Church urged to reconsider investments with Israel

[emad]

May 28, 2005


By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent



THE Anglican Church is to consider a report calling for it to dispose of its holdings in companies doing business with Israelis who “support the occupation of Palestinian lands”.

The report calling for disinvestment is to be debated by the worldwide Anglican Church in Nottingham on June 22. It mirrors a programme already begun by the Presbyterian Church in the US.

It would be unprecedented for the Anglican Consultative Council to reject the report.Once it has been accepted, the Church’s 38 provinces worldwide will be asked to implement it.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has been consulted about the plan.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,175-1630798,00.html

[NJmaverick]

1. Good for them

It is about time churches acting morally responsible with their investments.

[emad]

2. So no backing for Zion Oil then????

?

[AlamoDemoc]

3. Its high time church leaders took head out

of sand and faced up to reality...Occupation is immoral, period!

[Coastie for Truth]

4. How about disposing of its holdings

in any company that discriminates in its hiring, pay, promotion, or lay off policies based on race, religion, creed, national origin, gender, gender orientation, age, or non-job related physical condition?

How about disposing of its holdings in any company that does not use the "best available technology" (none of this Bushie crappola about "best feasible technology") for worker safety?

How about disposing of its holdings in any company that does not use the "best available technology" (none of this Bushie crappola about "best feasible technology") for environmental protection?

How about disposing of its holdings in any company that does not follow ethical fiduciary accounting principles in protecting its workers pension funds?

How about disposing of its holdings in any company that "off shores" work from the "First World" to "Third World" countries -- and pays workers - especially child laborers- not even subsistence wages, and works them long hours in unsafe and unhealthy conditions.

How about disposing of its holdings in any company that uses strike brakes or quasi-legal or semi-legal practices to break unions or to keep out unions.

How about Wal-Mart?

How about holding their stock and electing directors - like Calpers and the New York State Auditor General (as trustee of Public Employee Pension Plans) and TIAA-CREF do. (Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and such luminaries as former Congressperson Newton Leroy Gingrich, PhD, want to ban this).

How about holding their stock and staging proxy battles on these issues - like Calpers and the New York State Auditor General (as trustee of Public Employee Pension Plans) and TIAA-CREF do. (Again, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and such luminaries as former Congressperson Newton Leroy Gingrich, PhD, also want to ban this).

[Jim Sagle]

6. On any real-world scale of crimes against humanity, Israeli "oppression"

of the Palestinians ain't nuthin' but an overdue library book.

[Coastie for Truth]

7. Or the hissy fight of the Red Crescent societies over Israel's MDA

see the link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=92166&mesg_id=92549

Pure unadulterated, hate filled, egregious bull crap on the part of some of the Red Crescent Societies - and some (but definitely not all) of their Red Cross backers.

When I'm looking for the dude who is going to take over the shelter - I don't care if he's wearing a Cross or a Crescent or a Star of David. He (or she) is ICRC - and is there to carry out the mission. It's strictly the politicians who are playing to the street.

[number6]

20. outrageously silly comparison

"an overdue library book"

[Behind the Aegis]

5. I wonder

Does this mean they will also divest in US business that support the occupation of Iraq? Will they also dispose of holdings in companies who actively discriminate against minorities protected by British Law?

[Coastie for Truth]

8. Heavens no

Will they also dispose of holdings in companies who actively discriminate against minorities protected by British Law?

That would mean Shell Oil and BP and ExxonMobil and TexacoChevron and Oxy and Halliburton?

Does this mean they will also divest in US business that support the occupation of Iraq?

That would mean Halliburton and KBR.

What do you think. Pure unadulterated "feel good hypocrisy" - they won't even stay a fight a proxy fight or elect a director.

[Coastie for Truth]

12. If they don't follow the Social Investment Forum's

"Socially Responsible Investing" Guidelines, I have to question their good faith.

[Coastie for Truth]

13. As an example, the SRI Guidelines of the UU Community

1. COMMUNITY IMPACT

AVOID COMPANIES THAT:


* FAIL TO INVEST ADEQUATELY IN LOCAL COMMUNITIES AS EVIDENCED BY BANKS WITH A “NEEDS TO IMPROVE” OR “SIGNIFICANT NONCOMPLIANCE” COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT (CRA) RATING IN A MAJOR BANKING SUBSIDIARY, OR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH EQUAL CREDIT OPPORTUNITY REGULATIONS

* ENGAGE IN PREDATORY LENDING PRACTICES OR REDLINING OF COMMUNITIES IN NEED OF SERVICES

* HAVE DEMONSTRATED A LACK OF REGARD BY FAILING TO COMMUNICATE ABOUT IMPORTANT CORPORATE ISSUES WHICH DIRECTLY INVOLVE THE LOCAL COMMUNITY SUCH AS LAND USE, FACILITY CLOSINGS (WARN ACT) AND POLLUTION CONCERNS


FAVOR COMPANIES WITH:


* “OUTSTANDING” CRA RATINGS

* FORMAL COMMUNICATIONS STRUCTURES WITH COMMUNITY GROUPS AND A HIGH LEVEL OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY

* POLICIES AND PROGRAMS THAT FAVOR HISTORICALLY OPPRESSED AND MARGINALIZED PEOPLE

* INNOVATIVE COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT SUCH AS PAID TIME OFF OR SABBATICALS FOR VOLUNTEERS, EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION, COMPANY SPONSORED VOLUNTEER PROGRAMS, AND GENEROUS CORPORATE PHILANTHROPY

2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

AVOID COMPANIES THAT:


* SHOW A PATTERN OF SERIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL VIOLATIONS

* HAVE BEEN NEGLIGENT IN HANDLING SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS

* ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTERS

* ARE SIGNIFICANTLY ENGAGED IN PRACTICES WITH NEGATIVE GLOBAL IMPACTS SUCH AS RAINFOREST DESTRUCTION AND OZONE DEPLETION

* ARE UNCOOPERATIVE IN DISCLOSING ENVIROMENTAL INFORMATION

* ARE IN “DIRTY” INDUSTRIES WITH BELOW AVERAGE RECORDS OF PERFORMANCE


FAVOR COMPANIES WITH:


* PRODUCTS OR SERVICES THAT REDUCE WASTE GENERATION OR CONSERVE NATURAL RESOURCES

* SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS IN REDUCING VOLUME AND TOXICITY OF WASTE, EMISSIONS AND EFFLUENTS

* INNOVATIVE PROGRAMS TO REDUCE USE OF ENERGY, WATER, MATERIALS AND LAND

* CONSISTENTLY GOOD COMPLIANCE RECORDS

* STRONG ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS INCLUDING CLEAR ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES AND REGULAR AUDITS (CERES)

* A COMMITMENT TO STANDARDIZED ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTING (CERES)

* A COMMITMENT TO INCREASE INVOLVEMENT IN RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES

3. CUSTOMER IMPACT

AVOID COMPANIES THAT:


* ARE MAJOR WEAPONS MANUFACTURERS (TOP 50) OR WITH WEAPONS SALES 5% OR MORE OF TOTAL SALES

* PRODUCE NUCLEAR WEAPONS

* ENGAGE IN THE MANUFACTURE OF TOBACCO BASED PRODUCTS
* PRODUCE OR SELL HANDGUNS

* MANUFACTURE OR SELL PRODUCTS KNOWN TO HAVE ADVERSE PUBLIC HEALTH CONSEQUENCES WHETHER OR NOT IN CONTRAVENTATION OF LOCAL STANDARDS HAVE MISLEADING OR IRRESPONSIBLE MARKETING OF PRODUCTS AND SERVICES SUCH AS STEREOTYPICAL DEPICTIONS OF WOMEN AND MINORITIES IN ADVERTISING


FAVOR COMPANIES WITH:


* SAFE, USEFUL, HIGH-QUALITY PRODUCTS OR SERVICES THAT ENHANCE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR CONSUMERS

* RESPONSIBLE PRICING AND MARKETING PRACTICES

* GOOD REPSONSE SYSTEMS TO ADDRESS PRODUCT SAFETY CONCERNS

4. EMPLOYEE IMPACT

AVOID COMPANIES THAT:


* ARE EGREGIOUS OFFENDERS OF HAVE PATTERNS OF EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY (EEO) VIOLATIONS

* HAVE A PATTERN OF SERIOUS NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (NLRB) CASES OR OTHER ANTI-UNION ACTIONS ARE ON THE AFL-CIO BOYCOTT LIST

* ARE EGREGIOUS OFFENDERS OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINSTRATION (OSHA) REGULATIONS

* ARE INVOLVED DIRECTLY IN VIOLATIONS OF THE MOST BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS TO SURVIVAL AND INTEGRITY

* ARE KNOWN TO USE FORCED LABOR, CHILD LABOR, SWEATSHOPS OR VIOLATE OTHER INTERNATIONAL LABOR ORGANIZATIONS STANDARDS


FAVOR COMPANIES WITH:


* ABOVE AVERAGE REPRESENTATION OF WOMEN AND ETHNIC MINORITIES ON BOARDS OF DIRECTORS AND IN SENIOR MANAGEMENT AND PIPELINE POSITIONS

* STRONG RECRUITING, AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, DIVERSITY AWARENESS AND ANTIRACISM IDENTITY AND PRACTICES

* INCLUSIVE NONDISCRIMINATION POLICIES THAT INCLUDE SEXUAL ORIENTATION

* POSITIVE UNION RELATIONS OR EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION RELATIVE TO THEIR INDUSTRY

* ABOVE AVERAGE COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS, INCLUDING DOMESTIC PARTNER BENEFITS

* A DEMONSTRATED COMMITMENT TO WORK-LIFE BALANCE THROUGH OPTIONS SUCH AS FLEX-TIME, PART-TIME BENEFITS, JOB SHARING, TELECOMMUNITING AND DEPENDENT CARE

* STRONG EMERGENCY TRAINING AND ON-GOING SAFETY PROGRAMS

* EXPLICIT HUMAN RIGHTS PRINCIPLES OR LABOR STANDARDS TO GUIDE GLOBAL OPERATIONS IN OWNED AND CONTRACTED FACILITIES, INCLUDING INDEPENDENT MONITORING AND REPORTING

* TRANSPARENCY ON ISSUES RELATED TO CHALLENGES IN THE WORKPLACE

So, according to the story "THE Anglican Church is to consider a report calling for it to dispose of its holdings in companies doing business with Israelis who "support the occupation of Palestinian lands".

I will treat this is an example of poor reporting and give the Anglican Church the benefit of the doubt. But from 6th grade grammar class, sentence diagramming, the Anglican "boycott" would (as written by Ruth Gledhill) require a company avoid doing business with an Israeli if that Israeli "supports the occupation of Palestinian lands". Doesn't say financially support by business actvities or personally militarily support by force of arms -- this divestment is a clear violation of the law of the United Stats of America. http://www.shearman.com/publications/arab_boycott.html#usantiboycott

What is the Anglican Church walking into?

The Arab League declared a boycott against the Jews before Israel was established, and most of its members have pursued a diplomatic and economic embargo against the Jewish State since its establishment. The boycott's influence waned after Egypt and Jordan made peace with Israel, the Palestinians became engaged in peace negotiations, and several Gulf states started ignoring the blacklist, but it was never abandoned, and several nations, most notably Saudi Arabia, have energetically enforced it for decades.

To give an indication of how entrenched the boycott is within the Arab world, the Bureau for Boycotting Israel held its 72nd conference in April 2004. Representatives from 19 Arab countries met in Syria to discuss tightening the boycott, and blacklisting new companies that do business with the Jewish state.69

To their credit, Mauritania, Egypt and Jordan, which have diplomatic ties with Israel, stayed away from the meeting. The Palestinians, however, did participate, and the head of their delegation, Ali Abo al-Hawa, asked the conference to respond to the Arab public's call for boycotting Israel, particularly in commercial relations. This was a violation of the PLO promise to oppose the boycott made in the September 28, 1995, Joint Declaration of the Washington Summit. It also contradicts the commitment made by Ahmed Korei (now the Palestinian Authority's Prime Minister) in an October 17, 1996, letter to then U.S. Trade. Representative Mickey Kantor: "The PLO and the Palestinian Authority and its successors will support all efforts to end the boycott of Israel and will not enforce any elements of the boycott within the West Bank and Gaza Strip."

Delegates to the conference also wanted to take measures to prevent Israeli companies from trying to penetrate the Iraqi market, but removed the issue from the agenda after the Iraqi delegate, Sabah al-Imam, assured the group, "there is no Israeli activity in Iraq" approved by Iraqi authorities.

The continued effort by most of the Arab world to isolate Israel economically and diplomatically demonstrates that most Arab states are still unwilling to recognize Israel. Until the boycott is terminated, and the Arab League members accept the existence of Israel, the prospects for regional peace will remain dim.

By Dr. Mitchell Bard, United Jewish Communities, The Federations of North America

As a community of faith, how "fair and balanced" is this Anglican call? Let's look at a "Peace Church"

Unitarian Universalist Association, 2002 Action of Immediate Witness

Therefore, be it resolved that the 2002 General Assembly of the Unitarian Universalist Association urges the following principles as a basis for action by the governments of the United States and Canada:

* Freedom from occupation and equal rights for all, including the right to exist in peace and security.
* Opposition to Israeli settlements, land confiscation, house demolitions, and other violations of international law.
* Opposition to all attacks on civilians, whether by suicide bombers, F-16 or helicopter gunships, or any other means.
* Support for a central United Nations role in efforts to achieve a comprehensive, just, and lasting peace.

Be it further resolved that the 2002 General Assembly calls on

* the Israeli government to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention and international law;
* Palestinians to immediately stop suicide bombings and all attacks on Israeli civilians;
* the United States government to

1. "suspend all transfers of those types of weapons and munitions used to commit human rights violations until Israel is clearly in compliance with the terms for arms transfers as expressed in United States law and bilateral agreements," as Amnesty International has called for, and
2. work within the United Nations for a just peace that includes two viable secure states, Israel and Palestine, based on the 1967 borders, with mutual relations based on sovereignty and equality; and

* our congregations to:

1. become educated on Middle East issues and engage in honest conversation;
2. redouble their efforts for peace based on the goal of justice and human rights for all;
3. support actions of the anti-occupation Israeli peace activists, including Rabbis for Human Rights and the Israeli reserve officers who refuse to serve in the Occupied Territories;
4. encourage Jewish Americans and others who support Israel but oppose its occupation of Palestine; and
5. condemn and oppose expressions and acts of anti-Semitism and acts of terror against Jews, Palestinians, or Arabs and their legitimate institutions wherever they may occur.

Think about it DUers--

support actions of the anti-occupation Israeli peace activists, including Rabbis for Human Rights and the Israeli reserve officers who refuse to serve in the Occupied Territories (instead of well intentioned but misguided boycotts against these very elements in the Israeli body politic);

encourage Jewish Americans and others who support Israel but oppose its occupation of Palestine (instead of constantly demeaning them for not being forthcoming enough) and

condemn and oppose expressions and acts of anti-Semitism and acts of terror against Jews, Palestinians, or Arabs and their legitimate institutions wherever they may occur.

"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." John 8:2-11

"The main principles of equity are he who seeks equity must do equity, he who comes to equity must come with clean hands and delay defeats equities."

"People Who Live In Glass Houses Should Not Throw Stones"

[Larkspur]

9. Good to see another mainstream church seeing Israel's Occupation policies

as another brand of apartheid.

[Singular73]

11. LOL

yeah, I really believe the church cares about the occupation, and that its their motivating factor for this move...

please.

[mom cat]

10. Watch Out! What Jesus said about oppressing the poor might be

leaking out!

[tobeornottobe]

14. Holy Hypocrits

Batman

[number6]

15. AMNESTY: Israel Perpetrated War Crimes Against Palestinians

AMNESTY: Israel Perpetrated War Crimes Against Palestinians

GAZA, Palestine, May25, 2005 (IPC)-- Amnesty International said on Wednesday that the Israeli occupation troops perpetrated war crimes against the Palestinian people, as more than 700 Palestinian residents including 150 children were killed last year, 2004.

In its annual report for the year 2004, issued today, the Amnesty asserted that most of those killed have been shot dead for no reason, during indiscriminate firing by Israeli troops from land and air and due to excessive use of force by these troops.

http://www.ipc.gov.ps/ipc_new/english/details.asp?name=4907

over do library book my ass !!

[tobeornottobe]

16. Does your ass have an overdue library book

that says that Palestinians perpetrated war crimes agains Israelis as well?

[number6]

18. I don't think so

"Palestinians perpetrated war crimes against Israelis as well?"

Palestinians have no army, tanks, helicopters, jets ....
oh n bulldozers either ...

[drdon326]

21. You're serious , aren't you ?........I hope that was a joke.

Palestinians have no army, tanks, helicopters, jets ....
oh n bulldozers either ...

which proves......uhhh.....NOTHING ABOUT WAR CRIMES !!



...................................................................
Suicide Bombing Attacks Against Israeli Civilians

............................................................

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/isrl-pa/


Crimes Against Humanity

The scale and systematic nature of the attacks on civilians detailed in this report meets the definition of a crime against humanity. Hamas and Islamic Jihad have claimed responsibility for suicide bombing attacks on civilians since 1994, and such attacks clearly represent organizational policy at the highest levels. Since January 2002, the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades and the PFLP have also claimed responsibility for organizing and carrying out such attacks.

The notion of "crimes against humanity" refers to acts that, by their scale or nature, outrage the conscience of humankind. Crimes against humanity were first codified in the charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal of 1945. Since then, the concept has been incorporated into a number of international treaties, including the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Although definitions of crimes against humanity differ slightly from treaty to treaty, all definitions provide that the deliberate, widespread, or systematic killing of civilians by an organization or government is a crime against humanity.112 Unlike war crimes, crimes against humanity may be committed in times of peace or in periods of unrest that do not rise to the level of an armed conflict.

The most recent definition of crimes against humanity is contained in the Rome Statute of the ICC, which entered into force on July 1, 2002. The statute defines crimes against humanity as the "participation in and knowledge of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population," and "the multiple commission of acts...against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack." The statute's introduction defines "policy to commit such attack" to mean that the state or organization actively promoted or encouraged such attacks against a civilian population. The elements of the "crime against humanity of murder" require that (1) "the perpetrator killed one or more persons," (2) "he conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population," and (3) "he perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of, or intended the conduct to be part of, a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population."113

Those who commit crimes against humanity, like war crimes, are held individually criminally responsible for their actions. Crimes against humanity give rise to universal jurisdiction, they do not admit the defense of following superior orders, and they do not benefit from statutes of limitation. International jurisprudence and standard setting of the last ten years have consolidated the view that those responsible for crimes against humanity and other serious violations of human rights should not be granted amnesty.114 As in the case of war crimes, all states are responsible for bringing those who commit crimes against humanity to justice.

The pattern of suicide bombing attacks against Israel civilians that emerged in 2001 and intensified during 2002 clearly meets the criteria of a crime against humanity.

War Crimes: The Prohibition Against Targeting Civilians

A fundamental rule of international humanitarian law is that civilians must enjoy general protection against danger arising from military operations. The rule of civilian immunity is one of "the oldest fundamental maxims" of international customary law, meaning that it is binding on all parties to a conflict, regardless of whether a conflict is international or non-international in character.115 Non-state parties to a conflict are also obliged to respect the norms of customary international law. At all times, it is forbidden to direct attacks against civilians; indeed, to attack civilians intentionally while aware of their civilian status is a war crime. It is thus an imperative duty for an attacker to identify and distinguish non-combatants from combatants in every situation.

In addition to its status as established customary law, the principle of civilian immunity has been codified in numerous treaties. One of the clearest expressions of the principle is set out in article 51(2) of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, which states:

The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence, the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population, are prohibited.116

By deliberately targeting civilians, suicide bombing attacks clearly violate this most fundamental rule of the laws of war. The prohibition against targeting civilians holds in all circumstances, including when a party undertakes such attacks in retaliation for attacks on its own civilians (discussed below).117

The principle of distinction between civilian and military targets is enshrined in article 48 of Protocol I:

In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants, and between civilian objects and military objectives, and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.118

Military objectives are defined as "those objects, which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action."119 Under international humanitarian law, attacks that are not, or as a result of the method of attack cannot, be aimed at military targets, are considered "indiscriminate." They are prohibited under Protocol I and, under the same treaty, constitute war crimes.120 The protocol's provisions prohibiting indiscriminate warfare are considered to be norms of customary international law, binding on all parties in a conflict, regardless of whether it is an international or internal armed conflict.121 That is, they are binding on all parties to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, even though Israel has not ratified Protocol I.

Murder and Willful Killings

In all situations of armed conflict, the deliberate killing of civilians is a war crime. Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions prohibits "violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment, and torture" when perpetrated against persons "taking no active part in the hostilities." As noted, Israel has ratified the 1949 Geneva Conventions. The obligation contained in Common Article 3 is absolute. It applies regardless of whether a party to the conflict is a state.122 Serious violations of Common Article 3 are increasingly considered to be war crimes, and have been defined as such in the statutes of the International Criminal Court, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.123

Willful killing, that is, intentionally causing the death of civilians, and "willfully causing great suffering or serious injury" when wounding victims, are war crimes.124 Persons who commit, order, or condone war crimes are individually liable under international humanitarian law for their crimes.

----------------------------end -------------------------------

[number6]

22. yes, seriously - war crimes vs terrorist attacks

war crimes commited by nation state armies vs.

terrorist attacks carried out by political or religous
groups on civilian or military targets ....

>Palestinians have no army, tanks, helicopters, jets ....
oh n bulldozers either ...

which proves......uhhh.....NOTHING ABOUT WAR CRIMES !!<

NO which proves Palestinians have no army, tanks, helicopters, jets .... oh n bulldozers either ...

to carry out war crimes ....

Hamas and Hezbolla, however have crude devices to carry
out terrorist attacks ...

see the difference ;)

[drdon326]

24. Wow.....you should work for * 's State dept .

So let me help you....

There are multiple palestinian terrorists groups with co-ordination in part with the PA and in part with palestinian civiliians to commit

a.war crimes
b.crimes against humanity
c.wanton atrocities

BUT please ignore this.

[number6]

38. one more time ...

nation states commit war crimes

terrorist groups commit crimes ...its simple

Paletinians have no nation state ...and no ARMY

looking forward to my State Department Job.

when I turn in Bush and Blair for crimes to the world court

I'll probably be fired though ...;)

[tobeornottobe]

23. Thank you drdon

and thank you HRW.

[Englander]

25. Yes,many thanks to HRW;

"Israel: Bush Should Lay Down the Law on Settlements
Sharon Must Be Told That U.S. Cannot Support Violations of International Humanitarian Law

(Washington, April 11, 2005)-- George Bush should tell Ariel Sharon that the United States is unequivocally opposed to all Israeli settlement activity in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, Human Rights Watch said as the U.S. president and Israeli prime minister met.

In a letter to Bush, Human Rights Watch also called for the creation of a U.S.-led monitoring committee. This committee of representatives from the international community, chaired by the United States, would carry out on-the-ground documentation and aerial surveillance of settlement activity and report its findings publicly. Despite the past policy of both Republican and Democratic governments, the Bush administration did not penalize Israel in 2004 by deducting from annual loan guarantees the amount spent on settlement construction.

“Bush needs to make it clear that the U.S. cannot accept illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank in exchange for the evacuation of Gaza settlers,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch.

As long as Israeli settlers—which now number more than 400,000—remain in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, the Israeli government’s forthcoming withdrawal of approximately 8,000 settlers from the Gaza Strip and four small West Bank settlements would not fulfill its obligations under international humanitarian law, Human Rights Watch said.

Israel's policy of encouraging, financing, establishing, and expanding Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories violates two main principles of international humanitarian law, or the laws of war. Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, to which Israel is a party, states are prohibited from transferring civilians from the occupying power's territory into the occupied territory, and from creating permanent changes in the occupied territory that are not for the benefit of the occupied population.

“Israel is not only violating international law in expanding its settlements, but also its commitments under the ‘road map’ to freeze them,” said Whitson. “Israel must evacuate its settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem in order to uphold its responsibilities as an occupying power.”

In the April 2003 road map, Israel agreed to freeze all settlement activity, including “natural growth,” and to dismantle all settlement outposts created since March 2001. Israel has failed to meet either of these provisions, and instead has substantially expanded settlements during this period.

An aerial survey that Peace Now conducted between March and June 2004 showed settlement expansion underway in 73 locations in the West Bank. On November 3, Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics reported the sale of 306 new units in West Bank settlements from January to August 2004, a 33 percent increase from the same period in 2003. An Israeli official told the Tel Aviv-based newspaper Yediot Aharonot on February 21, “In the past two years, construction plans that hadn’t been approved for years were approved by the defense minister.”

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/04/11/isrlpa10462.htm

[tobeornottobe]

26. And your logic here

is that this wrong makes committing war crimes right?

[Englander]

31. Are you suggesting...

that anyone in this forum is saying that war crimes are
legitimate,or acceptable?

Is that what you are suggesting?

[tobeornottobe]

35. No.

I was questioning your logic.

[Coastie for Truth]

27. What is Human Rights Watch's stand

on the recognition of Israel's MDA as an affiliate of the International Commission of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.

I am not asking to be a trouble maker - just for information.

[Violet_Crumble]

28. Try googling....

but it should be pretty obvious to most that an issue like that wouldn't be something HRW would deal with, and why should they?

Violet...

[Englander]

29. What does that mean in English?

Is there a point carefully hidden in yer post,
'cos I can't see one?

:shrug:

[Coastie for Truth]

32. Many of The Red Crescent Affiliates of the ICRC

routinely vote to deny MDA's membership application in the ICRC - apparently arbitrarily and capriciously.

ICRC is the International Commission of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.

That is the point - plain and simple.

BTW - Speaking for the record, at the American Red Cross National Convention in San Francisco last week, the Belgian and Australian representatives to the ICRC recognized this as a Human Rights issue.

[Violet_Crumble]

33. What does that have to do with HRW?

What next? Asking what Jamie Oliver's said about it??

Violet...

[Englander]

34. Have one of these,mate;

you've earned it;

http://www.cleysmokehouse.com/red_herring.asp

[Coastie for Truth]

36. Thank you. N/T

[Coastie for Truth]

17. Thoughts on numbers of corpses and on body counts

700 versus 150.

Does Amnesty International actually go in and do a graves registry? Or do they take the word of "local authorities?"

Like the old LBJ-McNamara-Westmoreland "body counts" out of VietNam.

And, why a "tertiary source" like when you have a link to the "primary source", i.e., right here in a "secondary source" on . Not attacking, just questioning.

BTW - I do not take casualty reports and "body counts" as revealed truth after the LBJ-McNamara-Westmoreland "body counts" out of VietNam, the inflated body counts out of Jenin, and our own difficulties in tabulating dead, injured, and missing in last fall's Florida hurricanes.

[number6]

19. I believe them, except that, most probably were Vietnamese

civilians, rather than VC or insurgents ....
like in Iraq, when they say 100 insurgents killed
its like maybe 10 of em were and the rest were civilians ..IMHO

"and "body counts" as revealed truth after the LBJ-McNamara-Westmoreland "body counts" out of VietNam..."

"the inflated body counts out of Jenin"

remember the Boston Massacre, by the British, 5, 10 people whatever
they called it a Massacre

whether its 5 people or 50 in Jenin, its still innocents killed

[Coastie for Truth]

30. Whether its 150 or 700

it's still deaths.

most probably were Vietnamese
civilians, rather than VC or insurgents ....
like in Iraq, when they say 100 insurgents killed
its like maybe 10 of em were and the rest were civilians ..

So "most probably were Vietnamese civilians, rather than VC or insurgents" somehow makes it right? I don't follow your logic.

[number6]

37. you missed the point

I believe them(the body counts), except that, most probably were Vietnamese civilians, > which makes it worse < not ok.