In wanting Mumsnet to help Judi Dench and Joanna Lumley

[GiantBranch]

Last week, Israel banned 37 international aid organisations from operating in the strip, including Oxfam, Save the Children and Medicine Sans Frontieres (MSF). MSF delivers one in three of Gaza’s babies, and experts warn that immediate action must be taken to prevent a catastrophe.

It has prompted more than 100 leading members of the arts, including Dames Judi Dench, Imelda Staunton, Joanna Lumley, Sienna Miller, Suranne Jones and singer Paloma Faith, to sign a letter urging popular online platform Mumsnet to join them in demanding urgent government action ensuring maternity care is accessible in Gaza.

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/gaza-israel-baby-birth-judi-dench-letter-b2896981.html

I don't agree with your conclusion. I think you are wrong about this situation.

In any case, even if that was true, if you want to get aid through then it's what they have to do.

Like the medics in Afghanistan having to wear burkas they probably don't agree with nor wish to wear. That's what they have to do to stay and provide care. Aid agencies have decide what's more important, getting the aid through and helping Gazan civilians or winning the argument about what constitutes neutrality.

@whatwouldafeministdo
I don’t think that trivialising the concerns of these aid agencies by suggesting that they just want to win an argument is sensible.

What do you think of the parallels drawn by the OP regarding the IRC?

Umm it's their regulations for the NGOs? not the country?

I know it's their regulations for the NGOs.

But they set these requirements because they don't want any Hamas sympathisers or Israel haters in their midst. They don't have to be neutral about who they allow in. They can take a stand and tighten up their security checks and have done so.

Being pro peaceful boycott or pro Israeli security services being prosecute when they act illegally isn't being a Hamas sympathiser or Israeli hater though. That's a particularly unneutral political opinion and tbh smear. But at least you're actually acknowledging that Israel are aware they have the power to deny access of medically necessary aid and without it women and children will suffer and that's apparently worth it as long as no one that's coming to help supports international law or peaceful process.

Please don't put words into my mouth.

Which words exactly? You're the one inserting the accusations of people being Hamas supporters or Israeli haters simply for pointing out that supporting peaceful boycotts or prosecution of members of the security force aren't necessary indicative of someone being a legitimate security risk to the point that it's worth the risk of women's lives.

@Genericfestiveusername Where did I say that no one that's coming to help supports international law or peaceful process.

I didn't. I expect that all the aid agencies that will still be working in Gaza support international law and peaceful process. Like UK-Med which is a humanitarian medical aid charity.

www.uk-med.org/

Because to operate in Gaza they have to sign yo to agree to not support those things. So I'm hardly putting words in your mouth I'm just reminding you of the regulations you're defending as a security necessity..

Not at all. It's completely wrong to dismiss the NGOs that will still be working in Gaza as not supporting international law. They are adopting a neutral position (and fulfilling the new requirements demanded by Israel) in order to be able to work in a very sensitive area delivering humanitarian aid. Which many other NGOs have done before them all over the world.

I think we should all be grateful to them for the aid they are providing not criticise them.

Banning support of boycotts and prosecution of security forces in international courts is not a neutral position though. It's perfectly peaceful and democratic. Why can't we be grateful for the help of anyone that wants to go and help people living through hell whether they hold a political opinion on the situation or not as long as they support peaceful methods in line with international law?

You are saying respected aid agencies all of those listed below are all in your words “Israel haters” ??

• Action Against Hunger
• ActionAid
• Alianza por la Solidaridad
• Campaign for the Children of Palestine
• CARE
• DanChurchAid
• Danish Refugee Council
• Handicap International: Humanity & Inclusion
• Japan International Volunteer Center
• Medecins du Monde France
• Medecins du Monde Switzerland
• Medecins Sans Frontieres Belgium
• Medecins Sans Frontieres France
• Medecins Sans Frontieres Netherlands
• Medecins Sans Frontieres Spain
• Medicos del Mundo
• Mercy Corps
• Norwegian Refugee Council
• Oxfam Novib (Oxfam’s Dutch affiliate)
• Premiere Urgence Internationale
• Terre des hommes Lausanne
• International Rescue Committee
• WeWorld-GVC
• World Vision International
• Relief International
• Fondazione AVSI
• Movement for Peace-MPDL
• American Friends Service Committee
• Medico International
• Palestine Solidarity Association in Sweden
• Defense for Children International
• Medical Aid for Palestinians UK
• Caritas Internationalis
• Caritas Jerusalem
• Near East Council of Churches
• Oxfam Quebec
• War Child Holland

Perhaps these agencies felt compelled to speak up about what they had witnessed in Gaza as foreign journalists were banned and most of the local ones murdered. Perhaps instead of trying to silence all criticism Israel should perhaps refrain from breaking International Law and actually fulfill it’s requirement under International Law to provide sufficient aid to a civilian population particularly given the theme of this thread vulnerable pregnant women

Of course I’m not saying that, I know nothing about most of them. I’m saying Israel isn’t prepared to task the risk any more that organisations could employ individual members of staff that hold these views. Thus they have introduced a new screening process which some NGOs have complied with, others haven’t.

Spurious security concerns and you know that, they have also refused to engage with these organisations to discuss their valid concerns for their staff members and try and find a solution. Israel has been accused already of using the withholding of aid as a weapon of war. It does not make me at all happy but saddens me greatly that they appear to be further reinforcing the evidence for this charge by their current actions. Women and children will once again suffer the consequences

No I don’t know that.

Israel is still being criticised for “allowing” 7/10 to happen (victim blaming).

They have every reason to be hyper cautious & defensive.

I think the aid agencies have very good reason to be hyper cautious. They have a duty of care to their workers.

Imagine the position they have been put into. As the Secretary General of MSF put it, 'We are being asked to hand over sensitive data of our workers to the murderers of our workers'.

Statements like that prove that the relationship has broken down between Israel & MSF so they can no longer operate in Gaza.

By MSF? I don’t think so

To take one at random, Palestine Solidarity Association in Sweden would seem to be, if not Israel-haters, then a strongly partisan campaigning group rather than a humanitarian relief organisation. Their website has an English option if anyone wants to make up their own minds.

I didn’t say by MSF.

But Israel has been criticised for “allowing” 7/10 to happen & there’s a suggestion that they didn’t take security seriously enough. You must surely have seen it too if you have an interest in reading opinions about the war.

Apologies - What was actually said...... '15 of our own staff have been killed and we have been asked to provide information of our staff to the people who have killed our staff.'

sorry but I really don’t see the relevance of that point to this thread, the security failures that some find suspicious around 7/10 do not relate to aid agencies but to reports of suspicious activities by female idf border observers that were ignored, no?

This is a security measure, Israel are being ultra cautious for a good reason and I would have thought anyone could understand why.

Tired of arguing with someone who can't understand or "see the relevance" to the most obvious points so I'm not engaging any more with you.

Bye, the agencies are not being banned because of “security concerns” as numerous posters have pointed out and has been extensively discussed on here