Originally posted by makeitso
That appears to be incorrect.
The manual says; "The parties to an armed conflict".
Not "Two States at war".
The Manual doesn't keep referring to a "State" for the fun of it.
There are only two types of "armed conflicts" legally recognized by international and humanitarian law.
1) International armed conflicts between two or more States
2) Non-International conflicts between governmental forces and non-governmental armed groups
ICRC.org
If the conflict between Israel and Hamaas is an international armed conflict, then they both must be States. If not, and it is a non-international
conflict, San Remo Manual of International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea doesn't seem to apply, considering the fact that this is
regarding "the parties to an armed conflict at sea".
Does Hamaas have a Navy?
The first two articles are specifically referencing attributes considered to be a part of an international-conflict, where for example article 2
specifically deals with respect of the laws of war once on land.
Start from the beginning and read exactly what the manual describes the parties as being and are thus referred to throughout. It is referring to a
International Armed Conflict taking place at sea. It is regarding armed conflict between
two States as written in the manual.
Since Hamaas isn't a State, has Israel declared it was at war with Gaza?
If so then all of it's prisoners technically can't be deemed
"terrorists" but are in fact
"prisoners of war" and must be afforded
all protections according to the Geneva Convention.
This also means that Israel has to recognize Palestine as a State with Hamaas as its legal government.
If Israels blockade of Gaza is not due to an international armed conflict with Hamaas (which admittedly seems odd considering their proximity), and
this is a non-international conflict then it seems that Israel would also have to admit it is occupying Gaza.
Of course she would never do this because then she would be bound to respect even more rules, rather than continue to break and ignore them.
That also appears to be incorrect.
The manual states that it is prohibited if; "it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population"
That does not appear to be the sole purpose of the Gaza blockade.
'The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger,
- Dov Weisglass, adviser to then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert
Gaza on brink of implosion as aid cut-off starts to bite - Salon.com
Whatever the stated purpose of the blockade, the end results are exactly what is prohibited as according to the San Remo Manual.
Just because you call an apple and orange doesn't mean it will taste like one.
The
"Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations" states that...
- 61% percent of Gazans 65% of whom are children under the age of 18, are “food insecure”
- The level of anemia in infants 9-12 months old was as high as 65.5%.
UN.org
This U.N. Report states that...
...insufficient food and medicine is reaching Gazans, producing a further deterioration of the mental and physical health of the entire civilian
population since Israel launched Operation Cast Lead against the territory,
The rapporteur noted that building materials necessary to repair the damage resulting from the heavy bombardment and artillery assaults could not
enter Gaza. He also blamed the blockade for continued breakdowns of the electricity and sanitation systems due to the Israeli refusal to let spare
parts needed for repair get through the crossings. U.N. Report -
U.N.org
Again, San Remo states:
(b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage
anticipated from the blockade.
103. If the civilian population of the blockaded territory is inadequately provided with food and other objects essential for its survival, the
blockading party must provide for free passage of such foodstuffs and other essential supplies, subject to:
Everything that San Remo says you can't do during a blockade is happening.
That also appears to be incorrect.
Article 33 says that; Collective penalties are prohibited.
By collective punishment, the drafters of the Geneva Conventions had in mind the reprisal killings of World Wars I and World War II. In the First
World War, Germans executed Belgian villagers in mass retribution for resistance activity. In World War II, Nazis carried out a form of collective
punishment to suppress resistance. Entire villages or towns or districts were held responsible for any resistance activity that took place
there. The conventions, to counter this, reiterated the principle of individual responsibility.
That is what is happening
right now in Gaza.
Collectively, 1.5 million people are being held responsible for actions that not all of them haven't committed. They are facing a major humanitarian
crisis as described by the UN as well as any number of Human Rights, or Humanitarian aid groups BECAUSE of the blockade.
The most pertinent part of the article is the line that states:
No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed.
Weakening Hamaas, the stated reasoning behind the blockade by Israel, is a political rather than a military one, and its policy affects over 1 million
people, most of which are innocent civilians.
That is a violation.
Additionally, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1860 does not address or have the words "collective punishment" in it.
Yes, but it addresses making the actions that lead to collective punishment illegal. I am afraid you have missed the connection altogether.
It calls for "unimpeded provision through Gaza of food, fuel and medical treatment, and intensified international arrangements to prevent arms and
ammunition smuggling."
Israel, who not only has violated over 60 U.N. Resolutions, refused to cooperate internationally and impedes all efforts, including an international
investigation in the death of protesting foreign citizens. One of which is an American.
The U.N.S.C. as well as many other humanitarian aid groups have also stated that the blockade violates the Resolution I mentioned.
Is the UN also incorrect about the definitions of its own Resolutions?
Stressing that the situation in Gaza was not sustainable, the Council re‑emphasized the importance of the full implementation of resolutions
1850 (2008) and 1860 (2009). In that context, it reiterates its grave concern at the humanitarian situation in Gaza and stresses the need for
sustained and regular flow of goods and people to Gaza as well as unimpeded provision and distribution of humanitarian assistance throughout Gaza.
Security Council Condemns Acts Resulting in Civilian Deaths during Israeli
Operation
Please read through the list of UN members stating that the blockade is in clear violation as I correctly put it.
This can also be deduced by reading the statement of the U.N. Security Council on the matter. It does not claim that any law was broken. As
high profile as this was, we can be sure if it thought a law had been broken, they would have written that in their statement.
You didn't fully read the statement or clearly missed the part that mentions that United Nations Security Council Resolution 1860 needs to be adhered
to.
Based on the statement
from the UNSC I can conclude that the Resolution isn't being followed.
Admittedly the whole situation in this conflict is very slippery but nothing I stated was outright incorrect or in disagreement with the U.N. and its
opinions.
Your responses were inaccurate and do not follow with the definitions of the San Remo manual, UN resolutions or the articles of the Geneva Convention
that I mentioned.
- Lee
