It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

No, Israel Does Not Have the Right to Self-Defense In International Law Against Occupied Palestinian

page: 1
22
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+3 more 
posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 08:48 AM
link   
The title of the quoted article is No, Israel Does Not Have the Right to Self-Defense In International Law Against Occupied Palestinian Territory.

Many people are saying that Israel has the right to go into Gaza and bomb them into oblivion, as a measure of self defense. This article clearly states they do not. What Israel has, under international law, is the right to use it's police powers with rare use of militarized force as measures of self defense, but the self defense measures themselves cannot take the form of warfare since the warfare was concluded and has rendered Gaza and the West Bank an occupied territory of Israel.

Israel thus, under international law has the duty to protect Palestinian citizens as well as has the duty of restoring order and ensuring a normal day to day life for the Palestinian citizens. Israel is doing none of this.


Occupation Law prohibits an occupying power from initiating armed force against its occupied territory. By mere virtue of the existence of military occupation, an armed attack, including one consistent with the UN Charter, has already occurred and been concluded. Therefore the right of self-defense in international law is, by definition since 1967, not available to Israel with respect to its dealings with real or perceived threats emanating from the West Bank and Gaza Strip population. To achieve its security goals, Israel can resort to no more than the police powers, or the exceptional use of militarized force, vested in it by IHL. This is not to say that Israel cannot defend itself—but those defensive measures can neither take the form of warfare nor be justified as self-defense in international law. As explained by Ian Scobbie:

To equate the two is simply to confuse the legal with the linguistic denotation of the term ”defense.“ Just as ”negligence,“ in law, does not mean ”carelessness” but, rather, refers to an elaborate doctrinal structure, so ”self-defense” refers to a complex doctrine that has a much more restricted scope than ordinary notions of ”defense.“




Once armed conflict is initiated, and irrespective of the reason or legitimacy of such conflict, the jus in bello legal framework is triggered. Therefore, where an occupation already is in place, the right to initiate militarized force in response to an armed attack, as opposed to police force to restore order, is not a remedy available to the occupying state.Source


The source is a Palestinian source that I have used, but the argument is quite valid. The argument is, in an occupied territory the occupiers cannot use all out warfare, but only policing efforts to restore order in the occupied territory. This is a valid argument under international law.


edit on 20-7-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 08:53 AM
link   
I cant understand why Israel, with all their tech, cannot send a few boots in and seize the weapons and the people responsible without harming any civillians......im sure they have drones that can track the movement of these weapons. Or even get the UN to do it? In fact...where are the UN? They should get boots on the ground to try keeping the peace for once instead of spending all their time trying to control the rest of us. We cannot trust the parties involved to do it....either of them, as in any conflict.


+10 more 
posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 08:56 AM
link   
I have a question? I know I'm new and I hope I don't get pounded for asking this, but it stands out to be asked?

If Israel cannot meet the tools and means of military force with military force, what are they expected to do? They built a wall along the West Bank side of Palestine and it's ended much of that issue. The West Bank, this morning, is not at war and is not sustaining Israeli strikes. Gaza is, and after the Hamas leadership of Gaza authorized or ordered the firing of countless rockets/missiles across Israel. Are they supposed to go in and arrest those firing military weapons systems against civilian cities?

I'm just assuming here, but I don't believe those police officers would find success in their mission. I believe they'd find death if lucky and capture if not.

So when you have a militarized force, using military weapons systems against your cities, and all of this is based in and coming from an area with no police presence or ability by those being fired upon, what is a nation to do?



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: MrCynic

They can, under international law, meet militarized force with a militarized force for the end of policing efforts to restore order.

In America we have swat teams, armored vehicles, guns a blazing at the actual threat... cordoning off small areas in order to make arrests (sometimes a block or three wide), although sometimes those end in the death of the guilty party, but not the deaths of innocents as a general rule.

I see no reason Israel cannot do the exact same thing. Actually, for these types of operations where the goal is to protect and ensure the peace and normalcy of life for the people of Palestine, I would think they would get a LOT more support.



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 09:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: MrCynic
I have a question? I know I'm new and I hope I don't get pounded for asking this, but it stands out to be asked?

If Israel cannot meet the tools and means of military force with military force, what are they expected to do? They built a wall along the West Bank side of Palestine and it's ended much of that issue. The West Bank, this morning, is not at war and is not sustaining Israeli strikes. Gaza is, and after the Hamas leadership of Gaza authorized or ordered the firing of countless rockets/missiles across Israel. Are they supposed to go in and arrest those firing military weapons systems against civilian cities?

I'm just assuming here, but I don't believe those police officers would find success in their mission. I believe they'd find death if lucky and capture if not.

So when you have a militarized force, using military weapons systems against your cities, and all of this is based in and coming from an area with no police presence or ability by those being fired upon, what is a nation to do?


I agree,it is a tricky situation but as it stands is unnacceptable. Israels response tactics obviously are not working. They are just increasing the hate as we all are by taking sides in this issue. Too many innocent lives are lost. There must be a better way. The current operation is not the answer, they are not helping the situation. Killing innocent peole MUST be avoided at all costs.



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: OpinionatedB

I can not say how the United States would handle such a situation. The US has spree shooters and it has had madmen to compare to some of the Palestinian attacks in the bad old days, before the wall and segregation by barrier. I'm not aware of a Rocket or Missile with a real warhead ever being fired from U.S. soil, onto US soil outside of testing by our own military though?

I do believe police would very quickly throw their hands up, fall far far back to set up a perimeter and simply call Washington with cries of HELP! in every way they could think to say it. Law enforcement has no means to face or counter rocket and missile fire, yet that fire could obliterate law enforcement presence to the last man on scene.

So, I dare say we'd see US Military forces deployed for actual live fire combat. It may be brief, but police could do nothing in the face of that firepower but die well. They wouldn't try for long.



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: pennydrops

I think when what you are doing isn't working, it's definitely time to change tactics.

One of the problems in Palestine IS the fact that under the occupation there is no normalcy of life. Whereas, under international law, the goal of occupation is short term and is to ensure safety and normalcy of life for civilians. Yet... what is happening is far from that.

People are evicted from their homes so that Jews can move into them, in occupied territories. When people try to build a house elsewhere the Israelis bulldoze them down because they aren't approved housing. Trying to go over into Israeli territory for work or to visit family members who live in that territory is met with opposition. Palestinians who go to college abroad came back home to find they aren't being allowed back in their own country, leaving them as refugees with no where to go and no countries willing to take them in.

The way its going now is a never ending cycle. It should be changed to follow international law, and the safety of the Palestinians should be being ensured.



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: OpinionatedB

Just like the LEOs that get tons of support on here... I am not buying it. Next would be screaming and moaning about that.



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: MrCynic

We handled that kind of thing in Afghanistan prior to many boots on the ground and the tactics being used then, in the initial stages of that conflict had the Taliban on the run...

If you examine what happened once someone decided they wanted medals and boots came to be on the ground, to what was happening before when we actually were well on our way to totally eliminating the Taliban, you will see what works, and what doesn't in these types of situations.



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: OpinionatedB

I could get entirely behind a true and total cessation of hostilities to both sides. The problem I see is that we are dealing with two sides, and one just flat refused any form of cease fire. It wasn't Israel who said no on that one, although it's just as often them as not.

It's a mess, but it's a larger mess to suggest it's anything like a one sided fight. These retaliatory actions are all downside and no upside for Israel. They lose people, resources, world position and ability to function in the future. Nothing positive. I'd guess they would cease, if the incoming fire ceased.

What would be worth seeing for certain is whether that held true. Tell Hamas to cease all fire. Not even a slingshot firing a ball bearing over the fence line for a year. Then, if an Israeli so much as fires a BB gun at Gaza, the world will have clear and unquestioned basis for rage.

No blurry lines of having to ask, how many rockets did Hamas fire before Israel moved to strike back? That makes outrage a very conditional thing, and it makes the arguments less than compelling for either side making them.



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: LoverBoy

International law has to be abided by. Period. There is no justifiable excuse to ignore international law. It was made for the safety and welfare of the citizens of this earth. All of us.

No excuse at all to simply ignore it.



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: OpinionatedB

You realize those same swat teams with armored vehicles have killed innocents..

Also who do they arrest? Its not like these guys wear a uniform, or have large elaborate bases that they fire the missiles from.

Also there is at least a segment of the population that would riot in defense of those they were trying to arrest... (see Somalia, or any swat team arrest in the ghetto in the USA)

Massive over whelming force is the only response that makes sense to keep your people safe and keep morale up.. Is it nice and clean and only the bad guys get hurt... No..that only happens in Hollywood.



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 09:22 AM
link   
It should also be noted that under international law, a state is only legitimately acting in self-defence if it follows a standard set of criteria. While there are numerous criteria of which a state can follow, Christopher Greenwood argues that:


It is generally considered that, for a resort to force to constitute a lawful exercise of the right of self-defence, it must meet the following conditions:
1. i) it must be a response to an armed attack;
2. ii) the use of force, and the degree of force used, must be necessary and proportionate; and
3. iii) it must be reported to the Security Council and must cease when the Security Council has taken ‘measures necessary to maintain international peace and security’.

goo.gl...

In such a case, i would argue that Israel is not acting in self-defence, as its campaign against Gaza is disproportionate to the rockets fired.
edit on 20-7-2014 by daaskapital because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Unfortuneatly israel never has nor will follow international law .. it holds itself above international laws ..

Israel is as much a rogue state as north korea .. yet israel gets a pass on warcrimes and crimes against humanity that would see any other country slapped with severe sanctions and/or its government overthrown ...



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: daaskapital

In reality? I think items 1 and 3 are violated or ignored by the nations of the world so routinely and regularly without cries of outrage, it's selective citation to an extreme to bring it into the picture here. The lack of adherence to international law for anything which is not carried by force or to the benefit of those following it is a whole different issue that constitutes a pandemic. Our own nation is ill with that particular disease. (Call it, 1st Strikeitis Syndrome)



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: daaskapital

The laws change somewhat under occupation. I don't have a subscription to this site, and it looks quite good. See what it says about the laws concerning occupied territories - the occupier has the duty to maintain normalcy of life for the citizens under occupation, and cannot use explicit warfare against the occupied territories.


edit on 20-7-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: daaskapital


2. ii) the use of force, and the degree of force used, must be necessary and proportionate;


That's what I was just thinking.

"Oh, they're sending little rockets that we can deflect/destroy with our Iron Dome? Let's drop HUGE BOMBS on them!"

No.

As I understand it, the Israelis can get an "app" that tells them where the rockets are headed, and when. So they can avoid it.

The Palestinians have no such "warning system." The Israelis detonate a "small mortar shell" on a rooftop to alert nearby residents of an impending bombing. Evacuate! But --- to WHERE??

Oh, right, the Israelis also airdropped pamphlets. Phoned/texted them.
BUT WHERE are they supposed to go??
As Jon Stewart said: "Swim for it?"

This whole situation is a lose-lose game of absolute barbarism and very hard for me to understand. And it is indisputably the same as someone using a water pistol that tinkles at someone being retaliated at by a professional team using a fire-hose. Inexcusable.



edit on 7/20/2014 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Expat888

Totally agree with that!



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Heck the don't really even need to deflect them. They aren't powerful enough to get far enough into any populated area for goodness sake. It's more like the annoying fly....



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: OpinionatedB

Agreed. It doesn't seem that fireworks and slingshots warrant tanks and bombings of homes/entire city blocks.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join