The above provides a clear example of the distorted lens that is applied repeatedly to try to demonize Israel, try to deny Israel a right of self-defense, and to try to impose on Israel conditions no sovereign state could or should accept.
Four points:
1. The North Korean famine has no relevance whatsoever to Middle Eastern affairs. Furthermore, the famine that results from internal repression coupled with natural factors is not "ethnic cleansing." Claims toward that end illustrate nothing more than a creative but wholly wrong view of what amounts to ethnic cleansing. Moreover, claims toward that end detract from the very real cases where ethnic cleansing actually occurs. But the purpose of the elaborate but wrong definition of ethnic cleansing is aimed at demonizing Israel, not civilian protections for ethnic minorities.
2. International law seeks to safeguard the flow of purely humanitarian aid. Dual-use or military assistance is not protected.
3. International law allows for reasonable enforcement. Hence, international law does not bar a nation from conducting inspections.
4. The Laws of War do not prohibit blockades. Rules concerning civilian protections apply, but blockades are not barred.
In sum, the blockade is legal and it is a highly appropriate response in self-defense to reduce the flow of weapons into the Gaza Strip that had been used in indiscriminately bombarding civilian centers in Israel (a violation of the Laws of War). Loud claims to the contrary that have no binding impact e.g., the UNHRC's sanctioned report, are irrelevant except for making bad political theater and complicating prospects for peace (from further undermining trust, incentives for conciliation, etc.).
1. I was not trying to demonise Israel, I was stating the facts of a matter that have been constantly twisted and distorted by Israe, and I will go in to the details of the blockade below. But I should mention that
when a country occupies another, there is not case for self defence. Self defence is so obviously the position of the people occupied and targeted that it is borderline ridiculous for you to consistently try to reverse cause and effect. No Occupation, no rockets. Hamas have even stated this.
2. I wasn't referring to any current situation. I created a hypothetical and rather obvious situation designed to show you that just because the high court hasn't declared something illegal, doesn't mean that it isn't so. I wasn't referring to any famine or anything at all currently happening (I meant if they physically started killing their own population, guns, etc.). A country can do something that is clearly illegal without the World Court having to make a decision. Please stop trying to claim that something is legal just because the World Court hasn't sat down and decided, which if and when it does happen, will be dismissed out of hand by Israel and her supporters anyway. I take it, going by your stance, that you also accept, due to the decision by the World Court in 2004, that all the settlements are also illegal?
3. The aid was checked and verified by the UN and other organisations and the info passed on to Israel. This was more transparent than it needed to be. Stopping the Flotilla had nothing to do with the pretense used of 'stopping the flow of arms'. And clearly, neither does the blockade itself. It was designed to punish the Gazans for voting for Hamas. Goldstone already laid this out clearly, as has every human rights organisation I know of, even the Red Cross who usually stay rather silent on most matters. Not to mention this law only applies if a blockade is deemed legal, Israel's blockade is not.
4. The rest of your points are based on the assumption that this is a legal blockade, when it clearly is not. I'll clarify.
First, we have to understand that Gaza is still occupied. This is clearly the case as I will demonstrate:
B. Israel Will Remain the Occupying Power of the Gaza Strip so long as Israel Retains
the Ability to Exercise Authority over the Strip
In The Hostages Case, the Nuremburg Tribunal expounded upon The Hague Regulations’ basic definition of occupation in order to ascertain when occupation ends.[34] It held that “[t]he test for application of the legal regime of occupation is not whether the occupying power fails to exercise effective control over the territory, but whether it has the ability to exercise such power.”[35] In that case, the Tribunal had to decide whether Germany’s occupation of Greece and Yugoslavia had ended when Germany had ceded de facto control to non-German forces of certain territories. Even though Germany did not actually control those areas, the Tribunal held that Germany indeed remained the “occupying power”—both in Greece and Yugoslavia generally and in the territories to which it had ceded control—since it could have reentered and controlled those territories at will.
Similarly, Israel will retain ultimate authority over Gaza and to a much greater degree than Germany in The Hostages Case: The Israeli military expressly reserves itself the right to enter the Gaza Strip at will. Further, Israel will not just retain the ability to exercise control over Gaza, but it will also retain effective control over Gaza’s borders, air and sea space, overall security, and international relations.
Moreover, even if Israel should devolve some of its duties to third parties—either as co-occupying powers or as designees—Israel will remain an occupying power so long as it retains the ability to effectively control the Gaza Strip at will, whether with Israel’s own troops or those of its agents or partners.
"The Israeli 'Disengagement' Plan: Gaza Still Occupied" - Report by PLO Negotiations Affairs Dept./Non-UN document (1 September 2005)
As you can clearly see from the bold, Gaza fits the criteria. Not only does it fit the criteria of the case with Germany, the precedent existing in law (along with the existing law in which that earlier decision was made), but as the part of text after the bold goes on to demonstrate, the case with Gaza goes
above and beyond the case with Germany, making the claim of their being no occupation far weaker.
If that weren't enough, we have this:
64. The Mission agrees with the assessment presented in the Goldstone Report as
follows:
Given the specific geopolitical configuration of the Gaza Strip, the powers that Israel
exercises from the borders enable it to determine the conditions of life within the
Gaza Strip. Israel controls the border crossings (including to a significant degree the
Rafah crossing to Egypt, under the terms of the Agreement on Movement and
Access) and decides what and who gets in or out of the Gaza Strip. It also controls
the territorial sea adjacent to the Gaza Strip and has declared a virtual blockade and
limits to the fishing zone, thereby regulating economic activity in that zone. It also
keeps complete control of the airspace of the Gaza Strip, inter alia, through
continuous surveillance by aircraft and unmanned aviation vehicles (UAVs) or
drones. It makes military incursions and from time to time hit targets within the
Gaza Strip. No-go areas are declared within the Gaza Strip near the border where
Israeli settlements used to be and enforced by the Israeli armed forces. Furthermore,
Israel regulates the local monetary market based on the Israeli currency (the new
sheqel) and controls taxes and custom duties.53
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/15session/A.HRC.15.21_en.pdf
Which is taken from the recent investigation and taken from Goldstone's assessement. Both of the judges involved here are of the highest authority, are recognised internationally as experts and who's decisions are so solid that they cannot even be honestly debated.
But here is another example to show that Gaza is still occupied, if it were ever needed (which it isn't):
Israel claims under Art 6 GCIV its obligations as an occupying power terminate 1 year after the close of military operations. The problem with this claim, aside of the fact that Israel claims at the same time that it is engaged in a conflict with Hamas, is that such military operations have not closed. What is a blockade if not a military operation? The effective military control which Israel exercises of Gazan airspace and territorial waters, as well as over all its land border except that with Egypt, where Israeli control is exercised indirectly through an agreement with Egypt, makes the claim that occupation has ended extremely difficult to defend. The UN regards Israel as the occupying power of Gaza, as is easily deduced from the continued operation of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs–occupied Palestinian territory. If Israel claims that it is not an occupying power, that it exercises no effective control over Gaza, and that military operations have closed, it cannot at the same time claim that a conflict exists against Hamas, that a naval blockade is in place against Gaza, that cement may not go into Gaza, and that such provisions are an exercise of the right to self-defence of Art 51 UNC. These things are incompatible.
A Juridical Analysis of the Flotilla Incident
So as we can clearly see, there can be no doubt as to whether or not Gaza is still occupied. If the law wasn't enough in itself, the fact that the UN and the vast majority of the international community have failed to recognise Israel's weak claim that they do not occupy Gaza anymore, should surely be the icing on the cake.
The UN, Human Rights Watch and many other international bodies and NGOs consider Israel to be the occupying power of the Gaza Strip as Israel controls Gaza's airspace and territorial waters, and does not allow the movement or goods in or out of Gaza by air or sea.
Gaza Strip - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Now that there can be no doubt as to the status of the occupation of Gaza, we can move on to the blockade and demonstrate why the blockade itself is illegal:
