The respected International Committee for the Red Cross has released a statement denouncing Israel’s blockade of Gaza as a violation of international law.
The ICRC stated today that
As the ICRC has stressed repeatedly, the dire situation in Gaza cannot be resolved by providing humanitarian aid. The closure imposed on the Gaza Strip is about to enter its fourth year, choking off any real possibility of economic development. Gazans continue to suffer from unemployment, poverty and warfare, while the quality of Gaza’s health care system has reached an all-time low.
The whole of Gaza’s civilian population is being punished for acts for which they bear no responsibility. The closure therefore constitutes a collective punishment imposed in clear violation of Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law.
It also denounced Hamas for its obstruction of efforts to see Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, who is about to enter his fifth year in captivity.
Part of the problem is that Israeli officials have made statements that the restriction on everything from candy to medical equipment to water systems has been in retaliation for both Shalit’s capture and the Hamas victory in the elections. That supports the claim of collective punishment and goes beyond searches for weapons.
Now, we may be seeing an even more dangerous confrontation as Iran sends ships to try to run the blockade.
Notably, Israel has just loosened restrictions on candy, spices, and shaving cream. It would have been better if those restrictions had not been in place for the outset. The strongest claim for Israel is the need to search for weapons. It has undermined its case for years through these other restrictions.
JERUSALEM — The European Union on Monday called Israel’s closure of Gaza “unacceptable” and offered to play a role in opening the borders, as Israel appointed three Israeli experts and two foreign observers to a commission to investigate its deadly raid on a Gaza-bound flotilla.
The EU move added to the intense pressure Israel has faced to lift the blockade since nine pro-Palestinian activists died in clashes after Israeli commandos rappelled aboard one of the aid ships last month. The three-year closure has withheld all but the most basic supplies from Gaza’s 1.5 million Palestinian residents.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2010/06/14/1230585/eu-pressure-mounts-for-end-of.html
Swarthmore mom, thanks for that link. It pretty well sums things up.
http://jstreet.org/campaigns/change-course-gaza
I have read a lot of very thoughtful comments on the issue of the blockade. Although there are strong arguments on both sides on the issue of legality, my view is that the legal dispute masks the real problem: the underlying policy is morally flawed and doomed to failure. It is morally flawed because it most directly harms the civilian population. Arms smugglers have been able to get around blockades for centuries. It is doomed to failure because it will merely harden attitudes among the very people whose good will is necessary if peace is ever to be accomplished. The U.S. response has also been weak and predictable. We need to get past the false notion that a friend is someone who will always support my actions. A true friend will kick my ass when it is necessary. In this case it is necessary.
I don’t know James M. There’s an awful lot of information that contradicts what you just wrote. I don’t know if you had the chance to really read through everything though. I would hope you might feel strongly about the starvation and death of other people.
Buddha & mespo,
Bah, I don’t actually feel that strongly about it. It was just annoying to read an argument for why it did apply that cited texts that I read to say it didn’t.
Right-wing Israeli politicians want a stable, self-governing nation of Palestine about as much as right-wing US politicians want a “liberated” Cuba. They gain too much domestic political clout from the situation. Of course, the Castros and Hamas gain even more in their domestic politics from being the “victims” of these blocades/sanctions. If the US right-wing survived the end of the “existential threat” crisis culture with the fall of the USSR, can’t the Israeli right-wing see that they, too, can politically survive the changes that would be brought about by genuinely seeking peace with the rest of the region? They’ll find new fears and hatreds to play.
Legal question: If Israel isn’t an “occupying power” in Gaza, then what empowers them to blockade Gaza? Presumably, New Zealand can’t just arbitrarily decide to blockade Jamaica. If Gaza isn’t an independent nation-state at war with the nation of Israel, and it isn’t under the control of a different nation-state, as Gibraltar is to the UK, then there isn’t a nation-to-nation state of war.
If Israel feels that the people of Gaza have a significant degree of control over the actions of Hamas, and this justifies the blockade of Gaza, then Israel seems to be saying that Gaza is self-governing. It seems that when you have a defined group of people, in a defined territory that isn’t claimed by any other nation-state, and the people of that region are responsible for self-governance, then you have a nation-state. Am I over-reaching to suspect that Israel is acting in a manner that treats Gaza as a de-facto nation? If they treat Gaza as having the responsibilities of a nation, then aren’t they entitled to the rights of one?
Buddha & mespo,
Both the Geneva and Hague conventions are treaties that by their own text treat signatories and non-signatories differently. I agree that Israel may be morally bound, but unless there were subsequent agreements that modify that aspect of the treaties, I think the legal analysis does change.
James M:
I agree with Buddha’s analysis here. As a signatory, Israel is obligated under the Hague Convention and must comply. I also agree that Israel has no duty to make Gazans comfortable as we have previously discussed — merely adequately fed, housed, and medically attended to.
The FBI Knocked on My Door:
James,
Occupation by troops on every corner is no different than occupation by isolation. It’s a tactic as old as the Romans. In fact it was this very tactic that Vercingetorix used against the Romans in Gaul and Germania. It’s a logistical strategy. Withdrawal in this case is technical, not actual.
As to Gaza not being signatories? Irrelevant. Israel is. Their breaking of the Geneva Convention is no more acceptable than ours is in torturing prisoners. The purpose of the Geneva Convention is to define the behavior of signatory nations towards wounded and capture soldiers AND civilians during wartime. The US won’t call Israel on breaking the Convention because Bush did and Obama continues to do so, protecting our own domestic war criminals.
Jill, I read through your link and their links. No where do I find the phrase “effective control” in the fourth Hague Convention or in the Fourth Geneva Convention (the stated origin of the claim that Israel is still an occupying power even though they withdrew from Gaza).
In the Hague Convention IV, Section III is the relevant part. Art. 42 of the Fourth Hague Convention says: “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.” (emphasis added)
Which implies to me that if the hostile army withdraws, the land is no longer occupied.
(BTW, Jill, Art. 50 is something you might want to cite the next time this thread gets started: “No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted upon the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they cannot be regarded as jointly and severally responsible.” — that’s the sort of thing I was asking about earlier 🙂
The Geneva Convention refers to “partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party” (Art. 2). Article 6 says: “In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; however, the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation, to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory, by the provisions of the following Articles”
Does that mean that since military operations have been over for over a year and Israel does not exercise the functions of government in Gaza, the convention does not apply?
For both the Hague and Geneva Conventions, how does Gaza not being signatory effect the analysis?
I prefer to use the paradigm of “humanitarian minds think alike”.
Well Buddha who do we mimic or who mimic’s US?
The ICRC’s argument sounds strangely familiar.
James M., This is a legal analysis of the situation.
“The International Committee of the Red Cross has described Israel’s blockade of Gaza as a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
That conclusion rests on the Israeli government’ status as an occupying power in Gaza, which assigns it certain obligations to the people of Gaza.
Those obligations are spelt out in detail by the Fourth Geneva Convention. At their most basic, though, they require Israel to provide for the basic needs of the people, particularly food and medical care.
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 convention also requires the occupying power to allow sufficient shipments of aid – food, clothing, medical supplies and other essentials – and to take steps to preserve the health care system in the occupied territory.”
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/06/2010614102758862244.html
Jill & everyone,
I wonder if anyone knows of any official definition of collective punishment. I read it to mean, e.g., not shooting random people from a city because one of your soldiers was attacked in that area. Blockades have historically been a part of warfare and they are not just directed at weapons. Does the argument that an economic blockade is “collective punishment” have historical or textual support?
The Israeli ambassador to the US’s argument on Colbert was that while Israel has an obligation to allow humanitarian aid, they don’t have any obligation to make the people of Gaza happy or give them junk food. Even if you accept that argument (which I suppose I do), Israel has hurt its international position by taking that line and hurt its legal position by making statements about retaliation.
It will be very interesting to see what happens with the ships from Iran.
McClatchy broke this story last week: “JERUSALEM — As Israel ordered a slight easing of its blockade of the Gaza Strip Wednesday, McClatchy obtained an Israeli government document that describes the blockade not as a security measure but as “economic warfare” against the Islamist group Hamas, which rules the Palestinian territory.
Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/06/09/95621/israeli-document-gaza-blockade.html#ixzz0qqbF2TqM”
Then go to al jazeera for a description of what is actually happening in Gaza. Here is just a sample of the ICRC statement: “Jazeera that the organisation – which traditionally remains neutral – was reluctant to publicly criticise the blockade. But she said three years of quiet efforts to ease the embargo did not result in any progress.
“The result has not been what we expected, and we thought that after three years the situation was dire enough, serious enough, to speak out publicly to try to break this closure of Gaza,” she said.
The shortages are particularly dire in Gaza’s health care system, where the ICRC said more than 100 essential medicines – including chemotherapy and hemophilia drugs – are unavailable. Many basic medical supplies, like colonoscopy bags, are also barred from Gaza and routine blackouts cause damage to medical equipment.”
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/06/201061452646659588.html
We thus have two war crimes: 1. collective economic punishment and 2. failure to follow the Geneva Conventions as an occupying power. The US, busy committing its own war crimes, is certainly not the nation to “neutrally” take up the matter. There needs to be sanctions on Israel for its war crimes and to force it to lift the blockade. I am certain there are ways to protect Israel that do not involve the commission of war crimes. “Security” is not the magic word that allows nations to do whatever they please– to violate both international and national laws. Any person who accepts that “national security” justifies the commission of war crimes, needs to reconsider this belief. In so doing, your nation becomes nothing better than those whom you fear. Your nation becomes a thug. Do not believe a thug only turns against the “enemy”. Thugs see enemies everywhere and they will turn on, (in fact in both nations, the govts. have turned on), anyone who opposes their illegal and immoral actions.
And we will be the first to champion Israels right to do this, huh.
Just like Arizona and the Mexicans. My question is, do they just round up the Mexicans or is this state law unequally applied? See,s like Dredd Scott is raising its head at this very moment.