What does international law say about supplying electricity and water to Gaza?

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Johnny_Cashless

A cite please for your repeated claim about King whatsit and dark November.

Given it’s the basis of the response you seem so very keen for surely it’s the least you could offer.

Apologies, since you’ve repeatedly complained about how little Americans know about the situation I thought you had a competent level of understanding.

However, if you’ve never heard of King Hussein, the ruler of Jordan for almost 50 years and one of the most prominent people in modern Middle Eastern history then I can quite honestly say I’ve never met anyone on this site who was passionate about the subject yet knew less about it.

Similarly, while it’s not as well-known, having no idea what “Black September” is does little to inspire confidence in your knowledge of the subject.

Anyway during the Black September Revolt, the PLO attempted to overthrow his government and he cut off the electricity and the water to the camps where the PLO was operating.

So is your position that he was behaving worse than the Nazis, or that only Israelis can be worse than Nazis if they do that?

Thanks in advance.

[Johnny_Cashless]

Get back to me when you find the cite for that thing you’ve repeated three times.

[chappachula]

@Johnny_Cashless

Get back to me when you find the cite for that thing you’ve repeated three times.

geez…in the time it took you to type this sentence, you could have googled “black September”. (hint : googling “King whatsit” and “dark November” won’t work)

The first hit is from wiki.

Black September

Then you would have to expend a little energy to scroll down and read:

"We were in the middle of the shelling since Ashrafiyeh was among the Jordanian Army’s primary targets. Electricity was cut off, and again we had little food or water.

[Johnny_Cashless]

Do you see the distinction in the last sentence between the first and second clause?

I’m sure our local expert on Dark November will return shortly with the cite.

[blindboyard]

@chappachula

Gaza is not a prison camp; It is a semi-state-in-the-making that shares a border with Egypt–a nation with very similar language and culture. Gaza is a national entity with its own army and elected leaders.

Nonsense. All points of ingress and egress to Gaza are controlled by the Israeli military, the territory is militarily controlled by Israel and Israel act their with impunity. As a secure location within which the inmates have no freedoms and are subject to arbitrary power and forbidden from leaving, it is exactly a prison camp.

The leaders of Gaza could choose to build their own electric plants, water desalination plants and factories.

They could build electricity plants, presumably with money they received from a happy genie, and then we would be having this discussion about Israel refusing to allow fuel into Gaza instead. They have rather large offshore gas reserves, but Israel refuses to allow them to exploit them, and has taken control for itself.

Desalination plants are ridiculously expensive, and extremely energy-intensive. So that’s hardly suitable for Gaza.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

General Comment 15 to the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights recognizes a right to water:

[The right to water] clearly falls within the category of guarantees essential for securing an adequate standard of living … The right to water is also inextricably related to the right to the highest attainable standard of health and the rights to adequate housing and adequate food. The right should also be seen in conjunction with other rights enshrined in the International Bill of Human Rights, foremost amongst them the right to life and human dignity.

Rhett B. Larson, Holy Water and Human Rights: Indigenous Peoples’ Religious-Rights Claims to Water Resources, 2 Ariz. J. Envtl. L. & Pol’y 81, 93 (2011).

So does UNGA Resolution 64/292. These are both kind of aspirational, though, and not really expressed in international norms. A stronger claim is based on the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides an express “right to life” and has been broadly adopted as an international norm (and is thus binding).

The strongest argument is Article 55 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War):

To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population; it should, in particular, bring in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles if the resources of the occupied territory are inadequate.

The Occupying Power may not requisition foodstuffs, articles or medical supplies available in the occupied territory, except for use by the occupation forces and administration personnel, and then only if the requirements of the civilian population have been taken into account. Subject to the provisions of other international Conventions, the Occupying Power shall make arrangements to ensure that fair value is paid for any requisitioned goods.

The Protecting Power shall, at any time, be at liberty to verify the state of the food and medical supplies in occupied territories, except where temporary restrictions are made necessary by imperative military requirements.

Under the Convention, Israel actually has a positive obligation to provide food and water - not merely to refrain from impeding it.

Bell doesn’t mention Article 55 in his piece. I would suggest he overlooked it, but he cites other provisions of the same Convention (like Article 23 on the first page, though he argues that it doesn’t apply to this conflict). So it appears more likely that he conveniently ignored it.

ETA: None of Israel’s reservations regarding the Fourth Convention would seem to apply, so Israel is bound (even assuming such reservations are valid.)

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

General Comment 15 to the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights recognizes a right to water:

So does UNGA Resolution 64/292. These are both kind of aspirational, though, and not really expressed in international norms. A stronger claim is based on the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides an express “right to life” and has been broadly adopted as an international norm (and is thus binding).

The strongest argument is Article 55 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War):

Under the Convention, Israel actually has a positive obligation to provide food and water - not merely to refrain from impeding it.

Bell doesn’t mention Article 55 in his piece. I would suggest he overlooked it, but he cites other provisions of the same Convention (like Article 23 on the first page, though he argues that it doesn’t apply to this conflict). So it appears more likely that he conveniently ignored it.

An excellent post. Of course Israel insists it’s not an occupying power and that Gaza isn’t “occupied territory” but no one else buys this.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Ran out of editing time, but wanted to add:

The whole premise is bullshit. Bell is simultaneously arguing that the Gaza Strip is not occupied territory (because Palestine is not a state), while also arguing that Palestine is an “international actor” and thus subject to retorsion (I can’t quote from the PDF for some reason, but the relevant passage is right before the second footnote.)

Also forgot to mention that the CCP “right to life” has frequently been interpreted to require the provision of necessities such as food and water.

I have no personal knowledge of any relevant international law relating to providing electricity so I’ll leave that to others.

[Johnny_Cashless]

@Ibn_Warraq

An excellent post. Of course Israel insists it’s not an occupying power and that Gaza isn’t “occupied territory” but no one else buys this.

How’s that cite coming, should put date in the diary?

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Johnny_Cashless

How’s that cite coming, should put date in the diary?

So sorry, I thought it was already taken care of by chappachula.

If that wasn’t enough for you then you can look at Fouad Ajami’s The Arab Predicament or Lion of Jordan: The Life and Times of King Hussein in War and Peace. *

So, now that three different cites have been provided perhaps you can tell us why you think that it would be fair to compare the Israelis to Nazis if they cut off the water and electricity to Gaza but not King Hussein for doing the same thing. Or of course do you think that King Hussein did something for which he could be compared to the nazis.

Now, I understand you are so ignorant about the Middle East that you have never heard of King Hussein so this might be a tough question for you to answer.

Or would you like to try and move the goal posts once again.

[Johnny_Cashless]

No cite. For one so politely mannered and insistent on me providing a cite for an NBC reporter, that is rather disappointing.

The thing is I do know enough of that expulsion to know you were talking out your ass - as would anyone interested in how the PLO came to reside in camps around Beirut.

How does that egg taste?

[Trinopus]

@Ibn_Warraq

An excellent post. Of course Israel insists it’s not an occupying power and that Gaza isn’t “occupied territory” but no one else buys this.

I thought Israel pulled out of Gaza (until just this week, alas) and left it to administer itself. That’s a fairly remote form of occupation.

If Gaza was “occupied territory” then there wouldn’t be any fuss about ground troops going in at this time.

Gaza isn’t exactly sovereign territory, but I thought, once Israel got out, it ceased to be occupied.

(Heck, it’s less occupied than Germany and Japan are!) (Until this week, I mean.)

ETA: no ability to cite. This is just how it seems from reading the news.

[chappachula]

@blindboyard

Nonsense. All points of ingress and egress to Gaza are controlled by the Israeli military,

nonsense.
Israel does not surround Gaza on all sides. Look a map: Gaza shares a border with Egypt. Now, since Egypt–an Arabic speaking country with very similar culture to Gaza-has also decided to close its border with Gaza…why do you blame Israel?

the territory is militarily controlled by Israel

Nonsense. The Israeli army walked out of Gaza years ago. There is not one Israeli soldier in the Gaza.

There is a state of war between Gaza and Israel, which the Gazan government proudly declares (the Hamas charter calls for the destruction of Israel.
In a state of war, yes, you’re going to find your borders with the enemy closed off, and that makes things a little difficult for you. So one solution might be to not declare war on your neighbors, to not train terrorists to blow up civilians, and to not shoot bombs and rockets at purely civilian targets.

[Baron_Greenback]

@chappachula

There is not one Israeli soldier in the Gaza.

Have you not been watching the news? :dubious:

[Alessan]

@Baron_Greenback

Have you not been watching the news? :dubious:

Well, yeah - *now *there is. That’s what makes it an invasion.

Personally, I’d say Gaza is not occupied, under regular circumstances; it is, however, besieged. There’s a difference. The first means control from the inside and the outside, and the second means control only from the outside.

[Johnny_Cashless]

In the way a prison camp is “controlled only from the outside”?

[Alessan]

@Johnny_Cashless

In the way a prison camp is “controlled only from the outside”?

No, prisons also have guards on the inside. I’m surprised you don’t know that.

[watchwolf49]

@chappachula

Gaza is not a prison camp; It is a semi-state-in-the-making that shares a border with Egypt–a nation with very similar language and culture. Gaza is a national entity with its own army and elected leaders.

Bolding mine … are you sure Hamas was elected … perhaps I’m underinformed, but I thought they were just plain old cold blooded killers.

Also, I’m not aware of any great amount of V-2 rockets landing on German civilians. Whatever else can be said about Nazis, they didn’t really wantonly kill very many of their own people.

[chappachula]

@watchwolf49

are you sure Hamas was elected … I thought they were just plain old cold blooded killers.

you are right: they are plain-old cold blooded killers…who were elected in 2006.
And of course,in the 8 years since, there have been no more elections.

[watchwolf49]

Thanx for that info … and the citation … good read there.