I know you aren’t surprised that I am criticizing Hamas (I do that on a regular basis). Are you surprised that I think terrorists make horrible neighbors?
If it will make you feel better I will try to criticize hamas at least once on every Israel thread, please stand by…
HAMAS SUCKS, THEY ARE THE CAUSE OF MUCH OF THE SUFFERING AMONG PALESTINIANS BECAUSE THEY ARE SO NUCKING FUTZ!
Happy?
I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone this high up in the state department be so equivocating about Israel, It couldn’t be very reassuring. WAIT… did he say “humanitarian crisis”? Didn’t Netenyahu (and more importantly Finn Again) just say that there is no humanitarian crisis in gaza? Did he just say that construction material should be allowed in Gaza to let people rebuild from the bombing campaign? What about the chocolate? Would he sound too silly if he started talking about chocolate and coriander? The best he seems to be able to do is say that we are withholding judgment until we find out the details of how IDF commandoes killed 9 and injured dozens of humanitarian aid workers.
I am glad to hear that we don’t think Turkey is going to escort the next few ships with Turkish naval vessels. That would have been ugly.
Is this Fox news guy is the same guy that pounded the table and said “we don’t fuck1ng torture!!!”
I’m not sure how many things I can respond to given recent moderator injunctions… but I’ll do my best.
Yes. I pointed out the reasons for that. Sam Remo allows blockades in order to implement UN Charter Article 51. Article 51, in turn, is the right to self defense. So nations have a right to employ blockades for the purpose of self defense.
Which part of this do you claim is invalid or unsound?
As for other nations having a “right” to stop Israel from engaging in self defense as established by Article 51 and and implemented via Sam Remo, that depends on what exactly you mean. Are individuals committing an illegal act by violating a blockade? No, although I’d argue that trying to stop Israel from defending itself and interdicting Hamas’ weapon supply is immoral even where it isn’t illegal. However, if another nation decided to add warships to the mix and open fire on Israeli ships engaged in enforcing a legal blockade, that would be an act of war and most like would fall under the rubric for wars of aggression.
You are wrong on both counts, by their own admission. The blockade runners admitted that their ultimate goal was to end the blockade. As already identified a maritime blockade that is not effective is illegal. Thus, by making the blockade ineffective they aim at making it illegal. This makes it prohibited. Likewise, as the blockade is in existence to allow Israel the ability to engage in self-defense against Hamas by prohibiting Hamas the full and free importation of weapons, prohibiting that does indeed mean that they are attempting to prohibit Israel the right to self defense.
The maritime blockade has to be effective. It applies to a blockade of the sea lanes, not land routes. Expecting ships to be able to stop, say, cars from driving into a country is an impossibility and does not violate the rules for a valid maritime blockade.
Otherwise virtually all blockades would be illegal because unless you already have the country surrounded, they can just ship stuff over their own borders.
It is not a ‘prediction’. Hamas has stated in their own words that their goal is the destruction of Israel and despite any Ghandiesque possibilities, they have not said they will renounce violence. If Hamas itself promises that it will resume violence at some point, it is hardly beyond the pale to point out what they themselves have said.
There are no NATO obligations involved. Although we may have one hell of a war on our hands if Turkey opens fire on Israeli ships while Turkey aims at ending the blockade and preventing Israel from stopping the importation of rockets to Hamas.
Yes, that’s what I’m saying. The first one is the Red Cross defining the war itself as a humanitarian crisis. The second is a similar comment from the UN. The third is a repeat of the first. The fourth is primarily a repeat of the first. Of course a war is a humanitarian crisis, but there’s quite a bit of daylight between war and hardship.
Unless there is a critical threat to the lives or health of a population, calling it a humanitarian crisis just doesn’t make sense. If a humanitarian “crisis” can go on for decades with almost all of the people effected by it dying of old age, it may be many things but a crisis it is not. A true crisis can’t be left alone long enough for infants to grow up and die of old age.
Are there valid concerns and does the blockade lead to undue hardship due to being enforced too strictly? Yes, as I’ve said several times. But a crisis is a defining moment, a turning point, where something stands at a knife’s edge between disaster and success. A “crisis” through which people can be born, age, and die of old age is not a crisis.
In Gaza, for instance, the high birth rate, high population growth rate and lack of any credible forcast of significant casualties points to hardship, even extreme hardship, but not a crisis
North Korea is useful as an example precisely because there are actual humanitarian crises that have gone on (e.g. Without international aid hundreds of thousands die). Darfur is an example of a humanitarian crisis because without intervention, people will die. Iraq was an example of a humanitarian crisis during the worst parts of the post-war period as, without protection, thousands upon thousands were butchered as
areas were ethnically cleansed. These help draw clear bright lines between crisis situations and Gaza.
If we’re talking about a situation where a child can be born in Gaza, endure numerous types of hardship, but still go on to have children, grow old and eventually die of old age, then there are a number of issues that may be going on but it’s not a crisis.
Damuri Ajashi, read tomndebb latest post. We’re not allowing any more comments like this in this thread, and the next time you fail to notice moderator instructions it will be treated as if you’re ignoring them intentionally.
I think the most natural read is that frankly the document is not very careful about defining belligerents. Concluding that it does cover non-state actors and specifically the type of non-state actor represented by Hamas is a stretch. In fact frankly I think it’s a waste of time parsing the details of the manual. I had thought it was part of some treaty or international agreement. In fact it’s just a manual put out by some NGO. It certainly doesn’t have the status of international law.
No, in that case the blockading power would simply consider itself to be acting against a part of its own territory according to its sovereign laws. This is clearly not the case of Gaza.
I think it’s important to note that Gaza represents an extremely unusual situation. It’s not a civil war. Israel doesn’t claim that Gaza is its sovereign territory. And Hamas is not a state and hasn’t even declared itself to be a state. If there is a precedent for a naval blockade against such an entity I am not aware of it. I would say the burden of proof lies firmly with those claim that the existing law of international blockades is applicable. If you to make that case it would be helpful to quote an actual treaty and not just manual put out by some organization.
Anyway as I mentioned before, principles of proportionality and humanitarian law are clearly applicable in this situation and I think a strong case can be made that the blockade as currently constituted violates them.
I’m not sure blockade is even the right word to use. They agree to allow supplies in but demand to screen it first for weapons.
It should of course be pointed out that many of the problems currently in Gaza, if left unchecked for too long, can indeed become a humanitarian crisis in the future. Vitamin A and D deficiencies have the potential to be particularly nasty, but treatment is generally effective and simple. As far as I’ve seen there haven’t been any reports of widespread irreparable damage occurring among the general population. A high percentage of children are suspected to have or be developing rickets, for example, but the prognosis is generally good if the inherent causes are resolved while the child is still growing. Night blindness is also somewhat common, but that’s also treatable and to my knowledge there has not been a spike in Vitamin A deficiency induced blindness or child-death.
Obviously we should deal with these problems before they reach the crisis point.
As always, however, matters are far from simple. Hamas is currently refusing to allow delivery of the aid from the flotilla Hamas has also been demolishing Gazans houses. There have also been reports of Hamas taking over open housing and assigning it to Hamas members on a preferential basis. Hamas has also seized aid supplies in the past.
However, UN reconstruction may actually be the best path to proceed and if it works, housing can be rebuilt without materials falling into Hamas’ hands and being used for fortifications. Then again… the UNRWA has been building housing that it refers to as a “city of mud” and “not long term”. Although it should be stated that IRIN has provided better quality photos and information than UNRWA released. Photos that show, for instance, thatthese are not mere mud huts. The houses appear to be not just “mud brick”, but something very close to, if not identical to adobe; one of the most durable and longest lasting building materials in the world. IRIN also ends up pointing out the through-the-looking-glass world that we enter when dealing with claims about the situation in Gaza. The UNRWA, remember, claimed that this was only a temporary solution. What are the facts on the mud brick homes?
A 100 year temporary solution. Not bad.
Oh, and:
No.
[
](International Committee of the Red Cross)
You can read the explanation here.
Claiming that it is “just some manual” put out by “just some NGO” is ridiculous. Claiming that it doesn’t have the force of law is false. It’s the single most accurate document we have on the customary laws of war as they relate to naval operations. Customary international law is not a nonsense phrase. Customary law is “evidence of a general practice accepted as law.”
It's a bit odd that you are invoking the Geneva Conventions since the Israeli government has been busy denying it is an occupying power constrained by the 4th conventions. This is a major bone of contention between it and various human rights groups. In any case Geneva prohibits collective punishment and gives the occupying power the responsibility of ensuring and adequate supply of food and medical supplies to the "fullest extent of the means available to it" which is clearly not happening in Gaza. There is no provision in the Geneva Conventions for imposing a naval blockade on an occupied territory and enforcing the blockade in international waters.Were any Palestinian representatives involved in the drafting of this document? Or any other “rules” that were made? Rules are only useful if both sides agree on them.
OK it is a manual put out by an NGO in consultation with other NGO’s. I don’t see any government involvement in it . It is a commentary by some experts on what they believe to be the relevant customary international law but governments are perfectly free to have their own interpretation.
This is a silly argument. Yet again, the 4th GC applies even if a state does not self-identify as occupying an area.
If you disagree, please cite where in the 4th GC it states that its application is limited to those powers which self-identify as occupying the territories under discussion.
It may be annoying or frustrating that Israel says it’s not an occupying power, but that has nothing to do with whether or not the 4th GC applies. Again, do you really want to go down that road? Because without the 4th GC, there are no positive obligations at all, only negative prohibitions. Under the 4th GC, Israel must provide for the basic needs of the occupied populace. But if you’re really claiming that GC 4 does not apply? Then Israel has no obligation, at all, to provide anything and can still search consignments and proscribe their method of delivery and distribution.
[
](http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/FULL/470?OpenDocument)
Not only that? But in addition to no longer having any positive obligations at all to ensure the health of Gazans, Israel would still be allowed to limit consignments due to military necessity.
And explicitly allows the occupying power to limit consignments, food and medical supplies among them, in order to damage the enemy’s economy. Since this is specifically and explicitly allowed and collective punishment is not, this is proof that the allowed behavior is not collective punishment.
First of all, even if a state is in default on one clause of the 4th GC, that doesn’t mean the 4th GC no longer applies. That argument is nonsensical. States do not suddenly lose the ability to act in accord because they violate one of its provisions.
If you claim otherwise, please cite where the 4th GC talks about the situations in which an occupying power will not have recourse to its guidelines.
Second, you’ve cherrypicked the document and the caveats to what you’ve cited have already been cited, quoted, and discussed. Again, with emphasis:
Utterly nonsensical. The 4th GC is simply not the totality of all international law relating to naval warfare. To say nothing of the fact that the 4th GC does explicitly and clearly state that “the Power which permits [consignments’] free passage shall have the right to prescribe the technical arrangements under which such passage is allowed”. It doesn’t add “… except if part of that arrangement includes a blockade.”
And Sam Remo does clarify the legality of a blockade in international waters and says, nowhere, that it’s not valid for an occupied territory.
So, damaging the economy of a nation that you are at war with is not a “collective punishment”?
That’s an interesting and convenient way of interpreting things.
Customary international law has the force of law. I already cited it.
The ICJ has the obligation to apply four things when determining the resolution of a case.
Nowhere in the list is “a government’s own personal interpretations.”
Sam Remo has the force of law.
You seem to be confused about the relevant parts of the GC. Article 23 isn’t relevant because it refers to the treatment of civilians of high contracting parties and clearly Hamas doesn’t count as one. What is relevant is Section 3 on occupied territories which details the obligations of the occupying power to ensure the welfare of the civilians under occupation.
Except that San Remo isn’t customary international law. It’s a statement about customary international law put out by a bunch of NGO’s. Obviously it doesn’t have the force of law. Are you saying that any time a bunch of NGO’s get together and write a manual, governments are obligated to follow it? That’s absurd.
Yes, it is. That’s the point. Sam Remo is the codification and consolidation of modern customary international law. You can claim that it doesn’t have the force of law, but customary international law doesn’t lose the force of law simply because it’s written down.
If you’re claiming that Sam Remo isn’t customary international law, then please cite what you consider to be a more accurate codification. Or retract.
Can’t have your cake and eat it too.
The GC explicitly says that it is only valid in a “declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties,” or “all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.”.
Further it goes on to state that the contracting powers are bound only in their mutual relations and when dealing with a non-contracting power, only if it accepts that it too is bound by the 4th GC.
“Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.”
You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If you will only accept the provisions of the 4th GC that hold between two contracting powers, then not one word applies to Israel’s relationship with the Palestinians. You cannot deny those passages you do not like and then affirm those that you do.
If your interpretation is credible, then Israel has absolutely no obligations towards the Palestinians as they’re not contracting powers. Not section III, not anything at all.
But your interpretation is not credible. The 4th GC is considered to be customary law and, as such, applies.
San Remo isn't a codification as understood in a legal sense. It's a manual written by a bunch of NGO's. In any case as I have mentioned the manual doesn't absolve Israel of the obligation of behaving in a proportional manner and abiding by international humanitarian principles. These are sufficient grounds for considering the blockade illegal IMO.
There is a 1979 UNSC resolutions which states that Israel has an obligation to abide by the Geneva conventions in the occupied territories. Clearly the most relevant part of the conventions would be the section which deals with occupied territories which clearly lays out the obligations of the occupying power. So I would say the requirements of Section 3 would trump those in article 23 which clearly don’t refer to occupied territories.
As to be expected, the excellent Juan Cole is the go-to source. Posted on 3 June in language a little more colourful than usual :
A summary and observations for the busy executives:
No-one is disputes that what is now in the US media is an Israeli propaganda exercise. The commentary notes it is a poor one, but then, opposing views are prohibited access.
Of course Israel is the occupying power: It controls the borders and airways, which is the question you ask to find out.
Nonetheless, information now flows freer. You can find things out, if you are really interested.
For those too lazy to click the above link and search for the correct link to the referenced Israeli fauxtography, here’s a direct link to the website detailing the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs propaganda.
Well you have to understand that Judaism, particularly in the US, can be fairly described as bifurcated: Into regular or traditional Judaism; and into an evil cult.
How did this come about? It’s Israel, as it has grown in malevolence and the world has grown in transparency, the choice has become ever more stark. Decent, workaday humanity; Or support of Israel. Regrettably there’s a proportion of the Jewish community that has fallen into the fouler choice and who now form the evil cult.
Now, to be clear, this is not to accuse anyone in this discussion of anything so grave as support for Israel, but rather to alert you to the dangers impressing upon members of the Jewish and Christian evangelist communities of the US.