Red Cross demands Mid-East action

[jose]

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Red Cross demands Mid-East action

"In Gaza the whole strip is being strangled, economically speaking, life there has become a nightmare. And for that there is no solution that can be provided by humanitarian organisations. "We can try to put patches on problems, but we do not have the key to a lasting solution that would address the roots of the problem." In fact the Red Cross and other UN aid agencies are pouring money into Gaza; senior aid officials, our correspondent says, privately fear they may be perpetuating a situation which really should not continue.

The Red Cross make a strong statement.

[Dieval]

Quote by: jose BBC NEWS | Middle East | Red Cross demands Mid-East action The Red Cross make a strong statement.

I know this is an attempt to throw Isreal under the bus....

..but it seems to me that if you connect the dots, you see there are 2 possible outcomes to make this situation better...

First, Hamas runs Gaza. Hama's charter says -

Hamas' charter (written in 1988 and still in effect) calls for the destruction of the State of Israel Hamas' charter (written in 1988 and still in effect) calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, Gaza Stripand the Hamas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Isreal must be destroyed for their to be peace with Hamas and Gaza.

Second, Hamas and any other terrorist organizations in that area, need to be disbanded and their power nullified and removed. This would allow the Pals and Isreali's to work out a lasting agreement, finally.

So, either Isreal goes or Hamas goes....which is it?

[Nono]

Dieval, your reasoning is based on the completely untenable view that all this sending in of settlers to occupy confiscated land and grab scarce resources, all this strangling of the economy and making life miserable for huge masses of normal people, is somehow necessary to Israeli security.

It isn't, of course, and implying that the two are connected amounts to a red herring which, I guess, you hope will distract people from the fact that Israel is playing the role of rogue/outlaw state.

What the Red Cross is saying is that bandaids are not solving the problem and that it's time for a serious (yes, serious) political deal.

If Hamas tried to stand in the way of a Real Deal, it would be swept away in an instant.

[jose]

Quote by: Dieval I know this is an attempt to throw Isreal under the bus.... ..but it seems to me that if you connect the dots, you see there are 2 possible outcomes to make this situation better... First, Hamas runs Gaza. Hama's charter says - Isreal must be destroyed for their to be peace with Hamas and Gaza. Second, Hamas and any other terrorist organizations in that area, need to be disbanded and their power nullified and removed. This would allow the Pals and Isreali's to work out a lasting agreement, finally. So, either Isreal goes or Hamas goes....which is it?

Or the Israeli´s could integrate with the original residents on an equal basis, and the ones who dont want that could go back to their country of birth

[GHook93]

Quote by: jose BBC NEWS | Middle East | Red Cross demands Mid-East action The Red Cross make a strong statement.

Then tell Hamas to stop shooting missiles at civilians! Until then, the red cross can stick it.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Nono Dieval, your reasoning is based on the completely untenable view that all this sending in of settlers to occupy confiscated land and grab scarce resources, all this strangling of the economy and making life miserable for huge masses of normal people, is somehow necessary to Israeli security.

Get the facts straight! There are no settlements in Gaza. They were disbanded and their is no land grabbing of Gaza. The occupation of Gaza was KEY to Israel security. Now that Israel left, Hamas and Islamic Jihad use it to launch daily missile and mortar attacks.

Now the leftist hyprocrits call for Israel to remove the HIGHLY justifiable checkpoints and stop building the HIGHLY justifiable security wall. If Israel was stupid enough to do this, then it wouldn't be just missile and mortar attacks it would be suicide bombings and wild gunmen attacks!

[Chancellor]

Quote from the article:

"the Red Cross and other UN aid agencies"

Since when did the Red Cross become a member agency of the United Nations?

If the Palestinians would stop sending their children into Israel to blow up buses and markets would stop shooting missiles and similar projectiles into Israel, perhaps they would have the time and money to spend on taking care of their own people.

[Dieval]

Quote by: Nono Dieval, your reasoning is based on the completely untenable view that all this sending in of settlers to occupy confiscated land and grab scarce resources, all this strangling of the economy and making life miserable for huge masses of normal people, is somehow necessary to Israeli security. It isn't, of course, and implying that the two are connected amounts to a red herring which, I guess, you hope will distract people from the fact that Israel is playing the role of rogue/outlaw state. What the Red Cross is saying is that bandaids are not solving the problem and that it's time for a serious (yes, serious) political deal. If Hamas tried to stand in the way of a Real Deal, it would be swept away in an instant.

My reasoning is that Hamas is in charge of Gaza, and Hamas wants the desctruction of Isreal...there will be no peace until either Hamas(and other like organizations) or Isreal is gone.

[GHook93]

Quote by: jose Or the Israeli´s could integrate with the original residents on an equal basis, and the ones who dont want that could go back to their country of birth

Pigs could fly also!

Integrating the 2 together would cause a Rwanda style genocidial civil war! It is very naive and gullible to believe it would end any differently

[grandpa]

Quote by: GHook93 Integrating the 2 together would cause a Rwanda style genocidial civil war!

Only if they still cling to certain ideologies.

Grandpa h.

[Dieval]

Quote by: grandpa Only if they still cling to certain ideologies. Grandpa h.

Is there any indication that either side would give up those ideologies?

[GHook93]

Quote by: grandpa Only if they still cling to certain ideologies. Grandpa h.

LOLOLOLOLOL, what have ever seen to make you think their is even an outside chance of them not holding on to certain ideologies! Come reality is a good thing to embrace!

[grandpa]

Quote by: Dieval Is there any indication that either side would give up those ideologies?

Not really. But that's the only way this will stop. Of course, some will say that racism and xenophobia are not "ideologies", but
psychoses, but that's a matter of its own.

Grandpa h.

[Nono]

Quote by: GHook Get the facts straight! There are no settlements in Gaza.

Did I mention Gaza? No. So get your facts, straight. (And take a Valium while you're at it.)

The Red Cross report deals with all the territories, not just Gaza.

Nice try at the red-herring tactic, G, but it don't work.

[Nono]

Quote by: Chancellor Since when did the Red Cross become a member agency of the United Nations?

Never of course. This is the BBC being unforgiveably sloppy.

The International Committee of the Red Cross has a mandate from all nations to monitor compliance with the law of war.

That's what it's doing in this report.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Nono Never of course. This is the BBC being unforgiveably sloppy. The International Committee of the Red Cross has a mandate from all nations to monitor compliance with the law of war. That's what it's doing in this report.

So, basically the Red Cross is being allowed to butt its nose into the internal affairs of other nations.

The Red Cross has no standing to demand anything.

[Nono]

My my, are some people ignorant or what, eh?

"The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is an impartial, neutral and independent organization whose exclusively humanitarian mission is to protect the lives and dignity of victims of war and internal violence and to provide them with assistance."
The ICRC's mandate and mission

And this mandate isn't just something the ICRC found in a Cracker Jack box. It's conferred on the organization by the Geneva Conventions, to which Israel is party.

Do your homework, Chance.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Nono My my, are some people ignorant or what, eh? "The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is an impartial, neutral and independent organization whose exclusively humanitarian mission is to protect the lives and dignity of victims of war and internal violence and to provide them with assistance." The ICRC's mandate and mission And this mandate isn't just something the ICRC found in a Cracker Jack box. It's conferred on the organization by the Geneva Conventions, to which Israel is party. Do your homework, Chancellor.

I am well aware of what the Red Cross is! It still has no standing to demand anything.

As for the Geneva Conventions conferring anything on the Red Cross, the history suggests that it was the work of the Red Cross that led to the creation of the Geneva Conventions: From the battle of Solferino to the eve of the First World War.

Since there is no world government with any actual authority to legislate, there is no such thing as international law and no sovereign nation is under any obligation to accept any incursions upon their sovereignty that they do not place on themselves.

[Nono]

Quote by: Chancellor ... there is no such thing as international law ...

Might as well say that the traffic code doesn't exist unless there happens to be a cop sitting there waiting to pounce.

If there's no such thing as international law, why has the United States signed and ratified all those treaties? For what purpose, if there's no such thing?

No sovereign nation is under any obligation to accept any incursions upon their sovereignty that they do not place on themselves.

But when a sovereign nation adopts the Geneva Conventions, it is voluntarily relinquishing absolute freedom of action (OK we won't shoot POWs, OK we won't flatten civilian areas, etc.). And it is voluntarily recognizing the role of the ICRC as the custodian of that law.
In other words, it is placing on itself a limit to its sovereignty. That's what law is. It puts limits on what you can do, and if a nation is party to a treaty, it's because it chose to be.

Above and beyond treaties, by the way, there's the broad realm of customary law. Try telling Washington that that doesn't exist.

So, Chancellor, the international community has given itself a series of rules to live by. Like it or not. And in the case of the law of armed conflict, the ICRC has been given -- by all nations -- the task of monitoring compliance. Like it or not.

[Charlatan]

International law? What is that? I have bnever heard of a country being forced to do anything by a law, but wars have been fought replacing the urgency to have the other party accept what is generalised as decent with physical force, so these forces are not bringing law, as nothing remains but the removal of the other's law. Take slavery, some thought it was ok and others fought wars to stop it, and make it a law that they would keep. International norms their may be, but there is no international law as not everyone subscribes to the united nations. Maybe if all countries were part of a holding party - as in not free countries, like colonies - then there may be international law, but until then there is only force to make others comply to a norm, or change their own laws. If some of the stricter middle east countries were making the laws, then we would all live differently, but they don't, so their laws are not international. If slavery ever surfaced again, maybe outide of the laws of the country concerned, then it is breaking the law. If America and Europe agreed that it was a good idea, it could be written into the laws, and others could disagree, resulting eventually in a show of force. So if you refer to a international law, 'might makes right.'

As for the Gaza strip, it is written into their charter to kill a certain kind of person, so they could change the charter, meaning that they now accept this kind of person, which would be mature. It is immature to generalise people by their place of birth or descendancy, and old fashioned. Will they ever succeed in eliminating all Jews? People have moved all over the world, so they should be after them too, as the Jews with the real power live outside of Israel, so what is the point of attacking a powerless enemy when the powerful are out of reach? Their motivation for killing Jews is about ethnic cleansing, but about submitting, or being one who submits, they should see their testaments intertwined, so there should be a feeling of brotherhood between them instead of this refusal to accept the other's existence. Wat law condondes death? To what do they owe an explanation? They exist not as a mistake but a 'creation under God', as far as religious people are concerned, and no law calls for death like this but one that is savage. Is living making the land dirty? What then have the Jews done wrong? Maybe there should be an explantion for why people write laws against this type of person, where they must die for being a part of something that we are all a part of together. If they were made to go to war for their being alive then they would have claws and teeth like that, but such is not the case, so they are not meant to go to war for whatever reasons they have come up with. What people do have is hands and minds for trading, building, and other constructive things, so how can a person that has been made to do things constructively be meant to die or to kill another? The reason had better be good, more than not liking the other person because of physical properties they don't like. We are social 'animals' and should act that way, not for any other reasons than to make it better than it is, and killing another social animal is seen as a mistake, not a blessing.

So whether you believe in God or not, think why it is we are geared to socialize and build so. Killing was never meant to be a part of our day to day things, as our bodies aren't even meant to eat meat, so we are meant, by God or nature, to get along. All wars should have an objective, and ethnic cleansing is not something stipulated by God or nature, so it is a cultural thing. Monuments were not built for the destruction of others in this area, only for worship, which brings people together, under any guise you like.