Originally posted by virgom129
reply to post by nenothtu
How many people need to say its illegal before Israel agrees??
Thats the big question....
NO people have to say something is illegal for it to be made so. A law must be passed by an authorized legislative body before an action becomes
illegal. If blockading is made illegal by an international legislative body, then Israel has no choice in the matter, as illegal is illegal.
That's in theory.
In practice, 'international law' is usually arrived at by treaty consensus among a collection of nations. A treaty falls under 'contract law', and
applies then only to signatory parties of that treaty. That's why al Qaeda gets to cut off peoples heads, against the Geneva Convention. al Quaeda
was not, and is not, a signatory to the Geneva Conventions (since it isn't even a state, I doubt it would be allowed to enter the treaty, anyhow),
and as a non-signatory, is not bound by that treaty. In point of fact, as non-signatories, al Qaeda is also not afforded protection under the Geneva
Conventions, but for some odd reason those protections are often extended to them nonetheless. The only thing I can surmise is that the Geneva
Conventions are extended as to citizens of signatories, rather than as to members of a non-signatory party.
But, under Article 4 (I think) of the Geneva Conventions, protection is specifically denied to members of organizations such as al Qaeda, so I'm
really not sure what the rationale is, or why that section seems to be ignored.
The status of Hamas under the Geneva Conventions is unclear. As the governing body of Gaza, I don't think Gaza is a signatory, but I'm not sure of
the actual Statehood status of Gaza, either. The have a flag, and a government, but I don't know if they actually have a state to bear those
distinctions. As near as I can tell, Gaza is something on the order of a 'protectorate' of Israel, under Israeli jurisdiction according to the UN,
but I believe Israel disputes that, and no longer wants any part of governing Gaza - in fact denies any such relationship.
Similar issues surround the West Bank, ever since the formation of the Palestinian Authority.
BTW, this link was Aug 2009..So the statements were not based on this raid, it is also in many other links if you dont trust Fox.
Fox is as good as any of them, in my estimation. Slanted in one direction, yes, but there are few if any that aren't.
GENEVA — United Nations human rights chief Navi Pillay on Friday accused Israel of violating the rules of warfare with its blockade stopping people
and goods from moving in or out of the Gaza Strip.
She cited the conventions' requirement that "no protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective
penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited."
The convention also bans reprisals against civilians under occupation and their property.
As an "accusation", the charge may or may not have merit. That would be determined under an international court, as measured against the specific
provisions of the Geneva Conventions cited. As far as I know, the case hasn't been determined yet, although I agree, the charges are a-flyin', thick
and heavy. It would be judicially determined by a court with jurisdiction in the matter, measured by comparing measures taken against the contractual
obligations - the Geneva conventions in your example, the US Constitution in the case of American law. Similar circumstances. A party alleges
violations of a contract, and a court makes findings in the case.
In my opinion, which I'm sure you've guessed carries no international weight whatsoever, the people in Gaza are not being collectively 'punished'.
Their basic needs are being met by Israel allowing necessities in. In the case of the aid flotilla relief supplies, it is Hamas that has blocked the
transshipment, not Israel. In that case, charges should be levied against Hamas, for a court to determine, as well as Israel. It would be up to a
court to make findings in the case, separately or jointly.
I do think Israel should allow passage OUT of Gaza for those demonstrating hardship. I believe their rationale for not doing so is a fear that Hamas
fighters will slip out in the crowd, to prosecute war against Israel from elsewhere. Should they do that, while not in uniform, then they would fall
under the same provisions as al Qaeda under the Geneva Convention, and the be subject to the same penalties. The Geneva Convention allows summary
execution in such cases. Under the Geneva Convention, a 'soldier' must be a national of a belligerent party, OR a member of their armed services,
AND be in an identifiable uniform, with readily identifiable insignia. Any other belligerent falls under different headings, and is not afforded