Hamas rejects Red Cross call for Gilad Shalit : Cleveland IMC (((i)))

The ICRC issued a statement:

Since Mr Shalit's capture in June 2006, the ICRC has repeatedly asked Hamas to allow the exchange of Red Cross messages between Gilad Shalit and his family. The most recent requests were made at the highest level, but these and all others have been refused.

"We welcome the fact that yesterday former US president Jimmy Carter handed Hamas a letter from Gilad Shalit's family to him," said Béatrice Mégevand-Roggo, the ICRC's head of operations for the Middle East and North Africa. "However, this cannot replace the regular and unconditional contacts with his family that Gilad Shalit is entitled to under international humanitarian law. The ICRC regrets that in his case political considerations are judged more important than the simple humanitarian gesture of allowing a captive to be in touch with his family after three years of separation."

Repeated requests by the ICRC to visit Gilad Shalit to ascertain his conditions of detention and treatment have also been refused. Visiting people deprived of their freedom and enabling them to exchange personal news with their relatives is one of the ICRC's main humanitarian tasks.

Ms Megevand-Roggo added that the people holding Gilad Shalit were entirely responsible for ensuring that his treatment and living conditions are humane and dignified.

The ICRC has held several meetings with Gilad Shalit's parents, Noam and Aviva Shalit, to brief them on its efforts regarding their 22-year-old son. "We share their concerns. Despite the lack of progress so far we will continue to press for family contacts for Mr Shalit and for ICRC access to him," said Ms Mégevand-Roggo.

Hamas responded:

The de facto government in Gaza's Ministry of Prisoners' Affairs was astonished on Friday that the International Red Cross has asked Hamas to allow captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit regular contact with his family.

In a statement to Ma'an, the ministry said that the Red Cross' demand came while "Gaza prisoners have been continuously deprived family visits for more than two years, which has negatively affected their living and psychological situation."

"Under what pretext of international law is it that the Red Cross can demand that Hamas allow Shalit to contact his family?" the the de facto government ministry asked. "Did the Red Cross denounce the [Israeli] occupation for its daily violations of international law against Palestinian prisoners, who are deprived from every human right?"

"At the least, stated international conventions demand that the sick aren't denied necessary medical treatment; instead, they die slowly due to medical negligence," the statement went on to say.

The ministry also denounced international organizations' calls for better treatment of "this single Israeli captive," demanding that they show that they "care about the situation of 11,000 Palestinian prisoners, against whom everything is banned and international crimes are committed."

"Israel is continuously bypassing international conventions to legitimize crimes being committed, including the deprivation of visitations, imposing an orange uniform by force and implimenting the 'illegal combatant' law," the statement noted.

The ministry concluded by calling on the international community and human rights organizations to stop so-called double-standard policies that urge Hamas to meet demands concerning Shalit but stop at demanding Israel ease living conditions of its thousands of Palestinian prisoners.

Hamas is employing doubletalk that is even more egregious than usual. As far as I can tell, the Red Cross does not accuse Israel of any violations of prisoners' rights, although they have called for Israel to allow visits from family members.

This week marks 3 years that Gilad Shalit has been in chains, without any confirmation of his well being by outside sources.

It is very sad.

How can Hamas claim the trappings of governemnt without any of the international obligations? How can Hamas claim legitimacy while deprieving so many of their civil and human rights?

In the meanwhile, Gilad Shalit's parent wait, wonder and pray.

Human Rights circa 1998 Israel

Israeli security services have recently admitted to using the following methods of torture: shabah, which involves the tying of hands and feet in painful positions and being forced to sit on a low stool for long periods; the “frog position,” where the interrogee is forced to kneel on his toes with the arms shackled behind him; shaking, in which the interrogator grabs the interrogee by the shirt lapels and shakes him violently so the interrogator’s fists pound the chest of the victim, whose head is being thrown backward and forward. In April 1995, a Palestinian died as a result of violent shaking.
One day prior to the Supreme Court hearing, B’Tselem, an Israeli human rights organization, re-enacted to the press a variety of practices used by the GSS. A shackled Israeli actor with a thick green hood over his head lay on the floor in a variety of painfully contorted positions or was strapped backward across a small table or on a tiny stool tilted forward.
http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0798/9807011.html
[question: why are we to believe the Israeli IOF has obeyed the 1999 Court decision to ban torture when no inspections by outside agencies are ever allowed unannounced to monitor these practices and confirm the humanitarian treatment of the thousands of Palestinians being held without due process at this current moment?]

That was BEFORE ISRAEL banned torture- its stll one of the few nations in the world to have anti-Torture laws on the books.

And what does it have to do with Gilad Shalit being held in deprivation of his Geneva convention rights for three years?
If hamas wants to convince the world that they are a legitimate government, they need to act like one.

no monitors?
by no independent monitors? Sunday, Jun. 21, 2009 at 11:36 AM

no independent monitors?
How do we know the law is even being observed?
We don't.
How many times has Israel violated their own laws when no one can *varify* the rhetoric so abundant in zionist propaganda?

No- one independent monitors have been allowed to see Gilad Shalit- Jimmy Carter tried to arrange it but Hamas said no.

Many think he might be dead- that Hamas wouldn't spend money to keep a Jew and an Israeli alive.

I feel so bad for his parents.

-And what does it have to do with Gilad Shalit-[?]
It has to do with the care of prisoners, it has to do with *due process* and it has a great deal to do with raging hypocrisy.
Like the theme of this thread.

Then why state something ten years old?
Use something currrent.

Re Gilad Shalit- his glasses were left behind during this kidnapping- the International Red Cross asked hamas to give him a new pair- Hamas said no. They asked for him to be able to send and recieve letters. Hamas said no. They asked for international monitors. Hamas said no.

Hamas pretends its a real governmnt but ignores real basic human and civil rights. It can't have it both ways.

what raging hypocrites...
You hold thousands of Palestinians in secret detention facilities w/o due process for years, some of which *are children* and then wank about one person you select for special pathos.
Fucking unreal.

The palestinians in jail have rights, visitation by lawyers, family memebers, International monitors.
Big difference.

Of the 250 "children" under 18 in Israeli jail, ALL were convicted of a violent crime. What do you suggest doing with a 17 year old who shoots a pregannat women, or a 16 year old who tries to blow up a grocery store?

Even if your figures are correct; a tight stretch in itself as the figures the Palestinians have are different, the scale of abuse is outragious.
And that's even accepting the military 'trials' that abridge and pervert any concept of justice.
And that's not *even* counting the people in years long custody that are still awaiting trial.
yuo
raging hypocrites

I'm angry that the laboratory of Israel is being used to see just how far a people can be squeezed before they submit in terrorized acquiescence and it pisses me off to know, the data that is being gathered, is going to come home here in practice.
Prisoner care is turned into torture [ another tool of terrorism in the ruler's shed ] and laws are passed and ignored with 'plausible denial' while the brutality goes on.
All we hear is the babbling mantras of "we don't do that" while the system continues doing what it has been doing without a burp.
We tortured people in Vietnam so Abu Gahrib is no big freaking surprise.
So
if you allow it to happen, Mr. Rheme, it may arrive at your front door someday and your whimper will be another note in a chorus of despair.

Just curious
by what should we do with young terrorists? Sunday, Jun. 21, 2009 at 1:06 PM

Under Oslo, the PA was supposed to arrest , try and imprision terrorists.
It hasn't happened.
So whats the other option?
Let them go free?
Waht do you think we should do with a 17 year old caught at a checkpoint with a suicide bombers belt?
Send him home to mommy?

Under Oslo...
by more like under the guns Sunday, Jun. 21, 2009 at 1:59 PM

exactly what piece of Oslo did Israel abide by?
Please point out some real, unbroken Olso agreements by israel.
Thank you.

4 posts in a row. The fucktard is on a roll! You Palestinians have so much to be proud of.

So...stepping over Yada's splotcher.....
What part of Oslo did Israel abide by?
Certainly not the agreement not to go into the occupied territories and abduct or kill civilians. Excuse me; militants, that is.

How old are you, asswipe? "Isreal" is as juvenile as it gets.

Oslo was a farce
by Israel Violated Oslo Everywhere Monday, Jun. 22, 2009 at 11:28 AM

I see the topic about the subject about Oslo has been avoided, again....
Let me ask again.
What part of the Olso agreements did Israel ever comply with?
There must be at least one item....
Tel us all about it.

In essence, the accords called for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from parts of the Gaza Strip and West Bank, and affirmed a Palestinian right of self-government within those areas through the creation of a Palestinian Authority. Palestinian rule was to last for a five-year interim period during which a permanent agreement would be negotiated (beginning no later than May 1996). Permanent issues such as Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees, Israeli settlements, and security and borders were deliberately excluded from the Accords and left to be decided. Israel was to grant interim self-government to the Palestinians in phases. Until a final status accord was established, West Bank and Gaza would be divided into three zones:

Area A - under complete control of the Palestinian Authority.
Area B - under Palestinian civil control and Israeli security control.
Area C - under complete Israeli control, except over Palestinian civilians. These areas were Israeli settlements and "security zones."
Along with the principles, the two groups signed Letters of Mutual Recognition - the Israeli government recognized the PLO as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, while the PLO recognized the right of the state of Israel to exist and renounced terrorism as well as other violence, and its desire for the destruction of the Israeli state.
In essence, the accords called for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from parts of the Gaza Strip and West Bank, and affirmed a Palestinian right of self-government within those areas through the creation of a Palestinian Authority. Palestinian rule was to last for a five-year interim period during which a permanent agreement would be negotiated (beginning no later than May 1996). Permanent issues such as Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees, Israeli settlements, and security and borders were deliberately excluded from the Accords and left to be decided. Israel was to grant interim self-government to the Palestinians in phases. Until a final status accord was established, West Bank and Gaza would be divided into three zones:

Area A - under complete control of the Palestinian Authority.
Area B - under Palestinian civil control and Israeli security control.
Area C - under complete Israeli control, except over Palestinian civilians. These areas were Israeli settlements and "security zones."
Along with the principles, the two groups signed Letters of Mutual Recognition - the Israeli government recognized the PLO as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, while the PLO recognized the right of the state of Israel to exist and renounced terrorism as well as other violence, and its desire for the destruction of the Israeli state.

In order that the Palestinians govern themselves according to democratic principles, free and general political elections would be held for the Council.

Jurisdiction of the Palestinian Council would cover the West Bank and Gaza Strip, except for issues that would be finalized in the permanent status negotiations. The two sides viewed the West Bank and Gaza as a single territorial unit.

The five-year transitional period would commence with Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and Jericho area. Permanent status negotiations would begin as soon as possible between Israel and the Palestinians. The negotiations would cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees, Israeli settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other issues of common interest.

There would be a transfer of authority from the Israel Defence Forces to the authorized Palestinians, concerning education and culture, health, social welfare, direct taxation, and tourism.

The Council would establish a strong police force, while Israel would continue to carry the responsibility for defending against external threats.

An Israeli-Palestinian Economic Cooperation Committee would be established in order to develop and implement in a cooperative manner the programs identified in the protocols.

Oslo’s Demise
On July 1, 1994, Arafat arrived in Gaza and assumed control over the Palestinian Authority (PA) — the provisional entity created by the Oslo Accords. On January 20, 1996, Arafat was elected president of the PA (he is also known by the Arabic word ra’is or “head”), with an overwhelming 83% majority (the only other candidate was Samiha Khalil). Though he was to serve for only three years, no other presidential elections have ever been held.

Despite Arafat’s pledges, violence continued throughout the end of the decade, with more than 100 Israelis being killed and 1,000 injured in terrorist attacks. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak then decided that rather than further draw out the negotiating process with the Palestinians, he would go directly to the end game and try to achieve a peace agreement. President Clinton agreed with this idea and called for a summit meeting with Arafat and Barak at Camp David on July 11-14, 2000, with the goal of hammering out the end to the conflict.

Clinton hoped to recreate the magic of Jimmy Carter’s successful summit that helped bring about peace between Israel and Egypt. In that case, however, Carter had two willing partners. Anwar Sadat had already demonstrated to Israel that he was prepared to make peace and, when he accepted the compromises offered at Camp David, Menachem Begin agreed to give up the Sinai. Clinton found a different situation; Arafat had done little in the seven years since Oslo to convince Israelis he had given up his dream of destroying Israel. Nevertheless, Barak came prepared to offer the Palestinians independence and offered a series of formulations to resolve the major issues. Arafat not only rejected all of the American and Israeli ideas, he refused to offer any of his own. As a result, Clinton blamed the summit’s failure on Arafat.

Israel agreed to withdraw from 97% of the West Bank, 100% of the Gaza Strip, dismantle most of the settlements, and create a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. The only concessions Arafat had to make were to acknowledge Israeli sovereignty over the parts of the Western Wall religiously significant to Jews (that is, not the entire Temple Mount), and to agree to three early warning stations in the Jordan Valley, which Israel would withdraw from after six years.

The Palestinian negotiators wanted to accept the deal, but Arafat rejected it. According to the principal U.S. peace negotiator, Dennis Ross, the critical issue was the clause in the agreement that said the conflict would now be over. Arafat, whose life has been governed by that conflict, Ross said, simply could not end it.

A series of horrific terror attacks were carried out over the next several weeks — including two gunmen opening fire on a bus stop, which killed two and wounded injured dozens more; suicide bombings in a pedestrian mall in Jerusalem and two others in Haifa; and a bomb and gunfire attack on a bus. After Israeli Minister of Tourism Rehavam Ze'evi was assassinated, and more than 30 other Israelis were murdered and several hundred were wounded, Israel’s new Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, declared Arafat “irrelevant” and, on December 22, 2001, sent troops into his headquarters in Ramallah to confine him to his office. Sharon said that Arafat would remain isolated until the killers of Ze'evi were arrested and extradited to Israel. Arafat refused and appealed to the international community to pressure Israel to end its siege.

The level of violence continued to escalate while Arafat ignored repeated warnings from the Bush Administration to take steps to prevent attacks against Israelis. By mid-2002, President Bush was convinced that Arafat was deeply involved in directing terror, and concluded that the only hope for achieving progress in the peace process was for the Palestinians to find a new leader.

Not only the Americans had soured on Arafat. Palestinian youths became increasingly disillusioned by what they perceived as the plodding dictatorial and corrupt nature of the PLO, and Arafat's failure to deliver on his promise to liberate Palestine. Many of these Palestinians turned to the Muslim fundamentalist organizations, Islamic Jihad and Hamas, which never accepted the Oslo accords, and remained committed to the use of terror to drive the Israelis out of all of “Palestine.”

yeah, sure, these were the agreements
None of which were honored by Israel.
Like the settelment question over new land seizures by Israel.

I think you should call the virtualjewishlibrary the zionistopinionpallet

oslo was a series of confidence building measures- Israel met its obligation- the aplestinians did not

git you.
Israel has *never* abided to any of the critical points in any agreement or UN resolution but instead blantantly violates them while squealing "we aren't doing that while overwhelming evidence shows they are.
I asked for specific points of Oslo which were upheld by Israel and you have avoided the question [the subject of which, you brought up] I have asked and I'll asume you have no data on any honored agreements.
Thanks

Palestinians have NEVER honored a single agreement, ever. Arafat violated 22 ceasefires in the Lebanese Civil War alone. Not only did the Palestinians violate every single requirement of the Oslo accords, they expressed how that had been their intention all along! How Oslo was a "Trojan Horse" designed to permit their fighters to get closer to Israel for the next step of the 1974 Phased Plan of trying to conquer Israel by increments.

"the aplestinians did not"

shit for brains posted to tiself again.

-Lebanese Civil War-
You mean the israeli war in Lebanon? Where the IDF killed 20,000 thousand civilians?
And funded as well as logictically aided the slaughter of Palestinians in refugee camps?
There was no civil war.

gosh that's even more than the USSR lost in WW2
I guess 20,000 is enough, huh? Forgive me for mis typing.
I am sad now for making error....
Still no civil war. It was Israeli aggression into a weak state. It still is.
Maybe that's why Israel always attacks east into Lebanon.

There were a little over 1,000 casualties reported by the ever so reliable Lebanese govt. in the 2006 war. Only off by 19,000.

Maybe if you took a community college course we could get you up to spead on your reading comprehension

Obviously the civil war being refered to was the 1980 invasion " civil war" not the most recient invasion.
Are you confused by the many different times israel has stomped into their eastern neighbor?

There's only one terrorist sympathizing asswipe that consistently spells like a retarded kindergartner, and that's shit for brains. PrionPartyy comes a close second, which gives good reason to believe that it and shit for brains is one and the same Arafat fellatrix.

please do
by scroll up and see for yourself Monday, Jun. 22, 2009 at 4:55 PM

*someone* is devolving mentally right before your eyes....
scroll up, check it out and question why is Yada now raging at himself and then *lying* about it?

shit for brains is caught, once again, and now goes into that lame juvenile copycat mode.

hard to believe this episode, folks.

It could get amusing.
What the hell do you mean, Yada?
Anyone can see that you're losing it. Scroll up even though Yada doesn't want you to in this mad dash to bury any non rabid israeli input.

Cleveland Indy Media Center