KHAN YUNIS, Gaza Strip - UN chief Ban Ki-moon slammed Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip saying it caused "unacceptable sufferings," during a visit Sunday to the Hamas-run coastal enclave.

Said Khatib)"I have repeatedly made it quite clear to Israel's leaders that the Israeli policy of closure is not sustainable and that it's wrong," Ban told reporters in the southern Gaza Strip town Khan Yunis.

"It causes unacceptable sufferings to ... the people and population" of Gaza, he said.

"This policy is also counter-productive. It prevents legitimate commerce and encourages smuggling. It undercuts moderates and empowers extremists."
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/03/21-1

I think we and the rest of the world should mind our own business and let them fight till its done . why should we stop it we din't start it we don't support it and we don't benafit from it going on forever . so start the shooting and be ready to make peace with the last man standing ....

What. A. Surprise. Ban Ki Moon doesn't support Israel. I. Am. Shocked. 'United Nations' is one of the most-overused oxymorons in history ... Funny how Li'l Ban can only see the 'unacceptable sufferings' of NON-Israelis ... Where's his 'empathy' and 'sympathy' for Israelis when ROCKETS are rained down on their cities by Palestinians and HAMAS or HEZBOLLAH terrorists? Sorry, he's screwed by his demonstrated prejudice for the attackers. 'Unacceptable sufferings' ... it is to laugh ...

I think Israel has lost the public relations war along time ago on this Gaza thing. Sure there are some zionists or right wing nut jobs who will spout off like pavloves dog about the poor "victim" Israel" Why in the hell does this country support Israel? I have honestly concluded Israel is like a rope around our necks when it comes to stability in the middle east.

I bet if we nuked Jerusalem the problems there would diminish since they wouldn't have the heart of the holy land to fight over any more. What pisses me off more is that Israel settles the area taking land from Palestine, Idiots in Palestine fire rockets at Israel provoking them, and we give those back stabbers money and turn a blind eye to their belligerence. I am sick of Israel's victimization complex and at the same time Hate Palestine for the same reason. Palestine has done a lot to themselves to bring themselves down in this mess too!

On top of that Iran is working towards ICBM capability and all the UN can do is play diplomacy games and they will not act until it is too late. Gee, enriched uranium and a ICBM and who gets kissed? New York, Los Angeles? Talahasee? Las Vegas? Gee, I bet there are liberals who would happily sing KumByeYa roasting Tofu hot dogs in the heat of the blast under the glow of the mushroom cloud!

What sucks even more is that in Jerusalem THREE religions counting Three flavors of Christianity coexist there in relative peace yet none of them can do it outside of Jerusalem. NOW LET ME GET REAL DOWN AND DIRTY HERE!

Up Yours you crybaby azzhole Islamics that got all huffy over the Jews celebrating the reconstruction of an ancient Jewish synagogue in Egypt. They drank wine? SO F***ING WHAT! We have to tolerate your religion? You had better learn to tolerate other religions! Your intolerance is why I do not convert because you act JUST LIKE THE CHRISTIANS WHO DON'T GET THEIR WAY! If anything you give me more reason to hate religion just like the Christian faiths did.

NOW LET ME BE CLEAR! I AM NOT AIMING THIS AT ALL ISLAM! I have met and been able to hold very deep philosophical discussions with men of Islam and to you I wish all of the blessings Allah can bestow upon you in life! It was your wisdom and openness and TOLERANCE of me that made me appreciate you as people of conscious!

I was so pissed off when I read about the Synagogue being restored in Egypt and how Islamics were protesting over everything the Jews celebrating did. The Jewish History in Egypt runs FAR longer than the Arab presence there!

Once upon a time Islam was about tolerance. What happened?

Israel? Get real, you are colonialistic imperialists in disguise! Quit stealing Palestinian territory under the guise of self defense! If you are going to do it just crush them once and for all and take over utterly and get it over with! just don't think teh rest of the world is going to dig that at all.


P.S. Free Tibet with every Purchase of Chinese made goods!

The funny thing is that the majority of the countries that are part of the UN have labeled Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist orginizations but then the Head of the UN supports them.

Cut 'em off! No more American money or support. They shouldn't be our suckling pig anymore. Israel can go leach off Australia or France now, we're all out of blood.

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan admitted at the opening of the 61st General Assembly on September 20, 2006, that Israel is often unfairly judged at the United Nations. “On one side, supporters of Israel feel that it is harshly judged by standards that are not applied to its enemies,” he said. “And too often this is true, particularly in some UN bodies.”1

Starting in the mid-1970s, an Arab-Soviet-Third World bloc joined to form what amounted to a pro-PLO lobby at the United Nations. This was particularly true in the General Assembly where these countries — nearly all dictatorships or autocracies — frequently voted together to pass resolutions attacking Israel and supporting the PLO.

In 1974, for example, the General Assembly invited Yasser Arafat to address it. Arafat did so, a holster attached to his hip. In his speech, Arafat spoke of carrying a gun and an olive branch (he left his gun outside before entering the hall). In 1975, the Assembly awarded permanent representative status to the PLO, which opened an office in midtown Manhattan. Later that year, at the instigation of the Arab states and the Soviet Bloc, the Assembly approved Resolution 3379, which slandered Zionism by branding it a form of racism.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/israel_un.html

U.S. Ambassador Daniel Moynihan called the resolution an “obscene act.” Israeli Ambassador Chaim Herzog told his fellow delegates the resolution was “based on hatred, falsehood and arrogance.” Hitler, he declared, would have felt at home listening to the UN debate on the measure.1a

On December 16, 1991, the General Assembly voted 111-25 (with 13 abstentions and 17 delegations absent or not voting) to repeal Resolution 3379. The repeal vote was marred by the fact that 13 of the 19 Arab countries — including those engaged in negotiations with Israel — Syria, Lebanon and Jordan — voted to retain the resolution, as did Saudi Arabia. Six, including Egypt — which lobbied against repeal — were absent. No Arab country voted for repeal. The PLO denounced the vote and the U.S. role.

The Arabs “voted once again to impugn the very birthright of the Jewish State,” the New York Times noted. “That even now most Arab states cling to a demeaning and vicious doctrine mars an otherwise belated triumph for sense and conscience.”2

Less than a week before repealing the measure, the General Assembly approved four new one-sided resolutions on the Middle East. On December 11, 1991, it voted 104-2 for a resolution calling for a UN-sponsored peace conference that would include the PLO. Also that day, it voted 142-2 to condemn Israeli behavior toward Palestinians in the territories. On December 16 — the very day it repealed the Zionism measure — the UN voted 152-1, with the U.S. abstaining, to call on Israel to rescind a Knesset resolution declaring Jerusalem its capital, demand Israel's withdrawal from “occupied territories,” including Jerusalem and denounce Israeli administration of the Golan Heights. Another resolution expressed support for Palestinian self-determination and the right of return for Palestinian refugees.

As Herzog noted, the organization developed an Alice-In-Wonderland perspective on Israel. “In the UN building...she would only have to wear a Star of David in order to hear the imperious Off with her head at every turn.” Herzog noted that the PLO had cited a 1974 UN resolution condemning Israel as justification for setting off a bomb in Jerusalem.3

Bloc voting also made possible the establishment of the pro-PLO “Committee on the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People” in 1975. The panel became, in effect, part of the PLO propaganda apparatus, issuing stamps, organizing meetings, preparing films and draft resolutions in support of Palestinian “rights.” Today, approximately 20 committees are dedicated to the Palestinian issue. In 2004-2005, the UN allocated $5.5 million to the Division for Palestinian Rights, $255,000 for the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories, $60,000 for the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, and $566,000 for Information Activities on the Question of Palestine.3a

=-=-=-=

Diplomatic and Legal Aspects
of the Settlement Issue
Jeffrey Helmreich

One may legitimately support or challenge Israeli settlements in the disputed territories, but they are not illegal, and they have neither the size, the population, nor the placement to seriously impact upon the future status of the disputed territories and their Palestinian population centers.

The outbreak of the Al Aqsa Intifada in the fall of 2000 began to erode the orthodoxy that settlements were driving Palestinian anger and blocking peace. New York Times foreign affairs analyst Thomas L. Friedman wrote in October 2000: "This war is sick but it has exposed some basic truths." In particular, Friedman wrote, "To think that the Palestinians are only enraged about settlements is also fatuous nonsense. Talk to the 15-year-olds. Their grievance is not just with Israeli settlements, but with Israel. Most Palestinians simply do not accept that the Jews have any authentic right to be here. For this reason, any Palestinian state that comes into being should never be permitted to have any heavy weapons, because if the Palestinian had them today, their extremists would be using them on Tel Aviv."

http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief2-16.htm

In recent months, however, the settlements have re-emerged as an explanation for the failure of nearly every ceasefire and diplomatic effort to quell the conflict. The Mitchell Report in 2001 and recent remarks by visiting U.S. senators have raised the question of settlements (though not directly blaming them for the conflict), and the UN General Assembly concluded its 2002 session with over 15 agenda items condemning "illegal" Israeli settlements. Settlements have also become a focal point in the Quartet's December 2002 "road map."

In fact, since their establishment nearly three decades ago, settlements have been the cause celebre of critics seeking to attribute the persistence of the conflict to Israeli policy. The criticism falls into two categories: moral/political arguments that settlements are "obstacles to peace," and legal claims that settlements are illegitimate or a violation of international norms. The pervasiveness of these claims masks the fact that, upon closer scrutiny, they are false, and they hide the true source of grievances and ideological fervor that fuel this conflict.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if it were that simple???

«... The pervasiveness of these claims (persistent violation of International Law) masks the fact that, upon (YOUR) closer scrutiny, they are false, and they hide the true source of grievances and ideological fervor that fuel this conflict...»

Please 's1lowhand' share 'YOUR CLOSE SCRUTINY' with us. Give us some authoritative sources that would help us counter ALL OF THE CURRENT AUTHORITATIVE SOURCES CLAIMING SUCH PERSISTENT INTERNATIONAL VIOLATIONS.

One cannot be making such 'flaky' claims, without validation support, and expect to be taken seriously on this topic.

Isreal's violations of occupied territories according to International Laws are persistent and overwhelming, and are documented by a several highly respected world organizations, one of being an Israel based institution: 'B'Tselem'.

The game of blaming Palestinian acts, while ignoring or forgiving Israel's persistent Human Rights and Occupied Territories violations, cannot be deemed 'acting in good faith'.

Let's all get real; Isreali and Palestinian families deserve better than the deceitful games religious and political 'elites' are playing at THEIR expense.

http://zionism-israel.com/issues/are_settlements_legal.html

Are Israeli settlements legal?

Israeli settlements in the West Bank are legal both under international law and the agreements between Israel and the Palestinians. Claims to the contrary are mere attempts to distort the law for political purposes. Yet whatever the status of the settlements, their existence should never be used to justify terrorism.

The Palestinians often claim that settlement activity is illegal and call on Israel to dismantle every settlement. In effect, they are demanding that every Jew leave the West Bank, a form of ethnic cleansing. By contrast, within Israel, Arabs and Jews live side-by-side; indeed, Israeli Arabs, who account for approximately 20% of Israel's population, are citizens of Israel with equal rights.

The Palestinian call to remove all Jewish presence from the disputed territories is not only discriminatory and morally reprehensible; it has no basis either in law or in the agreements between Israel and the Palestinians.

The various agreements reached between Israel and the Palestinians since 1993 contain no prohibitions on the building or expansion of settlements. On the contrary, they specifically provide that the issue of settlements is reserved for permanent status negotiations, which are to take place in the concluding stage of the peace talks. The parties expressly agreed that the Palestinian Authority has no jurisdiction or control over settlements or Israelis, pending the conclusion of a permanent status agreement.

It has been charged that the provision contained in the Israel-Palestinian Interim Agreement prohibiting unilateral steps that alter the status of the West Bank implies a ban on settlement activity. This position is disingenuous. The prohibition on unilateral measures was designed to ensure that neither side take steps that would change the legal status of this territory (such as by annexation or a unilateral declaration of statehood), pending the outcome of permanent status talks. The building of homes has no effect on the final permanent status of the area as a whole. Were this prohibition to be applied to building, it would lead to the unreasonable interpretation that neither side is permitted to build houses to accommodate the needs of their respective communities.

As the Israeli claim to these territories is legally valid, it is just as legitimate for Israelis to build their communities as it is for the Palestinians to build theirs. Yet in the spirit of compromise, successive Israeli governments have indicated their willingness to negotiate the issue and have adopted a voluntary freeze on the building of new settlements as a confidence-building measure.

Furthermore, Israel had established its settlements in the West Bank in accordance with international law. Attempts have been made to claim that the settlements violate Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which forbids a state from deporting or transferring "parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." However, this allegation has no validity in law as Israeli citizens were neither deported nor transferred to the territories.

Although Israel has voluntarily taken upon itself the obligation to uphold the humanitarian provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel maintains that the Convention (which deals with occupied territories) was not applicable to the disputed territory. As there had been no internationally recognized legal sovereign in either the West Bank or Gaza prior to the 1967 Six Day War, they cannot be considered to have become "occupied territory" when control passed into the hands of Israel.

Yet even if the Fourth Geneva Convention were to apply to the territories, Article 49 would not be relevant to the issue of Jewish settlements. The Convention was drafted immediately following the Second World War, against the background of the massive forced population transfers that occurred during that period. As the International Red Cross' authoritative commentary to the Convention confirms, Article 49 (entitled "Deportations, Transfers, Evacuations") was intended to prevent the forcible transfer of civilians, thereby protecting the local population from displacement. Israel has not forcibly transferred its citizens to the territory and the Convention does not place any prohibition on individuals voluntarily choosing their place of residence. Moreover, the settlements are not intended to displace Arab inhabitants, nor do they do so in practice. According to independent surveys, the built-up areas of the settlements (not including roads or unpopulated adjacent tracts) take up about 3% of the total territory of the West Bank.

Israel's use of land for settlements conforms to all rules and norms of international law. Privately owned lands are not requisitioned for the establishment of settlements. In addition, all settlement activity comes under the supervision of the Supreme Court of Israel (sitting as the High Court of Justice) and every aggrieved inhabitant of the territories, including Palestinian residents, can appeal directly to this Court

The Fourth Geneva Convention was certainly not intended to prevent individuals from living on their ancestral lands or on property that had been illegally taken from them. Many present-day Israeli settlements have been established on sites that were home to Jewish communities in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) in previous generations, in an expression of the Jewish people's deep historic and religious connection with the land. Many of the most ancient and holy Jewish sites, including the Cave of the Patriarchs (the burial site of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) and Rachel's Tomb, are located in these areas. Jewish communities, such as in Hebron (where Jews lived until they were massacred in 1929), existed throughout the centuries. Other communities, such as the Gush Etzion bloc in Judea, were founded before 1948 under the internationally endorsed British Mandate.

The right of Jews to settle in all parts of the Land of Israel was first recognized by the international community in the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. The purpose of the Mandate was to facilitate the establishment of a Jewish national home in the Jewish people's ancient homeland. Indeed, Article 6 of the Mandate provided for "close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands not required for public use."

For more than a thousand years, the only time that Jewish settlement was prohibited in the West Bank was under the Jordanian occupation (1948-1967) that resulted from an armed invasion. During this period of Jordanian rule, which was not internationally recognized, Jordan eliminated the Jewish presence in the West Bank (as Egypt did in the Gaza Strip) and declared that the sale of land to Jews was a capital offense. It is untenable that this outrage could invalidate the right of Jews to establish homes in these areas, and accordingly, the legal titles to land that had already been acquired remain valid to this day.

In conclusion, the oft-repeated claim regarding the illegality' of Israeli settlements has no legal or factual basis under either international law or the agreements between Israel and the Palestinians. Such charges can only be regarded as politically motivated. Most importantly, any political claim - including the one regarding settlements - should never be used to justify terrorist attacks on innocent civilians.

It has to do with the Israel lobby, the International bankers, and other things as well. The Western countries have no business being involved politically/militarily in the mideast or anywhere else.

Just my 2 cents.