Amnesty International calls for an Embargo

Amnesty International has called for all countries to freeze arms sales to Israel and Palestinians, in particular Hamas. THe reasoning behind this, is that both have used weapons which they sourced from friends across borders and seas in the recent Israeli driven slaughter in Gaza. It further states, reasonably so, that these weapons were used indiscriminately against the civilian population of Israel and Gaza.

Now I'm a little unsure about how I feel on the weapon front. I believe that yes the world should stop selling weapons to Israel. But should weapon trade with Hamas be stopped, leaving Hamas completely unarmed, whilst Israel remains heavily armed? I'm unsure on my stance on that one. Of course I would prefer that neither were armed heavily, or even armed at all.

It has went as far as to call for an Embargo, by the UN Security Council. Now Embargo by definition is, "is the prohibition of commerce (division of trade) and trade with a certain country, in order to isolate it and to put its government into a difficult internal situation, given that the effects of the embargo are often able to make its economy suffer from the initiative" (Wikipedia). So this is in effect, by my niave understanding, a boycott.

Now why should the people of Palestine have a boycott against them? They have little enough trade as it is, when their natural resources, like the that of the Dead Sea, are illegally sold to make money for Israel, and their Olive groves are uprooted to build Israels illegal aparthied wall. I fully back a boycott of Israel while it continues to ignore international law, and the rights of the Palestinian people.

Anyway the report from Amnesty International has accused Israel breaking humanitarian law, highlighting the substancial amount of evidence to prove the illegal use of White Phosphorus Gas, also stating that this was supplied by the USA. Hamas have been condemned for firing unguided missiles into civilian area's of Israel.

Mark Regev is not one of my favourite people, and has claimed that the Amnesty International report is hugely flawed because they also spoke with Hamas. Obviously the only way to write a fully accurate report, would be to ask the people guilty of War Crimes wether or not they committed war crimes, against a people that they fully hate. Am I Right? No I'd be mentally unstable to believe that. The fact is that Israel has admitted to War crimes, without the world even acknowledging it.

The International Committee of the Red Cross - guardian of the Geneva Conventions on which international humanitarian law is based - defines a combatant as a person " in hostilities". Benjamin Rutland told the BBC that their "definition is that anyone who is involved with terrorism within Hamas is a valid target. This ranges from the institutions and includes the directly engagedstrictly military political institutions". To attack the Political institutions is against Humanitarian War crimes, which insists that civilian death are to be a minimum. A civilian, in accordence to these laws is someone that is not a combatant. The definition of which I have already given.

In the words of Philippe Sands, a professer of international law in London, "Once you extend the definition of combatant in the way that IDF is apparently doing... it becomes an open-ended definition, which undermines the very object and purpose of the rules that are intended to be applied".

In other news, the terrorist Primeminister, Ehud Olmert has suspended the Hamas ceasefire negotiator. Amos Gilad has recently been negotiating the release of the Israeli Militant soldier Gilad Shalit.

God Bless
Peace