Craving Peaches Posted October 12, 2023 Share Posted October 12, 2023 1 minute ago, Ran said: Israel has not occupied Gaza since 2005, and probably bears no responsibility to actually give Gaza supplies. Yes, but they shouldn't be cutting off supplies either. They bomb Palestinian fishing boats... 2 minutes ago, Ran said: Egypt, OTOH, can send aid They could have sent some already if it wasn't for Israel bombing the border. 3 minutes ago, Ran said: The relevant portion of the Geneva Convention is Protocol I, and Israel is not signatory to that protocol. Great, sure that makes all the starving Palestinians feel much better. "It's not technically a war crime because Israel didn't sign a piece of paper". Why are you trying to justify something so obviously horrible? Do you think anyone went, 'Oh, don't worry, Hamas didn't sign the Geneva convention so it's not technically a war crime"? dbergkvist, kissdbyfire, Many-Faced Votary and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ran Posted October 12, 2023 Share Posted October 12, 2023 (edited) 25 minutes ago, ljkeane said: ctually it’s Geneva Convention IV which Israel is a signatory to Protocol I includes the specific siege warfare language in Convention IV that Israel has not signed on to. Israel's signature dates from the original 1949 version of the convention, but it noted reservations in amendments that followed and, as I said, did not sign on to the 1977 protocol which is the one that discusses starvation of civilians and provision of food. Feel free to look up "starvation" or "siege" in the 1949 Geneva Convention -- it's not there. See here for a handy discussion that underscores the point that the "siege" stuff people are citing are all from the additional protocol, which (again) neither Israel nor the government of Gaza are signatory to. 25 minutes ago, ljkeane said: Of course cutting off food and water to a civilian population is a war crime, let alone using it as a tactic for collective punishment. Are you actually trying to say it shouldn’t be? War crimes have an actual definition related to international law and treaties. Countries that are not signatories to treaties can't generally be held to them (though I suppose such matters can be referred to the ICC via the Security Council, but we've discussed that already), because that would generally defy the principle of sovereignty. I think Israel should have been a signatory, but they aren't... and in any case, again, when one side in hostilities decides to cut off the flow of goods from them to the belligerent, that seems fine? Again, Egypt can send whatever humanitarian supplies it wishes, and as I said, they are working on it. The problem, of course, is that Gaza has been dependent on Israel's supply, so the sudden halt is a shock, but I'm not sure this means Israel has some sort of responsibility to do anything more than, perhaps, suggest it'd taper things off within a certain deadline rather than an immediate halt. I would have advised that, if anyone asked me, but I really can't see why people are buying the idea that Gaza is completely landlocked within the bounds of Israel. ETA: From the NYT two days ago: Quote Gaza’s border with Egypt remained open with limited traffic on Tuesday, and truckloads of food, construction material, fuel and emergency medical supplies entered over the weekend. But Egypt also heavily controls the movement of people and goods across its border crossing, opening and closing it in response to security conditions. Now, if the "complete siege" includes Israel interfering with the Egyptian border and preventing supplies entering, I agree, that would certainly be a war crime. Edited October 12, 2023 by Ran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted October 12, 2023 Share Posted October 12, 2023 6 minutes ago, Ran said: I really can't see why people are buying the idea that Gaza is completely landlocked within the bounds of Israel. ???????????????????????????????? Crixus 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ran Posted October 12, 2023 Share Posted October 12, 2023 3 minutes ago, Zorral said: ???????????????????????????????? For Gaza to be "under siege" would mean that it was completely surrounded by Israel's forces. It is not. See my added quote from the NYT that shows supplies are entering via Egypt, just not (at this time) sufficient to meet current needs because Israel is not longer providing supplies to go through its borders with Gaza. I think people have read "complete siege" to mean a much worse situation (i.e. total lack of supplies) than is actually the case. That's on Israel's loose language, but obviously, they can only speak for what they themselves are doing. They don't control the Egypt-Gaza border. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craving Peaches Posted October 12, 2023 Share Posted October 12, 2023 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Ran said: Again, Egypt can send whatever humanitarian supplies it wishes It cannot, because Israel is bombing the border! https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.aljazeera.com/amp/program/newsfeed/2023/10/11/israel-bombs-gazas-border-crossing-with-egypt https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-said-to-bomb-rafah-crossing-to-egypt-after-telling-gazans-to-flee-through-it/amp/ 18 minutes ago, Ran said: wishes, and as I said, they are working on it. The problem, of course, is that Gaza has been dependent on Israel's supply https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_aid_to_Palestinians https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/us-aid-palestine-israel-military-done-deal-century-financial Israel does not give much, if any, aid to Gazans, since it has been blockading them since 2007. It also undermines the EU's attempts to give aid. 18 minutes ago, Ran said: but I really can't see why people are buying the idea that Gaza is completely landlocked within the bounds of Israel. Because it is since, again, Israel is bombing the border with Egypt. 18 minutes ago, Ran said: goods from them to the belligerent, that seems fine? So you are saying all 2.3 million people, 50% of them children, are all Hamas members? Edited October 12, 2023 by Craving Peaches Many-Faced Votary, Crixus and dbergkvist 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werthead Posted October 12, 2023 Share Posted October 12, 2023 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Ran said: I really can't see why people are buying the idea that Gaza is completely landlocked within the bounds of Israel. The current Egyptian regime holds Hamas to be effectively the same organisation as its arch-nemesis, the Islamic Brotherhood, and is more than happy to join in a siege of Gaza to prevent Hamas from seizing a foothold in Egypt. Whilst Gaza is not completely landlocked within the bounds of Israel, that is not particularly relevant: Egypt does not want Hamas on its soil. Under normal circumstances it does allow Palestinians to leave Gaza and enter Egypt, but only a maximum of 400 a day, and only after thorough vetting, which of course is not possible under current circumstances. The Egyptian side of the border is also pretty much desert (it's on the edge of the Sinai); there's no infrastructure or facilities within easy walking distance to accommodate masses of refugees. Even if Egypt threw open the borders altogether and walked away, the death toll would still be horrendous. It's "technically correct" (in this case, not the best kind of correct) to say that Gaza is not under a complete siege by Israel. It would also be correct to say that St. Petersburg was not under a complete siege by the Nazis during World War II (narrow corridors out of the city remained open most of the time, plus the ice road in winter). This was of limited consolation to the 1.3 million people who died in the siege. Edited October 12, 2023 by Werthead Corvinus85, Crixus, kissdbyfire and 2 others 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craving Peaches Posted October 12, 2023 Share Posted October 12, 2023 3 minutes ago, Ran said: See my added quote from the NYT that shows supplies are entering via Egypt Two days ago, yes. Not now. Israel is bombing the border. dbergkvist 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Padraig Posted October 12, 2023 Share Posted October 12, 2023 7 minutes ago, Ran said: Feel free to look up "starvation" or "siege" in the 1949 Geneva Convention -- it's not there. Geez. It is collective punishment Here is Convention IV. https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.33_GC-IV-EN.pdf ART. 33. — No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited. Pillage is prohibited. Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited. 12 minutes ago, Ran said: Again, Egypt can send whatever humanitarian supplies it wishes, and as I said, they are working on it. Where did you read this? Israel has bombed the one crossing between Gaza and Egypt. Has Israel said it wouldn't bomb aid crossing the border? Because who knows whether it is really aid? It would be much safer if Israel allowed aid itself into Gaza rather than allowing who knows what cross from Egypt. kissdbyfire, Crixus, Many-Faced Votary and 3 others 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljkeane Posted October 12, 2023 Share Posted October 12, 2023 3 minutes ago, Ran said: Protocol I includes the specific siege warfare language in Convention IV that Israel has not signed on to. Israel's signature dates from the original 1949 version of the convention, but it noted reservations in amendments that followed and, as I said, did not sign on to the 1977 protocol which is the one that discusses starvation of civilians and provision of food. Feel free to look up "starvation" or "siege" in the 1949 Geneva Convention -- it's not there. Geneva Convention IV Article 23 : Each High Contracting Party shall allow the free passage of all consignments of medical and hospital stores and objects necessary for religious worship intended only for civilians of another High Contracting Party, even if the latter is its adversary. It shall likewise permit the free passage of all consignments of essential foodstuffs, clothing and tonics intended for children under fifteen, expectant mothers and maternity cases. Article 33: No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited. Pillage is prohibited. Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited I think that's more than enough to cover it. Glad you're on board that this is a war crime. Many-Faced Votary, Craving Peaches and dbergkvist 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ran Posted October 12, 2023 Share Posted October 12, 2023 1 minute ago, Padraig said: ART. 33. — No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited. Pillage is prohibited. Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited. You'll find a lot of arguments about just what Article 33 means in terms of a collective penalty, which is partially why the Additional Protocols exist. Does one side in a conflict cutting off trade or the flow of goods to another side of the conflict entail a collective penalty, if they can get goods from elsewhere? Is the purpose of the action to punish the civilian population? And so on. 3 minutes ago, Padraig said: Where did you read this? Israel has bombed the one crossing between Gaza and Egypt. I believe there hasn't been any more bombing in the last day or two, and Egypt and Israel are communicating about it. See the NYT article about the fact that supplies were getting through via Egypt at the time ofwriting. My guess is they were targeting what they believed to be Hamas forces trying to move through the checkpoint (they struck the Palestinian side, not the Egyptian side.) 3 minutes ago, Padraig said: Has Israel said it wouldn't bomb aid crossing the border? Because who knows whether it is really aid? It would be much safer if Israel allowed aid itself into Gaza rather than allowing who knows what cross from Egypt. Here is an article on the on-going talks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ran Posted October 12, 2023 Share Posted October 12, 2023 7 minutes ago, ljkeane said: It shall likewise permit the free passage of all consignments of essential foodstuffs, clothing and tonics intended for children under fifteen, expectant mothers and maternity cases. You need to continue listing the rest of the convention: Quote The obligation of a High Contracting Party to allow the free passage of the consignments indicated in the preceding paragraph is subject to the condition that this Party is satisfied that there are no serious reasons for fearing: (a) that the consignments may be diverted from their destination, (b) that the control may not be effective, or (c) that a definite advantage may accrue to the military efforts or economy of the enemy through the substitution of the above-mentioned consignments for goods which would otherwise be provided or produced by the enemy or through the release of such material, services or facilities as would otherwise be required for the production of such goods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kissdbyfire Posted October 12, 2023 Share Posted October 12, 2023 There are conflicting reports about the situation. https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/israel-hamas-war-gaza/card/israeli-strike-on-gaza-s-border-crossing-with-egypt-disrupts-aid-flow-dDrRKrtPvURrsfGZuMVM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Many-Faced Votary Posted October 12, 2023 Share Posted October 12, 2023 29 minutes ago, Ran said: War crimes have an actual definition related to international law and treaties. Countries that are not signatories to treaties can't generally be held to them (though I suppose such matters can be referred to the ICC via the Security Council, but we've discussed that already), because that would generally defy the principle of sovereignty. The very premise on which your attempt to avoid calling war crimes what they are is predicated on a false belief. The UN explicitly defines war crimes as "those found in international humanitarian law and international criminal law treaties, as well as in international customary law." The Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols are considered customary law and bind all member states, regardless of whether or not they ratified them. The raison d'être of the United Nations is the sovereign equality of states, which supersedes and does not violate internal sovereignty. Sovereignty is not an excuse to avoid domestic and international obligations, and in fact, the UN Charter makes this clear. ljkeane, Craving Peaches, kissdbyfire and 2 others 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Padraig Posted October 12, 2023 Share Posted October 12, 2023 18 minutes ago, Ran said: though I suppose such matters can be referred to the ICC via the Security Council, but we've discussed that already This is actually important. If your argument really was that because Israel didn't sign a document, it couldn't be legally charged with a war crime, then why has the Security Council the right to refer Israel to the ICC for the same war crime? The US not allowing this doesn't get away from the fact that it could allow Israel to be charged. Quote You'll find a lot of arguments about just what Article 33 means in terms of a collective penalty, which is partially why the Additional Protocols exist. Does one side in a conflict cutting off trade or the flow of goods to another side of the conflict entail a collective penalty, if they can get goods from elsewhere? Is the purpose of the action to punish the civilian population? And so on. Dare I ask. Do you think this is a case of collective punishment? We all know the legal system fails but this board has no legal basis. We can all make our own moral judgements. 3 minutes ago, Ran said: Here is an article on the on-going talks. This is exactly my point. You suggest that Egypt can simply supply aid to Gaza without any discussions. Yet here we are, ongoing talks. I really think you have been reading very slanted news... kissdbyfire, Craving Peaches and Many-Faced Votary 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craving Peaches Posted October 12, 2023 Share Posted October 12, 2023 8 minutes ago, Ran said: I believe there hasn't been any more bombing in the last day or two, https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-said-to-bomb-rafah-crossing-to-egypt-after-telling-gazans-to-flee-through-it/amp/ 10th of October https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.aljazeera.com/amp/program/newsfeed/2023/10/11/israel-bombs-gazas-border-crossing-with-egypt 11th of October Today's date - 12th of October. Crixus, kissdbyfire, Ran and 1 other 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted October 12, 2023 Share Posted October 12, 2023 How often must it be repeated? As Deaths Soar in Gaza From Israeli Strikes, Egypt Offers Aid, but No Exit Gazans are blocked from fleeing through Egypt, which has kept tight control of its border. "But the only viable exit is a border crossing into Egypt, and that country, as ever in times of war, is keeping it firmly shut." https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/12/world/middleeast/gaza-egypt-israel-strikes.html Quote As Israeli warplanes pound Gaza, killing more than 1,400 people and crushing buildings in response to last weekend’s unprecedented attack by Hamas, Israel’s leadership has repeatedly urged civilians to flee the territory while they can. “Get out now,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Saturday, vowing to unleash the full force of Israel’s military. But the only viable exit is a border crossing into Egypt, and that country, as ever in times of war, is keeping it firmly shut. The Egyptians are adamantly opposed to allowing Gazans to cross the border for fear the country could become sucked deeper into the crisis — even as Israel presses ahead with a punishing siege that is rapidly escalating into a dire humanitarian crisis. .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ran Posted October 12, 2023 Share Posted October 12, 2023 I can't find much on what Israel has said about Rafah crossing. The ongoing talks relate to other countries providing the aid that Egypt would pass through. If Israel is not targeting Hamas and is instead deliberately and purposefully interfering with supply from the Egyptian side, then, as I said, I'd consider that a war crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted October 12, 2023 Share Posted October 12, 2023 Arguing legal technicalities aside, I think we would all agree, surely, that what Israel is doing is morally unjustifiable. It is in effect if not in law collective punishment of innocents. I would hope that there would be no attempt to justify that, any more than there would be attempts to justify Hamas’ morally repugnant behaviour as not a war crime because technically they’re not a signatory state either. cock_merchant, Many-Faced Votary, Crixus and 4 others 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craving Peaches Posted October 12, 2023 Share Posted October 12, 2023 2 minutes ago, Ran said: I can't find much on what Israel has said about Rafah crossing Because they've been bombing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ran Posted October 12, 2023 Share Posted October 12, 2023 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said: Because they've been bombing it. They tend to answer when asked about why they went after specific targets. Unfortunately, most of the press conferences are in Hebrew. ETA: An article from today from the NYT about all this. Egypt is urging countries to send supplies to a staging airport near the border. Edited October 12, 2023 by Ran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts