The Red Cross Destroys the Laws of War, Making War More Deadly - by Evelyn Gordon

...The ICRC is not only encouraging terrorists to operate from among civilian populations by granting them immunity; it is also discouraging efforts to comply with the civilian protection measures mandated by the real laws of war. In other words, it’s actually making civilian casualties more likely on two counts – and thereby betraying its own humanitarian mission.

Evelyn Gordon..
Commentary Magazine..
14 November '17..
Link: https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/middle-east/red-cross-laws-war/

The International Committee of the Red Cross, self-appointed guardian of the laws of war, has embarked on an exciting new online project: destroying the very laws it ostensibly seeks to protect. Of course, the ICRC would put it differently; it would say it’s teaching the laws of war. The problem is that the “laws” it teaches aren’t the actual laws of war, as codified in international treaties, but a made-up version that effectively denies countries any right of self-defense against enemies that fight from positions inside civilian populations. And it is thereby teaching anyone unwilling to concede the right of self-defense that the laws of war should simply be ignored.

When Israel Hayom reported on the “Don’t Be Numb” project last week, it sounded so outrageous that I suspected reporter error. But the project’s website proved even worse.

The website has four sections – “behavior in war,” “medical mission,” “torture” and cultural property.” But the big problem is the first one, which consists of three questions users must answer correctly to receive a “medal of integrity.”

Question number one: “You’re a military commander. The enemy is hiding in a populated village across the front line. Can you attack?” The correct answer, according to the website, is “no.”

This is simply false. The laws of war do not grant immunity to enemy soldiers simply because they choose to hide among civilians, nor do they mandate avoiding any military action that might result in civilian casualties. They merely require that civilians not be deliberately targeted (the principle of distinction), that reasonable efforts be made to minimize civilian casualties, and that any such casualties not be disproportionate to the military benefit of the operation (the principle of proportionality).

The second question was, “What if you know for a fact that many civilians would be killed? Can you attack?” Since the ICRC had already ruled in the first question that attacking populated villages is never permissible, I’m not sure what purpose this question served; it would only make sense if the answer to the first question had been “yes” and this were a follow-up meant to explore the limits of the license to attack populated villages. But let’s ignore that incongruity and examine the question on its own merits.

The ICRC’s answer, of course, was “no.” But the correct answer is “insufficient information.” As noted, the laws of war don’t prohibit civilian casualties as collateral damage of a legitimate military operation. They do, however, require that such casualties not be disproportionate to the military benefit, and the question doesn’t supply the information necessary to determine whether this attack would be proportionate. For instance, how many civilian casualties does “many” actually mean – 10? 100? 1,000? Even more important, what price will your own side pay if it doesn’t attack? For instance, how many of your own civilians might be killed if you don’t stop the enemy’s rocket and mortar fire?

Doing the exact opposite of what was needed in Gaza in its meeting with Hamas - by Elder of Ziyon

...The fundamental issue that Hamas has managed to obfuscate is that these "prisoners" are not prisoners - but hostages. The reason Hamas didn't allow Maurer to speak with the Israelis who for whatever reason ended up in Gaza is because it wants to use them as bargaining chips to get Israel to release terrorists and achieve other goals, and even the promise of showing proof of life is something that Hamas sees as something to be bartered..

Elder of Ziyon..
06 September '17..

The New York Times eagerly reported in 2015:

GAZA CITY — A new training regimen for fighters in Hamas’s armed wing employs slide presentations and a whiteboard rather than Kalashnikov rifles and grenades. The young men wear polo shirts instead of fatigues and black masks. They do not chant anti-Israel slogans, but discuss how the Geneva Conventions governing armed conflict dovetail with Islamic principles.

The three-day workshop, conducted last month by the International Committee of the Red Cross, followed numerous human-rights reports accusing both Israel and Hamas, the Islamist group that controls Gaza, of war crimes in their devastating battle last summer, and came as the International Criminal Court prosecutor conducts a preliminary inquiry into that conflict.

The Red Cross developed its program in conjunction with Islamic scholars several years ago, but ramped it up after last summer’s deadly battle. So far this year, it has conducted six sessions for a total of 210 fighters from Hamas’s Izzedine al-Qassam Brigades and two other Gaza armed groups. Another workshop is scheduled for this week.

...Red Cross leaders say they have seen an increasing commitment from Hamas leaders and linemen alike, if only because they now consider their international image a critical component of their struggle.

(Continue to Full Post)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 

.

Question. How Many Times Has The Red Cross Visited Israeli Prisoners in Gaza? - by Sheri Oz

...If you want to identify with suffering prisoners, I ask you to consider raising awareness regarding our three unfortunates who inadvertently found themselves inside Hamas’ Gaza. If you are going to cry, cry for Mengistu, Al-Syed and Anima and their families. They could go on a hunger strike to protest their prison conditions and nobody would know — not even the IRC.

Sheri Oz..
Israel Diaries..
10 May '17..

Tell me, Mr Barghouti – how do your prison conditions compare with those of Gilad Shalit who was abducted and held by Hamas in Gaza for five years? How do they compare with the conditions Hamas offers to current Israeli prisoners: Abera Mengistu, Israeli of Ethiopian origin being held in Gaza since September 2014, Hisham al-Syed, Israeli Bedouin held since April 2015, and Juma Ibrahim Abu Anima, Israeli Bedouin who has been held since July last year?

The Israeli Prison Service (IPS) has agreed to let the International Red Cross visit you today (Thursday) in lieu of the pre-scheduled meeting with your lawyer that was cancelled since you called on security prisoners to join you in a hunger strike and you were consequently put into solitary. The reports note that you have not seen anyone from the Red Cross since before the hunger strike. That means that you HAVE seen Red Cross staff before that – and we have no idea how many times these visits have taken place but apparently the IRC visits security prisoners in Israel on a regular basis.

Out of curiousity, I wanted to know how many times the IRC has visited with Abera Mengistu so I called Uri Perednik, Parliamentary Aide to MK Avraham Neguise (pronounced Negosa), who serves as chair of the Caucus for the Return of Avraham (Abera) Mengistu. Perednik told me that the IRC has visited Mengistu a total of zero times. Furthermore, while the Israeli government and Hamas insist that Mengistu is alive, there have been no signs of life presented in fact, according to Perednik.

(Continue to Full Post)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 

.

A Situation Where the ICRC Feels It Must Apologize for Telling the Truth

...So all the people worldwide who truly need humanitarian assistance – in Syria and “other places where many more civilians are dying” – will continue having their pleas for help go unheard, because the only “human rights” activists raising their voices are the ones obsessed with Israel. The others are too busy proving, yet again, that all that’s needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

Evelyn Gordon..
Analysis from Israel..
11 May '15..

It’s not hard to find examples of double standards against Israel; COMMENTARY has published two examples, from academia and sport, just in the last two days. But it’s worth reiterating that such incidents are made possible not by the rabid Israel-haters, who remain a small minority, but by all the “good” people who know better yet are too intimidated to speak out. Nowhere is this more evident than in the so-called human rights community. And Exhibit A is the exception that proves the rule: Jacques de Maio, who heads the International Committee of the Red Cross delegation in “Israel and the Occupied Territories.”

The ICRC has produced its share of Israel-haters, but De Maio certainly isn’t one of them. Not only does he realize that Israel isn’t the Great Satan it’s generally portrayed as by “human rights” activists, but he’s even willing to say so occasionally – which makes him far braver than many of his colleagues. Yet even this braver-than-average member of the human rights community feels so intimidated that whenever he does says something positive about Israel, he feels the need to apologize. So you get astounding statements like this tweet from last November: “It may seem provocative, but I would contend that humanitarian access in Israel & OT is, comparatively, outstandingly good.”

The mind simply boggles. It’s “provocative” to state the simple fact that Israel, like any Western democracy, allows humanitarian aid groups relatively unfettered access? In his next tweet, De Maio added, “I can think of no other context where we operate worldwide where access for humanitarian organizations is as good as it is here.” Yet if that’s the truth, why should it be “provocative” to say so? Shouldn’t it be as natural for human rights organizations to praise countries for enabling their access as it is to criticize them for not doing so?

But of course, when it comes to Israel, it isn’t. After all, in the “human rights” community to which De Maio belongs, the loudest voices are people like Human Rights Watch director Ken Roth, who famously criticized Israel last month for sending the world’s largest medical team, 30 percent of all foreign medical personnel, to help victims of Nepal’s earthquake. In a world where “human rights activists” slam Israel even for providing humanitarian relief – though Roth has yet to explain how he thinks the world would be better place had Israel failed to do so – it’s clearly not a given to praise it for enabling humanitarian access. So De Maio apologizes for telling the truth. And untold numbers of his less courageous colleagues choose the easier route of not telling it at all.

Quite an item, the Palestinians’ genocidal logo

...Despite the overt violence and the clearly genocidal aspirations embedded in these national symbols, the Fatah and Hamas regimes are referred to as Israel’s “Palestinian interlocutors for peace” by Sweden, Britain and indeed the UN and EU at large.

Ilya Meyer..
Times of Israel..
31 October '14..

There is something particularly revolting about ostensibly civilized, modern nations giving both official recognition and massive funding to terrorist organizations with a clearly expressed genocidal goal.

Sweden is the latest country to officially recognize “the state of Palestine”.

But to put Sweden’s embarrassingly amateurish, vote-grabbing domestic politicking move into a proper international perspective, one has only got to look at the Palestinian Arabs’ national symbols. Just to see how “peace-loving” they really are.

Until a few years ago, the Islamic world had consistently prevented Israel and its Magen David Adom (the Israeli version of the Red Cross) from becoming a full member of the International Red Cross (the IRC). The Muslim world only relented from its overtly anti-Semitic position on absolute condition that the red Magen David symbol, the red Star of David, be erased and replaced with a bland, meaningless red square standing on its tip. This condition was only demanded as a deliberate way of demeaning the Jewish Star of David symbol.

Meantime, the Red Cross and the Red Crescent representing the Christian and Muslim faiths respectively were regarded as suitable symbols by the IRC.

Israel had to swallow that bitter pill in order to be accorded the signal privilege of joining the IRC so the Jewish state could provide Muslim (and of course other) countries with emergency aid when they suffered manmade crises or natural disasters….

But here’s the salient point: We must all – bloggers, the media, local politicians, national politicians, the diplomatic corps, the EU, the UN – insist that both Fatah and Hamas change their official logos (which show their wished-for state of Palestine as replacing ALL of Israel). Their “national symbol” actually predicates the destruction of UN member state Israel.

It’s time to return to the facts - International law and Judea and Samaria

...It is time to return to the intentions and words of the original drafters of international law, and rely less on specious interpretations with little basis.

Min. Yair Shamir..
Op-Ed Contributor/JPost..
24 November '13..

In his November 21 article on “Humanitarian law vs. political choices,” Juan Pedro Schaerer, head of the local delegation of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), repeats the longstanding point of view that Judea and Samaria, what some refer to as the “West Bank,” is “occupied territory.”

In fact, Mr. Schaerer is so certain of this opinion, he invites a public debate on the issue.

However, before stating a contrary point of view, it would be pertinent to begin by debunking Schaerer’s own statements. In the article Schaerer starts, as many opinions do, by quoting Article 42 of the Hague Regulations of 1907, writing: “The facts on the ground were such that they fell squarely into the definition of occupied territory, which is codified in Article 42.”

Yet to preempt an argument frequently used by Israeli authorities, Schaerer states that “international humanitarian law does not require that the territory occupied by a foreign army must belong to a sovereign state.”

This is an astounding interpretation of Article 42 of the Hague Regulations, primarily because it actually falls under a category titled, “Military Authority Over the Territory of the Hostile State.”

The final word in the title of the category specifically explains the type of territory in question.

In international law, as in any type of law, one should render an interpretation only if the wording is somehow unclear or vague. The fact that the article falls under a category which completely contradicts the root of Schaerer’s argument appears to be lost on the author.

Perhaps the confusion rests in the fact that the ICRC, which was pretty quick to brand Israel’s acquisition of the territory in 1967 as an “occupation,” made no such appellation during the 19 years of illegal Jordanian rule.

In fact, one would be hard-pressed to find the ICRC assert that a territory is “occupied” by a particular nation in the dozens of other territorial disputes that have yet to find a resolution.

"My Honor is My Freedom" - Planting trees to honor Palestinian terrorists

Itamar Marcus/Nan Jacques Zilberdik..
Palestinain Media Watch..
12 May '13..

In a ceremony celebrating its 150th anniversary, the International Red Cross together with the Palestinian Red Crescent planted 150 trees bearing the names of "veteran prisoners." The Palestinian Authority uses the term "veteran prisoners" to refer to those who have been in jail the longest, and in most cases are serving life sentences for murder or multiple murders. Giorgio Ferrario, representative of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, participated in this ceremony honoring terrorists, which was named "My Honor is My Freedom."

Palestinian Media Watch recently reported that Issa Abd Rabbo, who shot and murdered two university students hiking near Jerusalem, was referred to as a "veteran prisoner." Abd Rabbo was recently honored by PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas. (See below - names of more murderers serving life sentences referred to by the PA as "veteran prisoners.")

The Palestinian Red Crescent's website writes that its "programs, projects and events" are funded by the International Red Cross:

"The International Movement of the Red Cross Red Crescent has provided continuous support to programs, projects and events organized by the PRCS (Palestinian Red Crescent). Without the financial and technical support by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), and the International Federation of the Red Cross Red Crescent Societies and many sister national Societies, it would be difficult for PRCS to provide its services..."
[http://www.palestinercs.org/en/prcs.php?page=International%20Relations%20and%20Cooperation&menu=PRCS]

It is significant that the International Red Cross funds not only the general budget of the Palestinian Red Crescent but also "events." The article did not state if the International Red Cross directly funded or merely participated in this terror glorification event.

Misrepresenting the Geneva Convention

Eli Hertz..
Algemeiner..
08 February '13..





Background

The language of Article 49 of the Geneva Convention was crafted in the wake of World War II and the Nazi occupation – an occupation that led to a war of aggression in which Nazi Germany attacked its neighbors with impunity, committing a host of atrocities against civilian populations, including deportation and displacement of local populations in occupied Europe. Millions were sent to forced labor camps and those of particular ethnic origin, most notably the Jews, were sent to their deaths in the gas chambers. The drafters of Article 49 were concerned with preventing future genocide against humanity.

Critics and enemies of Israel, including members of the UN and organs such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) have come to use the Geneva Convention as a weapon against Israel, even when statements by authoritative analysts, scholars and drafters of the document contradict everything said by those who distort history for politically motivated reasons.

It is common knowledge that from its birth, Israel customarily follows international humanitarian law without being told or forced to do so by outside authorities.

'Occupied Territories'and the ICRC

Moshe Dann..
Op-Ed Contributor/JPost..
13 December '12..

The International Committee of the Red Cross does good humanitarian work around the world, but it is not just a well-meaning NGO. With a political agenda against Israel and with its unique role, it has determined the way that the international community thinks about Judea, Samaria, Gaza, eastern Jerusalem (the West Bank) and the Golan Heights.

For several decades the ICRC has promoted through the UN and other international bodies a conceptual straitjacket: “the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT).”

Because the ICRC is the “official guardian” of the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949) (GC IV), its interpretation is considered authoritative.

Using its exclusive position, it turned GC IV – which was intended to ensure the protection of civilians threatened by war and other conflicts – into a political sledgehammer against Israel.

The ICRC contrived the term OPT, promoted it in every forum and unilaterally designated what is at best a disputed area as (1) illegally occupied by Israel, (2) belonging to Palestinian Arabs and (3) an unnamed and undefined territory without a history.

GC IV, however, is concerned with humanitarian issues, the rights of “protected persons.” It is not mandated to designate new countries.

Kidnapping Call Venue? International Committees of the Red Cross - Gaza

Elder of Ziyon..
11 December '12..





Terrorist Leila Khaled, who has been visiting Gaza for the past week, called for Palestinian Arabs to kidnap more Israeli soldiers to hold them hostage for more prisoner swaps.

Speaking in front of a group of families of terrorists in Israeli prison, Khaled said that "resistance" is the only way to get them released.

Taking hostages is a war crime under international humanitarian law.

(Continue)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook.
. 

Should Be a Red-faced Red Cross, However Concerning Israel ... Never Mind.

The throw-in of "transferring" is ridiculous as Jews lived in the areas of Judea, Samaria and Gaza for centuries prior to 1947-49 and it was only because of a policy of ethnic cleansing practiced by Arabs during the Mandate and the War of Independence - Schaerer knows of those illegal acts, does he not? - that Jews were not there in 1967.

Yisrael Medad..
My Right Word..
04 November '12..







There is an op-ed in Haaretz (where else?) by the head of the ICRC delegation in Israel arguing

...contrary to what is claimed in the Levy report, it is manifestly clear that the West Bank is occupied by Israel...Furthermore, concerning the settlements in the West Bank, it has to be emphasized that Article 49 (6 ) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits a state from transferring parts of its own civilian population to territory it occupies, does not merely prohibit the occupying state from forcefully transferring parts of its population; it also prohibits any action by the occupier which facilitates such transfer. The ICRC commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention makes clear that Article 49 (6 ), like the convention as a whole, aims to protect the local population in the occupied territory and not the population of the occupying state. Furthermore, international humanitarian law prohibits any action by an occupying power aimed at altering the intrinsic characteristics of the occupied territory, including any measures that affect its demographic, cultural or social composition.

My comment left there:

CiF Watch - International Committee of the Red Cross, Hamas Guardians.

Medusa..
CiF Watch..
24 January '12..


In September 2010 I wrote here about the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and it’s too ready inclination of sympathy towards Hamas, to the extent that it gave sanctuary to three wanted Hamas fugitives, Ahmad Attoun, Khaled Abu-Arafa and Muhammad Totah.

The three had been ordered to leave East Jerusalem having had their residency permits revoked when they refused to renounce their ties with Hamas. As I noted in my previous article, the Hamas members were openly supported by Uri Avneri and others on the extreme left in Israel, who visited them at the ICRC’s headquarters in the Sheikh Jarrah building in East Jerusalem.

The Red Cross, despite their statement that the Israeli police could have arrested them whenever they wanted, aided and abetted them to break Israeli law by making them comfortable there.

According to the Jerusalem Post (Hamas MPs hiding in E. Jerusalem Red Cross arrested, Jan. 23) all of the fugitives were provided with a room inside the building where they could sleep and keep their belongings, a bathroom, and electricity for their protest tent together with a water cooler. Readers will agree that these are hardly the actions of unwilling hosts towards wanted men. We are told that the men met with overseas dignitaries, and even held a press conference there. Family members came daily to bring food and clothing. All this is in contrast to the ICRC’s passivity and its lack of effort to gain access to Gilad Shalit while he was being held by Hamas.

(Read full "International Committee of the Red Cross, Hamas Guardians")

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
. 

Medad - How thick is Magen David's blood?

Yisrael Medad
Green-Lined
JPost
04 January '11



Let me remind you what this newspaper reported back in August:

MDA: Red Star of David logo to remain on W. Bank ambulances
The details:

Magen David Adom defended itself Tuesday against accusations by settlers that it had politicized medical service by removing its classic logo of the Red Star of David from ambulances servicing Israelis living in Judea and Samaria...Council head Dani Dayan charged that MDA had caved to a demand by the International Committee of the Red Cross in a 2005 agreement not to use the Red Star logo in regions beyond the pre-1967 border. “It is quite clear that the reason is political,” said Dayan.

...MDA spokesman Zaki Heller rejected Dayan’s claims. He said that in order to join the ICRC Israel had agreed in 2005 not to use its classic logo when operating outside of Israel. Instead, MDA agreed to place the star inside a red diamond. But, Heller said, MDA continues to use the classic Red Star logo on its ambulances housed in 12 places across the West Bank. MDA has no intention of changing this policy, he said. What did occur, in a nod to the ICRC, is that MDA decided not to place its classic Red Star of David logo on ambulances that were owned by individual communities and only jointly operated with MDA, Heller said.

Did you believe Heller?

Well, have you read this paper's report today? Here:

ICRC: MDA removed symbols from ambulances in West Bank

Fresnozionism - The crystal and the shield

Fresnozionism.org
29 November '11

http://fresnozionism.org/2011/11/the-crystal-and-the-shield/


The device above is called a “Red Crystal.” It is the emblem that the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and Israel’s Magen David Adom (MDA) seem to have agreed that Israel must put on its ambulances instead of the traditional Magen David, if MDA is to be allowed to join the international organization (one wonders if MDA will have to change its name as well).

The story of the emblems is instructive. Emblems are practically important, because an ICRC-recognized emblem is ‘protected’ in wartime — shooting at a person or vehicle bearing a protected emblem is considered a war crime.

When the ICRC admitted Turkey and Egypt as members in 1929, they naturally did not want to use the cross, symbol of the hated crusaders, as their emblem; so they requested and got permission to use a red crescent.

But when MDA came along in 1931 and wanted its Magen David to be ‘protected’, the ICRC refused. “What if everyone wanted their own symbol?” they asked, in effect. Only the cross and the crescent were accepted (there is also a ‘red lion and sun’ emblem which nobody uses).

I don’t think I need to point out that it is notable that Muslim sensitivities about the cross were considered important, while Jewish ones — after all Jews suffered at the hands of those bearing the cross no less than Muslims — were not.

CAMERA - In Memory -- Bernadine Healy Fought Exclusion of Israel from ICRC

AL
CAMERA/Snapshots
10 August '11

http://blog.camera.org/archives/2011/08/in_memory_bernadine_healy_foug.html

A fearless and outspoken former president of the National Institutes of Health and the American Red Cross, Dr. Bernadine Healy died August 6, 2011 of brain cancer. At the helm of the Red Cross, Dr. Healy championed efforts to end the exclusion of Israel's Magen David Adom from membership in the International Red Cross, cutting US funding to the international body.

Two months after assuming command of the American Red Cross in September 1999, Healy flew to Geneva to address a large assembly of the International Red Cross movement. And, in the eyes of international officials, she charged in like a bull in a china shop.

''She comes in and makes a speech in which she harangues the assembled membership about the inequity of the exclusion of M.D.A. and how the American Red Cross is going to make inclusion happen now, whether we liked it or not,'' said Christopher Lamb, an executive of the international federation. ''She spoke about the movement, describing everyone as cowards and failures and people who didn't understand.''

Lawrence Eagleburger wrote in a Washington Post op-ed column

that Healy simply refused to turn ''a blind eye on a moral wrong.'' And persuaded by her passion, the American Red Cross board went right along with her. It agreed to start withholding its $4.5 million annual dues to the international federation; that money is 25 percent of the federation headquarters' budget.

On June 21, 2006, Israel was finally admitted as a full member to the ICRC. Dr. Healy's unequivocal leadership years earlier gave crucial impetus to that outcome.

She will be remembered for many achievements, among them her moral clarity and courage.

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Essentially Siegeless in Gaza: "No Humanitarian Crisis" There Admits International Red Cross

Daphne Anson
24 April '11

http://daphneanson.blogspot.com/2011/04/essentially-siegeless-in-gaza-no.html

The news should, but almost certainly won't, act as a red light to the "siege" mentality of the Israel-delegitimising brigade.

It will come as decidedly unwelcome, and no doubt unheeded, news to this rowdy mob in London at the end of last month, protesting Shimon Peres's visit, when he spoke at Chatham House (the Royal Institute of International Affairs).

Like all good Israel-demonisers, they have their "End the Siege on Gaza" placards and their "Palestine Shall be Free From the River to the Sea" chants, and they throw in "We Charge You With Genocide" for added drama:



However, the International Red Cross has now confirmed what those who haven't swallowed anti-Israel propaganda hook, line and sinker already know: that talk of hardship in Gaza is much exaggerated. There is to all intents and purposes no longer a siege. It's certainly not that "open prison" that David Cameron eagerly claimed it was when he was striving to impress his Turkish hosts last year.

The Red Cross has never, so far as I'm aware, been particularly friendly towards Israel. All the more reason, then, to heed its current announcement that the "humanitarian crisis" which is so often talked of in the media and by the chattering classes, and taken for granted in the public mind as a result, does not, in fact exist.

For on Wednesday the Red Cross, via its deputy director in Gaza, Mathilde Redmatn, said in an interview that acknowledged what anyone not taken in by anti-Israel propaganda has known for some time: that there

"is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza. If you go to the supermarket, there are products. There are restaurants and a nice beach."

She acknowledged that Israel has eased the siege on Gaza and partly lifted export bans, and identified the main drawback for Gazans as Israel's remaining partial embargo on such items as cement.

"Israel has the legitimate right to protect the civilian population, [but] this right should be balanced with the right of 1.5 million people living in the Gaza Strip...difficulties in importing building materials [has] hampered sustainable economic recovery and dashed any hope of leading a normal and dignified life."

The problem here, of course, is that these building materials have been used by Hamas and its cohorts to construct bunkers, and while missiles and mortar shells are launched into southern Israel from civilian areas by a terrorist regime utterly impervious to the welfare of its own people, it's surely Hamas rather than Israel which is depriving Gazans of that desirable "normal and dignified life."

Red Cross official: There is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza

Rotem Caro Weizman
IDF News Channel
20 April '11
Posted before Shabbat



http://dover.idf.il/IDF/English/News/today/2011/04/2004.htm

Mathilde Redmatn (Correction: “Mathilde De Riedmatten” is the deputy head of the ICRC in Gaza., YH), deputy director of the Red Cross is Gaza, says her organization's repeated requests to monitor Gilad Shalit's condition have been refused by Hamas

Mathilde Redmatn is the deputy director of the Red Cross in the Gaza Strip. Redmatn has had the opportunity to see with her eyes what most of us only see on television screens.

On previous assignments, Redmatn has lived in Congo and Colombia. Her activities in Gaza are completely different, she says.

"Of course the work is different everywhere, but here the fabric of life is problematic," she says. "There are two peoples, one living under closure and one living under daily rocket fire, which violates international law.

Redmatn has a lot to say about problems related to the closure Israel has placed on Gaza but she also talks about the surprising normalcy in one of the most explosive regions of the world that receives extensive media attention.

"There is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza," she explains. "If you go to the supermarket, there are products. There are restaurants and a nice beach. The problem is mainly in maintenance of infrastructure and in access to goods, concrete for example. Israel has the legitimate right to protect the civilan population, this right should be balanced with the rights of 1.5 million people living in the Gaza Strip. Despite the easing of the closure and the partial lifting of export bans in the wake of the flotilla incident, continued restrictions on the movement of people and difficulties in importing building materials hampered sustainable economic recovery and dashed any hope of leading a normal and dignified life".

The Red Cross is an international organization founded in 1863. It promotes laws that protect the victims of war and provides humanitarian aid to people living in conflict zones. Red Cross representatives have worked in Gaza since 1967. Their goal, says Redmatn, is twofold.

"We are documenting human rights violations according to international law and we speak with relevant parties on how to take care of the issue," Redmatn says. "We are talking about captives , soldiers, the wounded, and in fact anyone defined by the Geneva Convention. Additionally, in the area of humanitarian assistance, we are mainly engaged in the areas of water and sanitation. We are talking about a highly dense population. Most of the infrastructure cannot be improved due to the closure so we try to improve the situation with existing tools. One example of this is a factory we helped establish in order to clean sewage water that spills into the sea."

Are Israeli Settlements Actually ‘Illegal’? Enough Already!

Moshe Dann
pajamasmedia.com
04 April '11

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/enough-already-are-israeli-settlements-actually-%E2%80%98illegal%E2%80%99/?singlepage=true

The question brings us to an examination of the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Red Cross, and reveals an uphill battle against law and reason for those who want the settlements gone.

Despite all the legally binding treaties, covenants, and agreements that established the Palestine Mandate in 1922 and empowered its British administration to ensure that this area would become “the Jewish National Home,” it’s strange that Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) are condemned as “illegitimate,” “illegal,” and “violations of international law.” How did this happen?

Bashing “the settlements” is commonly used to delegitimize Israel, negate the right of Jews to live in their homeland, and promote a second Arab Palestinian state. But are these charges valid? In order to answer this question one must refer to the law, the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV), specifically Article 49.

Does GC IV apply to Israel? Do settlements violate GC IV? Is Israel occupying another country? Did Israel compel a transfer of populations, considered illegal under GC IV? Who has sovereignty? These questions have occupied generations of legal experts and politicians, filled library shelves, and generated much confusion.

Simplified, here are some facts.

According to the governing Mandatory authority, which was in force until 1948, Jews were not only permitted to build in the entire area designated as the “Jewish national home,” they were entitled to do so by the Mandate itself. Zionism, the political expression of Jewish self-determination and sovereignty in the Land of Israel, was (except for Arabs) generally undisputed.

Sovereignty was implicit when the state of Israel was declared, and then, having survived a genocidal invasion by five Arab countries in 1948, Israel was accepted into the United Nations, albeit without recognized borders. Following an armistice, Egypt occupied the Gaza Strip and Jordan occupied Judea, Samaria, and east Jerusalem; their occupations were not recognized as legitimate (except by the UK and Pakistan).

Hamas Freeloads Off Red Cross Jerusalem HQ

Honest Reporting/Backspin
12 December '10

Three Hamas MPs are freeloading at a Red Cross office in eastern Jerusalem. The Jerusalem Post writes:

During their time at the Red Cross, the politicians have held regular Friday prayer services attended by large crowds of Jerusalem residents; greeted visiting dignitaries, including former American president Jimmy Carter and a Jordanian envoy; and held photo ops with various local Arab notables. Literature supporting their cause has been distributed from the Red Cross compound, and large signs with the legislators’ faces adorn the side of the building.

A Red Cross spokesman told the paper there's no safe haven and police can come arrest Ahmad Attoun, Khaled Abu- Arafa and Muhammad Totah anytime. But how does the IRC explain this?

The Red Cross has provided the politicians with a room inside the building where they can sleep and keep their belongings, a bathroom, electricity for their large protest tent, and a water cooler, it is understood . . .

Do you really think the Red Cross would give me the same privileges if I just showed up and refused to leave?

The real chutzpah is that even as Hamas enjoys the health organization's largesse, it still allows no Red Cross access to Gilad Shalit.

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

"Hamas: We won't let Red Cross visit Shalit " Nu? Where are the Protests?

Batya Medad
Shilo Musings
24 June '10

[TY to Batya for trying to refocus where the attention needs to be placed. Unfortunately, the issue goes far beyond the emotions of the moment, or even a day. We cannot allow reason to be swept away once again, to release murderers, who will kill once again, bereaving thousands. Two years ago, Assaf Sagiv addressed this issue in his article Civilians First, that "Only in Israel does concern for the safety of soldiers override the state’s obligation to defend its civilians." This article should be read over and over again, until we understand what we've done to ourselves. Otherwise, we are doomed to repeat the same tragic mistake, and to encourage, rather than discourage, the enemy to attempt to repeat it's success at so little cost to itself. Y.]

Headline from Haaretz:
Hamas: We won't let Red Cross visit Shalit

"Shalit's parents have pledged to camp outside the prime minister's residence until their son is freed from captivity."

I agree that it's a disgrace that Gilad Shalit has been in captivity for four years, but the Israeli Prime Minister isn't holding him prisoner. The Arab Hamas terrorists are, and international "aid" organizations like the Red Cross are cooperating with the terrorists.

If all these "human rights" and "aid" organizations really did their job, they'd be protesting day and night against Hamas about the imprisonment and isolation of Gilad Shalit. They aren't because they don't care. They have no problem when innocent Jews are imprisoned.

The protests should be against them. Jews and all world citizens who truly care about civil/human rights should stop contributing to or donating to all those organizations which aren't doing their jobs. The Red Cross is at the top of that list.

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.