expandmymind
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2010
- Messages
- 229
- Reaction score
- 120
- Location
- Scotland
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
The San Remo Manual states that while blockades may be legal, they're subject to the same rules of proportionality that any other military action would be. They also may not be applied to humanitarian goods. The Gaza blockade seems to fail on both points, regardless of any issues of sovereignty. It also runs counter to the trend in our understanding of human rights and how they likely apply in the context of maritime law.
Why? Please expalin. Why would it not be proportionate to require searches of all vessels going in, with all permitted cargo then being delivered by land? That to me seems entirely proportionate, when you have an enemy entity lobbing rockets at you and murdering your civilians. That to me seems wholly proportionate.
Surely searching these vessels is necessary and proportionate to keep out advanced longer range rockets, and it would be impractical (and unnecessary) to reload these ships with any non-contraband items when the goods can more easily be shipped over land.
So I think you are wrong on both points. The blockade does not apply to humanitarian goods - rather, it applies to all vessels, regardless of whether they declare themselves to be "humanitarian". Where the goods are indeed humanitarian, they are allowed in over land. Simialrly, there is a very strong argument that the blockade is proportionate to the threat posed by Hamas gaining access to advanced weapons or otherwise being able to build up its capabilities (through bunkers, infusions of cash or anything else).
why do I get the feeling that anti-Israelers believe that Hamas should be treated like the boy scouts. I mean, I know they both don't like gays, but come on now...
Israel has been notoriously delinquent about delivering or allowing humanitarian goods into Gaza, which leaves them without a strong argument for proportionality. And it doesn't help that the stated purpose of the blockade is non-military.
For for delays, that's your opinion, but Gaza is actually doing quite fine as far as getting access to humanitarian goods, which is evident to anyone willing to look past the propaganda.
targeting the regime which is in control of the area and whihc is attacking Isral from that territory is entirely military. "Regime change" is a legitimate military objective.
For for delays, that's your opinion, but Gaza is actually doing quite fine as far as getting access to humanitarian goods, which is evident to anyone willing to look past the propaganda.
Regime change isn't a military objective in the sense contemplated by San Remo, or probably by any international humanitarian law. It's a political objective, even though it may be sought by military means. As for Gaza's condition, I've linked to statistics on that before. They say a lot more than some picture of a mall with a handful of rich people in it.
Regime change is a military objective. It was the objective of the allies in WWII (unconditional surrender of the enemy nations).
With respect to Gaza, link to some more stats. Maybe ones on life expectancy, and various social statistics. Woiuld be even more helpful if you could compare those statistics to those in the west bank as well as other Arab nations. in particular, Arab nations with armed conflicts may be good comparators. Maybe Yemen?
of course, digging up sewage pipes to build rockets has not helped things there, so maybe also try to disaggregate the impact of any sanctions from the impact of Hamas' (and the PLO's beforehand) choices as government in that age old guns vs. butter allocation decision...
I'll dig up some more stats if I have time, but as to your other point, regime change isn't a military objective within the meaning of the laws we're talking about. Military purposes are those directly related to military activities, not larger political goals. That's why the San Remo Manual defines contraband material as that which is immediately useful in combat.
like I've said, the lgalities are broad, amorphous concepts. As most of international law is customary and unwritten, the key issue is principle. And preventing a hostile regime from gaining strength with which to kill your people, or even working to remove that regime from a position of power, is about as limited a military objective as you can get from a strategic perspective. It is limited because it does not involve destruction of the country or its ability to make war, just a decapitation of the apparatus that wishes to make war in the first place.
And on principle, interdicting funds being used to acquire plutonium, say, would be no different than interdicting the shipment of plutonium itself. you cannot say that the latter is allowed under international law, but the former is not and should not be. It just doesn't make sense.
Similarly, interdicting rockets and interdicting cement used to build bunkers to shield rockets from being detected and taken out is the same thing.
But it's quite different from interdicting the grain that makes the bread that feeds the children who grow up to vote for the party that supports the terrorists who attacked you. If that were a military purpose, then the distinction between military and non-military purposes would have no meaning. The many prohibitions against collective punishment in international law make it clear that such is not the case.
Which of course is not done. the ship is interdicted to verify the cargo is what the manifest says it is. Once that is confirmed, the goods are delivered over land to gaza.
What's the problem, exactly?
The problem, again, is that they allow only a minimal flow of goods in order to achieve a political end by punishing civilians.
they allowed a perfectly sufficient flow of goods. Any additional goods could flow through Egypt. If you have an issue, perhaps it would make most sense to take it up with Egypt, a country that is not the subject of wave after wave of war crimes targteing its civilians from the territory under blockade.
I haven't seen anyone specifically trying to justify Egypt's part in the blockade, but I'll be happy to say you're wrong if that's what you're trying to do.
no, what I'm saying si that Israel would be completely justified in closing its entire border (which it has not done). Israel is under no obligation to provide anything, including access, to a non-occupied territory run by a terrorist organization dedicated to its destruction and the murder of its people. That Israel does so is actually a testament to its humanity, even though it is played like you play it here. As for the blockade, to the extent people want to donate non-military non dual-use items to Gaza, Israel has set up a mechanism to do so which would allow in all of this stuff, so if you wanted to arrange for an extra 1000 tonnes of wheat a day, you could do so by docking in Israel and allowing Israel to transport the goods.
Really, the bad party in all of this is indeed Egypt, which has no real justification for closing its border (Hamas is not actively trying to murder its civilians and destroy it as a country). Israel provides gaza way more than Gaza should receive from Israel (i.e., nothing), while Israel does allow "blockaded" product into Gaza provided it is inspected first and then delivered through Israeli channels. But other than in passing condemnatiions extracted like I have above, no one actually cares about Egypt, because no one actually cares about the Palestinians. The purpose of any expressed "concern" is to advance an anti-Israel agenda, not to actually do anything to benefit the people in Hamas-controlled gaza.
That is why no one cares about what Egypt is doing - because even though waht Egypt is doing hurts Gazans just as much (or more) than what Israel is doing, the focus is, as ever, solely on Israel, distorting what Israel is actually doing (by turning tonnes of goods allowed into an enclave run by terrorist murderers bent on Israel's destruction, including generating POWER for them) into a grave, unjustifiable evil.
Just like anything and everything else Israel does to try to deal with threats to its population and existence, as per usual and per my earlier post.
So really, your criticism and characterization of what is going on, including your linking of the blockade to any shortages, have no merit whatsoever.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?