|
you may have had. Israel has the right to defend itself against HAMAS. They don't have the right to collectively punish all Gazan civilians for Hamas' actions.
Hamas is the elected representive and are in control of Gaza. Israel is allowed to defend itself even if that were not so and regardless of many hardships that are caused to the population as long as it fufills its minimal obligations which it does. It is not required to trade or provide anything to Gaza. International law does not require Israel to supply Gaza with fuel or electricity or, indeed, with any other materials, goods, or services. They are not even required to supply any humanitarian goods and food but they do. They also allow humanitarian supplies from other countries in. There is nothing in international law that requires Israel to maintain open borders with such a hostile territory, whatever its sovereign status. Exercising legal counter-measures against a hostile entity does not constitute "collective punishment" under international law. Israel does not control the Egyptian border either. Many states suspended trade and diplomatic relations with Aparthied South Africa but the charge of "collective punishment" was not raised. Many European states suspended trade and diplomatic relations with Austria when Jorg Haider was elected but there was no chare of "collective punishment". There are countless other examples These article show your claim is spurious International Law and Gaza: The Assault on Israel's Right to Self-Defense Israel's imposition of economic sanctions on the Gaza Strip is a perfectly legal means of responding to Palestinian attacks. Since Israel is under no legal obligation to engage in trade of fuel or anything else with Gaza, or to maintain open borders, it may withhold commercial items and seal its borders at its discretion. The bar on collective punishment forbids the imposition of criminal-type penalties to individuals or groups on the basis of another's guilt. None of Israel's actions involve the imposition of criminal-type penalties. There is no legal basis for maintaining that Gaza is occupied territory. The Fourth Geneva Convention refers to territory as occupied where the territory is of a state party to the convention and the occupier "exercises the functions of government" in the territory. Gaza is not territory of another state party to the convention and Israel does not exercise the functions of government in the territory. Due to internal political considerations as well as rulings by the Israeli Supreme Court, Israel continues to maintain the flow of basic humanitarian supplies such as food, medicine and water to the Palestinian population of Gaza. In a recent case (Albassiouni v. Prime Minister, HCJ 9132/07), the Israeli Supreme Court implied that it interpreted domestic Israeli administrative law to require the Israeli government to maintain a minimum flow of Israeli-supplied necessary humanitarian goods when engaging in retorsional acts such as cutting off the Israeli supply of electricity to Gaza. Thus, even if there were a legal basis for considering Gaza Israeli-occupied territory, Israel would be fulfilling its duties under the Fourth Geneva Convention. However, there is no legal basis for maintaining that Gaza is occupied territory. The Fourth Geneva Convention refers to territory as occupied where the territory is of another "High Contracting Party" (i.e., a state party to the convention) and the occupier "exercises the functions of government" in the occupied territory. The Gaza Strip is not territory of another state party to the convention and Israel does not exercise the functions of government-or, indeed, any significant functions-in the territory. It is clear to all that the elected Hamas government is the de facto sovereign of the Gaza Strip and does not take direction from Israel, or from any other state. Some have argued that states can be considered occupiers even of areas where they do not declare themselves in control so long as the putative occupiers have effective control. For instance, in 2005, the International Court of Justice opined that Uganda could be considered the occupier of Congolese territory over which it had "substituted own authority for that of the Congolese Government" even in the absence of a formal military administration. Some have argued that this shows that occupation may occur even in the absence of a full-scale military presence and claimed that this renders Israel an occupier under the Fourth Geneva Convention. However, these claims are clearly without merit. First, Israel does not otherwise fulfill the conditions of being an occupier; in particular, Israel does not exercise the functions of government in Gaza, and it has not substituted its authority for the de facto Hamas government. Second, Israel cannot project effective control in Gaza. Indeed, Israelis and Palestinians well know that projecting such control would require an extensive military operation amounting to the armed conquest of Gaza. Military superiority over a neighbor, and the ability to conquer a neighbor in an extensive military operation, does not itself constitute occupation. If it did, the United States would have to be considered the occupier of Mexico, Egypt the occupier of Libya and Gaza, and China the occupier of North Korea.
Moreover, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that foes of Israel claiming that Israel has legal duties as the "occupier" of Gaza are insincere in their legal analysis. If Israel were indeed properly considered an occupier, under Article 43 of the regulations attached to the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907, it would be required to take "all the measures in power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety." Thus, those who contend that Israel is in legal occupation of Gaza must also support and even demand Israeli military operations in order to disarm Palestinian terror groups and militias. Additionally, claims of occupation necessarily rely upon a belief that the occupying power is not the true sovereign of the occupied territory. For that reason, those who claim that Israel occupies Gaza must believe that the border between Israel and Gaza is an international border between separate sovereignties. Yet, many of those claiming that Gaza is occupied, like John Dugard, also simultaneously and inconsistently claim that Israel is legally obliged to open the borders between Israel and Gaza. No state is required to leave its international borders open.
http://jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=1&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=378&PID=0&IID=2021&TTL=International_Law_and_Gaza:_The_Assault_on_Israel%E2%80%99s_Right_to_Self-Defensebr%20/
Is Israel Bound by International Law to Supply Utilities, Goods, and Services to Gaza?
International officials are entitled to object on political grounds to Israel imposing even limited economic sanctions in response to Palestinian terrorism. However, they err in insinuating that international law forbids Israel's actions. International law does not require Israel to supply Gaza with fuel or electricity or, indeed, with any other materials, goods, or services.
What Does Article 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention Say?
Article 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention requires parties to certain conflicts to permit transit to enemy civilian populations of a limited number of items under a limited set of conditions. However, the fighting in and around the Gaza Strip is not a conflict covered by the Fourth Geneva Convention: the conflict is not one between state parties to the Convention, and Gaza is not occupied territory. Therefore, Israel is free to ignore the injunctions of Article 23.
Even if it were bound by the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel would be acting in full compliance with international law. Article 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention permits states like Israel to cut off fuel supplies and electricity to territories like Gaza. Article 23 only requires a party to permit passage of food, clothing, and medicines intended for children under fifteen, expectant mothers, and maternity cases. Were Article 23 to apply, Israel would still be under no obligation to permit passage of electricity or fuel or any items other than food, clothing or medicine.
Moreover, under Article 23, Israel would be under no obligation to provide anything itself; Israel would only be required not to interfere with consignments of food, etc. sent by others. Article 23 does not require unfettered passage of food, clothing, and medicine to the entire civilian population of enemy territory; if the article applied, Israel would be required only to permit passage for the benefit of Palestinian children, mothers of newborns, and pregnant women.
Finally, under Article 23, a party can block passage even of food, clothing, and medicine for children and mothers if it has serious grounds for worrying that the items will be intercepted before reaching their destination or that the items may benefit the enemy's economy by substitution. Israel has excellent grounds for fearing both of these results, especially after Hamas seized fourteen Red Crescent trucks with humanitarian aid on Feb. 7, 2008, on the pretext that only Hamas may decide how to distribute aid in Gaza. Thus, Article 23 would permit Israel to block shipments even of food, clothing, and medicine intended for children, pregnant women, and mothers of newborns.
What Does Article 70 of 1977 Say?
Article 70 of the First Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1977 creates a slightly broader duty regarding the provision of food, medical supplies, clothing, bedding, means of shelter, and "other supplies essential to the survival of the civilian population." Israel, however, is not a party to the First Protocol and is therefore not bound by the provisions of Article 70.
Even if Israel were so bound, Article 70 does not list fuel and electricity as items for which passage must be permitted. Moreover, Article 70 does not place any duty on warring parties to supply the required items. It imposes a general duty on all states to organize "relief actions" and on the warring parties not to interfere with the actions. Thus, under Article 70, Israel would have no obligation to provide fuel or electricity; indeed, it would not even have any particular duty to provide food and medicine. At most, Article 70 would require Israel to permit transit to others' shipments of food and medicine. Israel already does this without Article 70.
Must Israel Ensure a Minimum Supply of Fuel and Electricity to Gaza?
More generally, the Israeli Justice Ministry has acknowledged a duty under customary international law not to interfere with the supply of basic humanitarian items such as food and medicine, and the Israeli Supreme Court has enforced this duty in several decisions (most recently, HCJ 9132/07, Ahmed v Prime Minister, on Jan. 30, 2008).
In a Feb. 11, 2008, article in the Jerusalem Post, a former Israeli Foreign Ministry attorney summarized this acknowledged duty expansively and inaccurately as a requirement that Israel ensure a minimum necessary supply of food, fuel, and electricity to prevent starvation or a humanitarian crisis. Even if the duty were as broad as in this misstatement, Israel has not breached its duty by cutting off Israeli fuel; Israel has only reduced supplies, while Gaza maintains more than sufficient supplies for basic humanitarian needs.
Israel is not required by its customary general humanitarian duties to provide required items itself, only not to interfere with their passage. And fuel and electricity are almost certainly not items that Israel or other warring parties are required to supply. Additionally, Israel is not the sole available source of fuel and electricity to Gaza and, therefore, even if it were true that, as Milibank and Alexander stated, "without a steady supply of electricity hospitals cannot function, pumping stations and sewage systems fail, and access to clean water is denied," Israel would not be required to permit passage of fuel and electricity. Moreover, given the likelihood of Hamas diversion of assistance, even the customary rule permits Israel to interfere with the passage of humanitarian items to ensure that they do not reach the wrong hands or benefit the military efforts or economy of the enemy.
Beyond these customary duties, the same Israeli attorney wrote that "the international community [] regards Israel as continuing to have some responsibility for ensuring supplies to the civilian population" because Gaza "depends" on Israel for its electricity and water after local mismanagement of water supplies, several decades of Israeli military administration, Israeli control of Gazan airspace, and continuing military clashes. Unfortunately, he inaccurately referred to the Israeli curbs on the supply of goods as a "blockade" and misleadingly refrained from noting explicitly that there is no legal basis for the stated expectations of the "international community."
None of the grounds referenced by the Jerusalem Post article provide a legal basis for claiming that Israel must supply Gaza with electricity or the like. First, dependence on foreign supply - whether it be Gazan dependence on Israeli electricity, European dependence on Arab oil, or Somali dependence on foreign food aid - does not create a legal duty to continue the supply. Absent specific treaty requirements, countries may cut off oil sales to other countries at any time. Second, neither Israel nor any other country is required to supply goods in response to its foes' resource mismanagement or lack of natural bounty. Third, there is no precedent or legal text that creates legal duties on the basis of a former military administration. For instance, as the article noted, no one has ever argued that Egypt has legal duties to supply goods to Gaza due to its former military occupation of the Gaza Strip. Fourth, control of airspace does not create a legal duty to supply goods either. For instance, UN Security Council-ordered no-fly zones in Iraq and Libya were not seen as the source of any legal duty to supply those countries with electricity, water, or other goods. Finally, military clashes do not themselves create a legal duty to supply goods. Only occupation as described by the Fourth Geneva Convention requires an occupier to ensure supply of goods. In other cases of military clashes, the parties' duty is limited to not interfering with the passage of certain humanitarian goods, as described above.
http://www.mesi.org.uk/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=110
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
