posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 03:11 PM
Originally posted by virgom129
reply to post by nenothtu
Part a) here is the proof....
Part (a) states: "(a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or "
The documents referenced in that article state that it is an "economic war against Hamas", and other documents indicate it is for interdiction of
arms and military supplies. Based on those two statements (which are not contradictory, though they might appear to be at first glance), it could be
argued that the blockade actually doesn't have a 'sole' purpose, but several purposes.
Based on your reading of paragraph 102(a), and your contention that the article provided proves it's violation, are you saying that the entire
civilian population being 'starved' is actually a collection of Hamas operatives, as is the stated objective of that document?
I'm open to that possibility, if you'd like to make that case, but don't believe it to be so at the moment. I believe that Palestinian civilians in
Gaza are just civilians caught in the beaten zone, as is the case in every conflict I've ever been aware of. I further believe it's as reprehensible
of Hamas to be using their plight as a weapon of propaganda to further their own military and political objectives as it is reprehensible of Israel to
not allow the civilians to leave the area. I understand their rationale, but don't agree with it.
Che Guevara said that the guerilla must be "as a fish in the water" among the population in general. I think the proper course, tactically, would be
to allow the civilians to leave (without arms, of course), and thereby 'drain the pond' of water, leaving the fish to flop.
That's just my own wierdness, though.
[edit on 2010/6/14 by nenothtu]