. So why defend israel when they do it? Why excuse israel & not NATO? Are gazan kids subhuman to you??

:shrug:

Help us liberals understand why its 'proportionate' to kill hundreds of innocent women and children in response to homemade rocket attacks that killed less than 20 people?

[Tripmann]

5. For the honest brokers around here..The full, NON-SELECTIVELY QUOTED quote from President Robinson.

“I was last here in 2008, just before the Gaza war. The situation has deteriorated to a shocking extent since then. This is not a humanitarian crisis – it is a political crisis and it can be solved politically. It is unconscionable and unacceptable that Israel and the international community have not lifted the blockade fully to allow Gazans to rebuild their lives and be part of the interconnected world that we take for granted. The easing of the blockade may mean more goods can be imported, but people are not free to come and go, reconstruction materials are still highly restricted, there is no real economy to speak of, and I have no doubt that things are not just stagnant – they are going backwards.”

[oberliner]

8. The non-selectively quoted quote is presented in its full context in the OP

Anyone who read even just the excerpt presented in the OP would have been able to read the quote in its full context.

Do you agree with her that the situation is not a humanitarian crisis but rather a political one?

[Tripmann]

11. I leave it to the regulars to disseminate the correct context of President Robinsons statement.

Notwithstanding a blatant attempt to selectively quote part of her statement, contrary to the rules of I/P, for the purpose of changing the overall quotes context.

[oberliner]

12. Do you agree with her statement in that context?

[Tripmann]

13. What context oberliner?

[oberliner]

14. The paragraph that is cited in the OP which contains the quote

You re-posted it twice in this thread - with an additional two sentences.

[Tripmann]

16. I know the context & intent of the quote because I have heard her refer to it as a humanitarian

crisis several times in the past. So, I can base my knowledge on President Robinsons overall commentary on the siege of gaza from several interviews and articles.

Y'see, everyone can see the context. She never says there is no crisis, or that there is no humanitarian disaster taking place. The context with which she made the quote is that the root of the crisis is political in nature and the solution is political also. This does not mean the suffering of the gazans is any less or the people causing the suffering any less criminal.

In the context of President Robinsons intent, that a political crisis has caused a humanitarian disaster, and has a political solution, I do agree with her statement. After all, neither flood or famine has caused the crisis befalling the people of gaza, but collective punishment via political entities. And, convenient semantics aside, a humanitarian disaster is certainly a crisis also.

[oberliner]

18. That makes sense

So it's a political and not a humanitarian crisis in the sense that it can be corrected by political means (i.e. Israel's lifting of the seige of Gaza).

Is that right?

[Tripmann]

19. Given her previous commentaries, I genuinely believe that to be Presidents Robinsons intent. Yes

[oberliner]

21. I think that is fair

I have seen her refer to the situation as a humanitarian crisis in the past as well (2009).

[proteus_lives]

15. No mention of violence or responsibility from Hamas?

How shocking!

:sarcasm:

[Tripmann]

17. Noun-verb-hamas. No mention of the suffering of innocents you excuse regularly

How surprising!

:sarcasm:

[oberliner]

20. Hamas is relevant in the context of the Elders visiting Gaza and assessing the situation

I am not sure how one can claim otherwise. Certainly there are things Israel has done to create suffering, but Hamas should at least be castigated to some extent as well. Most human rights groups have done so.

[shira]

26. Here's a nice picture of the elders embracing hate-filled warmongering antisemites like Meshaal

....whose views are way further to the extreme Right than Avigdor Lieberman, or David Duke and the KKK for that matter.

http://www.kansascity.com/2010/10/19/2329562/jimmy-carter-says-palestinians.html

I'm wondering what they'd have Israel do in the face of more rocket attacks once Israel lifts the siege entirely. Are Israelis to just 'take' the rockets and drop dead since Israel is forbidden to defend by any means?

[ProgressiveMajority]

96. Good, that's exactly what needs to happen, you need to talk with people to get PEACE

I know this might be a foreign concept to card carrying Zionists, but unless you plan on wiping out Hamas and killing every last one of them (very possibly there are plans for such a thing given the history of various IDF actions!!) Hamas will need to be part of any peace discussions.

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x277849

By embracing Meshaal Carter took an important step that Israel has so far been unwilling to take. Once you have a dialogue open things can move towards peace. By slimming the elders for taking this step you're making it pretty clear you have no interest in peace in any real sense of the word.

[shira]

97. Israel will make peace with Hamas as soon as the US and UK make peace with Al Qaeda & Bin Laden.

I wonder when the Elders will start talking peace with them...

:eyes:

Also, Iran refused to sit down with Obama. What makes you think an Iranian backed Hamas would want to discuss peace in good faith?

[ProgressiveMajority]

98. Really, Hamas = Al Qaeda? LOL...

Firstly, Al Qaeda is born out of the fever dreams of Osama Bin Laden who wants all non-Muslims out of the middle east. He's didn't start Al Qaeda to resist a foreign occupying force in the way Hamas resists Israel. Hamas is much closer to the Taliban, who we are willing to talk with.

Anyway, just to be clear, our goal with Al Qaeda really is to wipe them out, to kill ever last member. Is that the goal of Israel with regards to Hamas - kill 'em all?

[shira]

99. It's all Muslim Brotherhood, do some research. Also, Iran refused to negotiate with Obama...

...what makes you think an Iranian backed Hamas wants to negotiate anything in good faith with Israel?

To them, this is a religious war.

It's hopeless.

[proteus_lives]

36. Closing your eyes?

How surprising!

:sarcasm:

[shira]

39. Of course Hamas has absolutely nothing to do with the context! n/t

[proteus_lives]

50. Of course not!

Those lovable scrappers have always stood for peace in Gaza!

:sarcasm:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

66. Yes, she's actually blaming Israel for its own actions... Appalling. N.T.

[shira]

68. Yeah, it's really too bad she can't accuse Israel of creating a humanitarian crisis anymore. Also..

....it's odd she has no reasonable alternatives for Israel WRT Hamas rocket attacks, don't you think?

:shrug:

[shira]

64. Check out this picture of the Elders shmoozing with the head of Hamas

http://www.daylife.com/photo/09rf9Vw3cqe3i?q=mary+robinson

Nice map there in which Israel doesn't exist.

Imagine the Elders meeting with the head of the most extreme, intransigent, hate-filled, warmongering settlers.

The Elders aren't remotely concerned about peace and human rights.

[azurnoir]

65. Looks like a meeting to me it should also be noted

that your earlier picture of Carter "embracing" Meshaal that is as I understand it a common form of greeting in the ME, perhaps you should learn something about a culture before you misinterpret it again

[shira]

67. I can't imagine any liberal getting all cozy with fascist KKK militants, can you? n/t

[azurnoir]

69. No not with KKK but then I didn't know the KKK operated in Syria

but in the case of photo Mr Carter was there to speak with Hamas not the KKK. why do you so fear communication with Hamas?

[shira]

70. You don't think Hamas is as bad as a militarized KKK? n/t

[azurnoir]

73. No I do not think a militarized KKK would IMO be worse or better

you are comparing apples to oranges

[shira]

78. Would it bother you to see the Elders cozying up to the KKK leadership, refusing to criticize them?

[Tripmann]

71. Hang on shira. You constatnly drop carters name as an endroser of the geneva initiative.

Now it doesn't suit you to associate with him??.....until the next thread where you drop his name to suit your agenda!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

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

[Tripmann]

74. So,when carter talks geneva initiative, he's a respected statesman,but when he calls gazas siege

a humanitarian crisis, he's a big fat liar?

:rofl:

Once again, hearing what you want to hear.

[shira]

76. Carter claimed Gazans were starving due to the blockade.

Did it upset you when Carter did a turnabout and claimed Israel is not *yet* practicing apartheid?

Back in the 70's, Carter asked Golda Meir what she thought about Israel's secular leadership being a sacreligious affront to God. He wrote about this in his book Peace, Not Apartheid. Carter's christian faith has a lot to do with his views on I/P.

[Tripmann]

80. The same 'respected' statesman whos name you drop in reverence everytime it suits you??

:rofl:

Oh man, this is TOO funny.

[shira]

82. No, I try making points sometimes by dropping names that you respect.

Like Mary Robinson claiming no humanitarian crisis.

When she suits you, she's fine. When not, you deny and ignore.

:eyes:

[Tripmann]

83. LOL! So its "all hail carter'...wait, he said something I don't agree with. Fuck him"

Do we have a flip-flop smilie around here I can use??

[shira]

86. You mean like you do with Mary Robinson? Love her til she says no crisis, then to hell with her?

[Tripmann]

87. I don't quote her out of context to suit my agenda.You have no choice given the crimes you excuse.

[shira]

89. You believe her only sometimes when it suits you. Just like Carter. n/t

[Tripmann]

91. I know the context. Like I said had the internet been around in 1940

there would be lots of 'good germans' monitoring every word spoken by the fatherlands detractors, with a hope of quoting them out of context.

People around here aren't as dumb as you need them to be unfortunately.

But please, carry on. Ignore the numerous times she says its a humanitarian crisis, and quote her out of context when she says its a different type of crisis.

Guess what? IT'S STILL A CRISIS. AND ITS STILL YOUR BUDDIES COMMITTING THE COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT AGAINST INNOCENT WOMEN AND CHILDREN

[shira]

94. It must be difficult for you when your trusty reliable sources all contradict each other...

Even dear Mary Robinson is now contradicting what she had repeatedly claimed.

It's not out of context at all, as the NYT, SLATE, TIME, and UN officials are all doing the same. They all claimed one thing but are now admitting the opposite.

They were all caught in their lies and they're trying to worm their way out.

Even Jimmy Carter repeatedly claimed Gazans were starving. He hasn't yet corrected himself but folks like yourself can keep pretending his claims were accurate and honest.

You'd like to believe they're all being quoted out of context and 'good Germans' are the only ones reporting now from the NYT, SLATE, TIME and the UN. All sources that previously claimed just the opposite of what they're now contending.

It must be so confusing for you.

I'm so very sorry.

[Tripmann]

100. You don't mind their 'contradiction' when it suits your agenda to excuse the suffering of innocents.

"I'm so very sorry."

No arguments there :)

[shira]

101. They contradict themselves because they know they were caught lying. You're left guessing...

...which of their contradictory statements are true. Of course, you continue to believe lies that were already debunked. You're choosing to believe what they formerly claimed, not what they are saying afterwards having been caught lying.

In fact, Mary Robinson claims it's now much worse than a humanitarian crisis. If that's true, why did she "hold back" earlier when she *only* labeled it as a mere humanitarian crisis? Seriously, this is all idiotic and anyone buying this bullshit is either stupid or deliberately blind.

[Tripmann]

105. Are the red cross and every major aid organisation on the planet lying. Who believes you?? Nobody

[shira]

106. Riddle me this first...why are Robinson, the NYT, SLATE, TIME, and UN people contradicting...

...their earlier statements?

Any idea at all?

:shrug:

In addition, once you answer that, why did Carter claim starvation?

[Tripmann]

109. Why quote her out of context? Why the fox news dirt tactic shira? Why the dishonesty? Desperation??

[shira]

113. I didn't quote her out of context, no more than the NYT, SLATE, TIME....

Why are you playing games, pretending what Robinson has said isn't the same thing as those other sources that have changed their tune recently?

These sources are all trying to worm their way out of their former statements, now aren't they? Like the UN report's redefining the meaning of the term 'starvation'?

Or are they all, including Robinson now, being 'good Germans', to use your expression? Trying to cover for Israel's "crimes" against humanity?

:eyes:

[Tripmann]

120. Even oberliner agrees that you're quoting out of context. NOBODY BELIEVES YOU

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Pathetic

[shira]

124. Really? Can't say I trust you, so show me. n/t

[Tripmann]

Dupe

[Tripmann]

129. For anyone following this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=335818&mesg_id=335990

Oberliner agrees with me on the intended context.

[shira]

133. Where did Oberliner say Robinson was quoted out of context? You just made that one up.

Unless I read Oberliner the wrong way, he only accepted your personal explanation and reasoning.

Doesn't mean he accepts it for himself, only that he understands you.

[Tripmann]

135. He accepted my reasoning behind my contention WRT the context

Whos accepting YOUR bullshit??

[shira]

142. He didn't agree with you that Robinson has been taken out of context, now did he? n/t

[Tripmann]

147. The regulars here who know me, know you and know oberliner are free to read & decide for themselves

In fact, I'm more than happy for every member of DU to read this whole thread carefully. It should be a requirement before participating in I/P so you know what to watch out for with certain individuals.

[shira]

151. LOL....show me where Oberliner agreed with your claim that Robinson was taken out of context. n/t

[Tripmann]

154. Oberliner agrees with my analysis of the context. Everyones free to decide for themselves.

[Violet_Crumble]

165. Please don't try to make me endure the torture of reading this entire thread!

There's only two people in this forum I ignore and you listed both of them. I'm not sure why the dead horse of Mary Robinson's selective quote is still being flogged as I've seen you explain several times now how it was taken out of context. I do think requiring any new participant in the forum to read this entire thread would be considered cruel and could possibly be viewed as a human rights violation, and besides, I doubt anyone would have the energy or the stamina and the forum would wilt and die from lack of new blood :)

[azurnoir]

111. The statementts IMO have changed because the situation in Gaza has changed

since the Flotilla incident Israel has allowed a greater variety of food stuffs into Gaza and Egypt has opened its borders this combination has to a small extent lessened the crisis

there is an assessment of that situation starting at 37

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/15session/A.HRC.15.21_en.pdf

eta # 52 and how starvation is defined

52. A blockade may not continue to be enforced where it inflicts disproportionate
damage on the civilian population. The usual meaning of “damage to the civilian
population” in the law of armed conflict refers to deaths, injuries and property damage.
Here the damage may be thought of as the destruction of the civilian economy and
prevention of reconstruction further to damage. One might also note, insofar as many in
Gaza face a shortage of food or the means to buy it, that the ordinary meaning of
“starvation” under the law of armed conflict is simply to cause hunger.44

[shira]

114. Seriously? Allowing a few more spices and different food items did it? Also...

...when you have to quote the idiotic UN which distorts the meaning of starvation to suit their purposes, you know you've lost the argument.

With the UN's definition of starvation, Carter was telling the truth when he claimed Gazans were starving several years ago. Problem is, you don't believe Carter. So who's right, Carter or the UN?

:eyes:

[azurnoir]

115. Under UNHRC'c defination I do agree with Carter

the rest is your opinion which you are of course entitled to as am I but that is all that can be said of either

[azurnoir]

116. I should also add that the opening of Rafah did a bit more

to relieve the crisis

[hayu_lol]

144. The opening of Rafah seems to have added a bit of...

a few other things as well...for example, the recent blasts at the HAMAS training site that injured 26 people(17 of them children)and destroyed several homes. The training site is close to homes and schools.

Maybe the folks in Gaza are eating explosives now?

If food and other materials are so badly needed, why bring in explosives?

[azurnoir]

167. so you are claiming that Egypt is allowing weapons to be brought in openly

through Rafah, but yet no building materials?

[hayu_lol]

173. I made no reference concerning the importation of explosives...

but when Rafah opens for goods and an armory on a HAMAS training site blows up--hurting women and children--where did the mystical bang powder come from? Do they then store the stuff in museums?

I noted on several threads, the links concerning the explosions, that HAMAS has donated land for a large number of schools. Problem for the UN is that all this land is closely adjoining HAMAS training sites. These schools will not be built.

Put a number of these factoids together and one can certainly speculate a bit. Add in some false info from HAMAS that the explosions were caused by Israeli agents(not even swallowed by local residents)and the situation would be hilarious were it not so serious.

[azurnoir]

180. so egypt should close Rafah and no more problem ? n/t

[hayu_lol]

194. Can't see why Egypt would close Rafah...

there are approximately 360 tunnels, several big enough for car/truck traffic, that terminate in Rafah.

Geez, they could cut up the Queen Mary and take the pieces in with that many trails.

[azurnoir]

196. you seem confused-again

what do the tunnels under Rafah have to do with the above ground crossing being open are you conflating the two don't know the difference or just flinging feces? sort of like here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x336799

[hayu_lol]

218. ...and talk about happenings between two sides...

4 days of riots in Belfast(march of the Orangemen). Same old, same old...even in Ireland.

Children young as 9 throwing petrol bombs.