Or from the Chief Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court:
Or from Françoise Hampson:
Perhaps it has been addressed before in the thread, but why is it that it is assumed that just because Israel closes its borders to Gaza, that Gaza is under blockade? What about the Gaza border to Egypt? If that is also closed, surely Israel and Egypt are equally responsible for the blockade. Or Egypt more so since the Gaza-Egypt relation is so much less troubled. Also why assume that any country is required to have open borders or diplomatic relations with any other country? Israel has the same right to chose its own foreign policy as any other country.
I’ve been waiting for more than a hundred posts for someone to suggest simply that both sides back down at the same damn time instead of wishing and hoping one side has the courage/foolishness to do so.
Nothing prevents both Israel from moving out of Gaza and Hamas from stopping their rocket attacks. To say one side has a monopoly on morals is foolish. Each little conflict has different catalysts that must be evaluated on its own merits. Maybe Israel is wrong this time, maybe Hamas was wrong last time.
I would also like to point out how hilariously easy it is to stop peace in that region. A few years ago under Clinton, before the early 2000’s flare up of the more recent intifada, a de facto peace had been the rule, if not the reality, of the region. Talks of permanent peace were the norm but such optimism was destroyed by a handful of attacks into Israel. The laughable thing is, that was all it took for the talks to eventually break down
I say laughable because while no country can reasonably expect peace and security to be maintained by a foe that is actively attacking them, apparently nobody in the talks had any sense to realize that small, outlier crimes like that are not a reflection of the government as a whole. Israel should have continued to talk peace despite the attacks since they were small and obviously set up by those who wants to disrupt the peace process. Whether Fatah, at the time, could have stopped them was moot. They could have had their state and peace first and worked out the details later. Hell, its not as if we in the US never get any Mexican criminals attacking our citizens. Rockets, schmockets, this could have been resolved a long time ago
Oh, and I would also humbly suggest that some in Israel move to a city further away from the border. Thats just common sense
That’s ridiculous. Let the Gazans move away from the border, someplace where their rockets will land on their own children.
If I lived on the Texas side of the Texas/Mexico border, and we were under daily rocket attack. I’d expect the U.S. military to bomb them back to the stone age.
I have a few issues with this.
First, you are assuming Israel is using the ‘minimal amount of force’ necessary to accomplish its military objectives. I don’t think you can come to this conclusion without a deeper knowledge of military objectives and alternatives which I don’t think the public has access to.
Second, you say "sing the smallest viable military force to remove rocket launchers and mortars rather obviously, then, cannot be called “excessive” unless you can find a more effective method with less collateral damage. " This is untrue under the terms of terms of AP1. If the smallest viable military force still causes enough loss of life, injury and property damage such that it outweighs the military advantage from removing the rocket launchers and mortars, then it is excessive. For example, if the only way to kill a militant with a mortar is to bomb a school full of civilian children and teachers, there is probably a good argument that the damage to civilians is disproportionate to the military advantage gained by that attack.
Third, the issue of proportionality still applies regardless of the preventative care taken. I refer to the commentary accompanying AP1 51(5):
You cited Article 51(7) of the AP1. This reiterates that the presence of civilians in itself does not preclude a legal attack, and prohibits Parties from using human shields. This does not means that if your enemy is using human shields the law of proportionality goes out the window. It only means that your enemy is in violation of international law, however this does not give you license to breach international law as well. If the human shields are shielding military targets voluntarily, there is a solid argument that their protection is removed as they have placed themselves in the conflict voluntarily. However, if they are involuntary shields, the protection remains and the military advantage gained must be greater than the damage caused by the attack.
Ultimately I think Françoise Hampson is correct, in that Israel will never be challenged on this point as there is no clear way to balance the harms and thus discretion will be offered to the commanders on the field. But this is a very legal realist view. It does not speak to how the laws in place would apply to the situation if they were to be applied strictly.
A blockade is not the same as a boycott, now is it? A boycott is a non-military action designed to cause economic stress and make a point and is voluntary social pressure. A military blockade of a large civilian population, whether they are unter-menschen or not, will starve people and is illegal under international law. An embargo can be illegal under international law, such as the US embargo of Cuba, which I believe is illegal under international law.
Frankly, I don’t know if you have me mistaken for someone else. I’m not terribly persuaded by any argument you make, or any Alessan makes because it is obvious that you are engaged in propaganda on behalf of Israel, despite any protestations to the contrary. Charles Krauthammer, pundit extraordinaire and Alan Dershowitz, law professor, do the same thing for Israel. While I can sometimes pull bits of information out of their spew, they are not persuadable, they are committed advocates much like press flacks with the added feature that they denigrate people with opposing views. At least you don’t do that. You are polite to people and I appreciate it.
I’m not anti-Semitic, but I do think Israel has worn out its welcome irretrievably in the Middle East. I hope I am wrong, but I doubt it. I hope that Israel can make an accommodation with its neighbors, if any people can do it, it will be the Arabs, as hostile as they may seem, I also think that Arabs and Israelis understand each other and that Arabs can have sympathy. But I also think that Arab politicians have scapegoated internal problems onto the Israelis, a failing common to politicians everywhere. Iran is doing this a lot (and yes, I realize they aren’t “Arabs”) when it doesn’t have the slightest internal consequence. I love that Arabs and Israelis never give in and never forget an injustice (and yes, I know I’m stereotyping) and bargain harder than any other peoples. I understand that they are fundamentally different in their cultural outlook from Christians, but all of them do have big hearts and are truly wonderful people who love knowledge and others. But peace? Not without respect. And both sides are so angry over the injustices that they no longer respect each other.
UN.
Iraq.
Google.
P.S. Calling something “propaganda” without being able to refute it is an admission that you aint got nuthin.
I’m not assuming, it’s a fact.
The IAF has been using the GBU 39 when possible. When it’s not possible, they’ve used artillery, but not engaged in saturation fire.
No, it isn’t. Taking out valid military targets provides a concrete military benefit. Doing so with the most precise, least damaging munitions possible fulfills the requirements of non-excessive force. To claim otherwise is to attempt to criminalize self defense itself, which neither the original Convention nor the Additional Protocols nor the Rome Statute were designed to do.
The Rome Statue, which is more recent and much more clear is a much better guide.
If you have a more effective way in which Israel could take out valid military targets, with a smaller amount of collateral damage, then you’re certainly free to demand that Israel use it. Absent that, using the smallest viable amount of force can not, by reasonable analysis, be said to be “clearly” excessive.
Emphasis and ellipsis mine.
Irony, hypocrisy and double standard, yours.
Pure Propaganda From the Papers of Record
Is there an echo in here?
Once again you are conflating the ideas of prevention and proportionality. The question is not whether the force was excessive, but whether the anticipated civilian damage was excessive (“clearly” excessive under the Rome Statute) in comparison to the military advantage gained. A concrete, military benefit is a necessary but not sufficient cause to justify action which causes incidental death or injury to civilians or damage to civilian property. While it is true that taking all feasible precautions to protect civilian life is required, it is not true that conducting an attack in the most precise manner technologically possible automatically deems that attack to be legally proportionate.
If you are attacking a legitimate military target with the least force possible, but that attack will still cause large incidental damage and the value of the military target is not sufficiently high, you are still in violation. To consider the issue of proportionality is not to criminalize self-defense itself, as if the targets have substantial military value then it is possible that the attack could meet the proportionality test despite incidental damage. The original Convention, the APs and the Rome Statute are not meant to bar self-defense, but they are meant to ensure the highest regard is given to the value of human life before undertaking military action.
This is true both under the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute. Nevertheless, I disagree with your assertion that the Rome Statute is a better guide as it is not meant to supersede or supplant the Geneva Conventions. You need to consider both. I’d also point out that Israel is not a signatory to the Rome Statute, although it clearly reflects customary international law.
It seems to me that the burden of proof on this issue lies with those who claim that Israel is violating international law.
I disagree with this. Consider the consequences of not bombing this hypothetical school. In that case, the militant knows that he is free to launch rockets as much as he likes, as long as he does so from a school building. That’s a signficant military disadvantage for our hypothetical victim nation. It follows that there is plenty of military advantage to bombing the hypothetical school.
In my opinion, if Israel weren’t so controversial, few would dispute that it’s not a violation of international law to deny an adversary the ability to use a human shield tactic as Israel is apparently doing.
My opinion only.
Second, once again I am not asking about the legality (although you are clearly wrong) - I am asking about the ethics - and ethically, yes, they are the same critter. Here, in service of reducing ignorance, is some information about blockades.
Clearly Israel tries to claim that they are mainly engaged in a defensive blockade (blocking the entry of weapons) even though many of us are convinced that they are also engaged in an offensive blockade as well.
Blockades can attempt to exempt foodstuffs and can try to target the effects on the ruling class but usually fail to do so.
An effective boycott of a nation resulting in isolating it economically and disrupting its economy to the point sufficient to motivate change has exactly the same goals and has the same ethical questions as do offensive blockades. It will result in the poorest not be able to afford food or medicine.
I am unhappy with the Israeli offensive blockade. I think it is wrong headed. A truly defensive blockade would OTOH be wise. But I have concerns with boycotts that have, as you call it, no big holes, for the same ethical reasons.
BTW, no one here has called you an anti-Semite so put your shields down. “Propaganda” … well it is presenting factual information in order to influence opinions in a public venue. If you feel that calling factual information that “propaganda” allows you to dismiss it despite its veracity, then you really do not belong in GD buddy. And uh yeah your stereotypes are showing.
Nonsense.
If a target is a valid military target, it can be attacked with lethal force. If it is attacked with the minimal degree of lethal force required, the force used cannot be excessive to the gain that would be granted by the destruction of the target. This is proven by the fact that it is the minimal possible force. To say that the minimal possible force is a war crime is, indeed, to demand less than the minimum… or in simple terms, to criminalize self defense. Once the facts are established, namely that a nation has the right to self defense and can attack a valid military target with the minimal viable amount of force, then the fact that the presence of civilians does not render a point immune from attack must be recognized.
So we have a valid military target, the smallest possible guantum of force (which cannot be called excessive unless you’re calling any response “excessive”), and the fact that the presence of civilians do not render a point immune from attack as long as the collateral damage caused will not be clearly excessive. But as already pointed out, the minimum viable force cannot possibly accurately be described as excessive, let alone clearly excessive. It’s legal.
And the burden or proof is on those who claim otherwise.
They can prove, it, for instance, by showing that the destruction caused was random or wanton, that it was carried out by banned weaponry, or that there was a military method available which would have killed fewer civilians. If someone cannot show any of these three things, they are left claiming that not only the smallest possible, but the smallest conceivable amount of collateral damage was “clearly excessive”.
And when even the smallest conceivable amount of force required to take out a valid military target is excessive, what you have in effect said is that in order for it to be ‘legal’, something smaller than the smallest possible degree must be used because the presence of civilians has rendered a point immune from attack.
Well, the Gaza blockade has been going on for decades in one form or another. During that time, has any normal international body approved it? No. Whenever one of the participants uses the word “clearly” in an argument that some law or principle is in their favor, it’s pretty “clear” to me that it isn’t clear and a real neutral of some sort needs to decide. Gaza is pretty clearly a ghetto were people haven’t been getting enough food and trade for decades. Each situation taken under individual consideration doesn’t mean the party “blockading” taking it under consideration and being the judge of their own cause, it means an international court or international body.
And yes, I do have stereotypes. I’m human. But I try to avoid the ones that dehumanize people. And I’ve had people call me an anti-Semite on numerous occasions for these sorts of views. I suppose anticipating a charge is technically a no-no in a debate and I apologize for doing it. (It’s not a violation of board rules, however.) Jimmy Carter was called an anti-Semite for his book on the subject, and it is a lot more diplomatic in tone than I am. (I’ve read it.)
Please show anywhere, at all, where international law states that all blockades must be approved by an international body?
Interestingly enough you’ve also now gone from “blockades are illegal” to, without skipping a beat, asking which international bodies have authorized this specific blockade. It’d be nice if you admitted that you were simply blowing smoke when you claimed (several times in a row) that they were illegal. Perhaps you might even analyze what process causes you to make such definitive claims about subjects you have not researched.
For instance:
You are simply making this up. Inventing it. Fabricating freely.
I’ve already cited the relevant international law, unless I miss my guess, directly to you.
What is quite clear is that your claim about it requiring an international court of body is, simply, bullshit. The 4th GC makes clear that it is up to the occupying power to decide.
Quit inventing things and then pretending that they have the same force as reality. They don’t.
Jimmy Carter is a pathological liar when it comes to the I/P debate. His book is a pathetic mash of distortions, evasions and outright blatant, obvious, glaring lies. And you’re correct, it should have simply been noted that he was a lying bigot who hates Israel and/or Israelis, with a parenthetical note that he felt entitled to lecture Jews on how they should practice their own religion in order to avoid the Wrath of God.
With this I think you lost it buddy… and you are the only one not realizing it. Now, all your deprecating vitriol directed at me earlier (and others, I suppose) amount to nothing but annoyance.
Good luck with all that.
He’s right, though. Carter’s book on Israel was extremely biased and distorted the facts.
Oh, I fully realize that when I make factual claims, some people are unable to respond in turn and have to accuse me of mental illness, or being a neocon, or a bleeding heart liberal, or a traitor, or a fifth columnist, or a warmonger… while pretending that they’ve made a point. The funny thing is that every time we go through that dance, I respond with facts and a certain group of people respond with sludge.
Facts beat sludge every time.
So, sorry, but no.
The objective facts of the matter are that Jimmy Carter is a blatant liar, and lies time and time again in order to make his bogus claims about the I/P issue. Just one of the glaring examples off the top of my head: Carter claimed that Hamas had launched no attacks at Israel during a certain time period during which *Hamas itself had publicly taken responsibility for attacks. *
Now, if you’re unwilling to engage in a debate on the facts (and yes, Carter being a proven liar is a fact), that’s your issue. If you choose to support Carter, knowing full well that Carter lies habitually and with an agenda in mind when he talks about the I/P issue? Again, that’s your choice. But anybody who uses Carter as a source should be prepared for their own lax standards to be made glaringly obvious.
Yeah… welcome to the Straight Dope.
The motto is “fighting ignorance”, not “The Fighting Ignorants!”
I actually read the book. It was not as “extreme” as I am by a long margin. I was unaware of distorted facts. Could you elaborate? Did you read the book, or are you posting from someone else’s gloss? I will agree that it had a point of view, but “extreme”, hardly. And “bias” is a strong word for someone like Carter who not only knows the facts well, but was an eyewitness (probably the only one still living) to the most successful negotiations that took place.
I am well aware that people do call Carter all sorts of names and attribute motives of evil to him, but that seems to be an “extreme” bias. Were Carter an actual poster at the SDMB these people would be warned and then banned for their repeated offenses. I worked for one of his opponents in 1980, and I consider Carter an honorable man.
Carter routinely lies to paint the Palestinians as blameless and the Israelis as monsters. If that’s less extreme than you, well, just wow.
So you pretty much just read what he said, did no research, and believed it?
And distorted facts are a lesser problem. Carter engages in outright malicious blatant fabrication. You could see an example if you simply looked at my post. Carter’s shilling takes a special kind of malice coupled with an interesting type of dishonesty and a rare type of stupidity to shill for a terrorist organization while that terrorist group’s own public statements put paid to Carter’s apologia, don’t you think?
Lying scumbag shill is a much better word. Bias is much too soft a word for an habitual liar whose lies all go to serve an agenda.
And if you honestly believe he knows the facts, then you have a major question to ask yourself if you want to figure out why he lied about them quite so often. Do some of your own research before you uncritically accept a proven liar at his word.
And we’ve already done this dance. It doesn’t end well for Carter.