First of all, the withdrawal of IDF land forces from Gaza in 2005 has not changed much in terms of hardship imposed upon the Gazans.
Yet nowhere do I seem to recall that I have denied IDF withdrawal from the land on Gaza in 2005, contrary to your belief.
Forced my admission?
Be honest here my friend, where have I said that IDF did not withdraw its infantry in 2005 from the Gazan land?
It is not merely that you have not denied that fact but also that you never considered it. Another important fact is that when Israel withdrew from Gaza back in '05, there was
NO blockade. The result was that Hamas was able to smuggled in enough arms to launch thousands of rockets into Israel. A blockade is an act of war. There was no blockade back in '05. Hamas armed itself. Launching thousands of rockets into another's territory is an act of war. Then a blockade was imposed. This chain of cause and consequences is irrelevant to you?
Regarding the disproportionate force, it is a fact not fiction.
Never said it was 'fiction'. I said it is legitimate to bring to the fight disproportionate force.
There are countless examples of this by IDF and I have pasted the excerpt of one such report by UN which investigated the events in Gaza.
IDF claimed that there was no possibility of deliberate targeting of civilians and its target was Hamas.
Sadly this was proven to be untrue and UN fact finding committee gave an entirely different account.
I posted it before, highlighting some important parts and yet you seem to have ignored it because we are still arguing about the legality of Israeli actions pertaining to Gaza, despite clearly falling in line with the very definition of war crimes.
Here is the link for detailed reading, maybe it makes you understand why the legality of Israeli actions has been in question.
http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/9B63490FFCBE44E5C1257632004EA67B?opendocument
Deliberately killing civilians whom the IDF troops themselves gathered at a location, deliberately targeting a hospital, etc. These are results of UN fact finding missions and not references that have no significance.
This implicates Israel in crimes that make its operations illegal due to deliberate intent to target civilians and innocents on top of the militant heads that it collects.
This is where the legality of Israeli actions comes into question; this is where most of the world sees the blockade as an extension of the same oppression which Israel has been perpetrating in the name of self defense.
If Israel was 'deliberately' targeting civilians, there would have been far more civilian deaths in Gaza. There would have been no withdrawal from Gaza, no blockade and this so-called 'humanitarian aid' fleet would have been sunk. To you, any Palestinian death no matter the actual cause is 'deliberate'.
The Goldstone report is challenged here...
Understanding The Goldstone Report
The Goldstone Report
Take-a-pen.Calls for Action-The Goldstone Report - Take A Pen's submission and actions-MEMORANDUM To the President of The United Nations Human Rights Council
I have read the entire report and you might want to check out the section where Hamas is also mentioned regarding war crimes, as scant as it was.
United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza conflict
36. Although the incidents investigated by the Mission did not establish the use of mosques for military purposes or to shield military activities, it cannot exclude that this might have occurred in other cases. The Mission did not find any evidence to support the allegations that hospital facilities were used by the Gaza authorities or by Palestinians armed groups to shield military activities or that ambulances were used to transport combatants or for other military purposes. On the basis of its own investigations and the statements by United Nations officials, the Mission excludes that Palestinian armed groups engaged in combat activities from United Nations facilities that were used as shelters during the military operations. The Mission cannot, however, discount the possibility that Palestinian armed groups were active in the vicinity of such United Nations facilities and hospitals. While the conduct of hostilities in built-up areas does not, of itself, constitute a violation of international law, Palestinian armed groups, where they launched attacks close to civilian or protected buildings, unnecessarily exposed the civilian population of Gaza to danger.
108. The Mission has determined that the rockets and, to a lesser extent, the mortars fired by the Palestinian armed groups are incapable of being directed towards specific military objectives and have been fired into areas where civilian populations are based. The Mission has further determined that these attacks constitute indiscriminate attacks on the civilian population of southern Israel and that, where there is no intended military target and the rockets and mortars are launched into a civilian population, they constitute a deliberate attack against a civilian population.
For us military types who have been to the ME at any time, it is drilled into us that if it ever come to war, we had be prepared to face the reality that civilian human shield will be used by ME militaries. There are no shortages of video evidences that protected vehicles such as ambulances were used by various Palestinian armed groups to transport weapons and combatants. Why is this not a war crime to you? The ME militaries have no respect for any rules of war. Hamas, Hezbollah or Fatah are no different. The reason why Hamas launched rockets near protected areas is because they want Israel to respond and for Gazans to die so they can engage in a PR campaign that Israel 'deliberately' targeted civilians.
On page 150 paragraph 493 of the Goldstone report, it read...
493. The reports received by the Mission suggest that it is likely that the Palestinian armed groups did not at all times adequately distinguish themselves from the civilian population among whom the hostilities were being conducted. Their failure to distinguish themselves from the civilian population by distinctive signs is not a violation of international law in itself, but would have denied them some of the legal privileges afforded to combatants.
That is patently false. International law
DEMANDED that combatants clearly distinguish themselves from non-combatants...
International Humanitarian Law - Third 1949 Geneva Convention
Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
International Humanitarian Law - Additional Protocol I 1977
Article 37 -- Prohibition of perfidy
1. It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy. The following acts are examples of perfidy:
(a) the feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or of a surrender;
(b) the feigning of an incapacitation by wounds or sickness;
(c) the feigning of civilian, non-combatant status; and
(d) the feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict.
2. Ruses of war are not prohibited. Such ruses are acts which are intended to mislead an adversary or to induce him to act recklessly but which infringe no rule of international law applicable in armed conflict and which are not perfidious because they do not invite the confidence of an adversary with respect to protection under that law. The following are examples of such ruses: the use of camouflage, decoys, mock operations and misinformation.
In order to earn POW status, the combatant
MUST clearly distinguish himself from non-combatants in both visual and physical, meaning not only must he be in some sort of uniform but he must also removed himself from civilian areas. Not only that, his military operations must also be equally removed, such as rocket launchers or headquarters or tanks or aircrafts. So when the Goldstone report make this kind of egregious error, no wonder so many people have doubts about the report's true intent, which is to protect Hamas by overemphasizing Israeli actions and even distortion of international laws. By refusing to clearly distinguish themselves from non-combatants, Hamas fighters are guilty of perfidy, which is a war crime under international law. Or are these applicable only to Israel?
Regarding the particulars of the blockade and its legality, IDF has withdrawn from the Land but it is not like they have left Gaza alone and just resort to the blockade and inspection of goods.
IDF has practically saved itself from bloody urban battles and yet can bombard any area at any given time by using its air assets, naval vessels and its heavy artillery, which it does without any restraint. Hamas is dealt with by using maximum force resulting in a lot of collateral so IDF has not given any respite to Gazans by reducing the military approach.
Why have Israel not left Gaza alone? Let me guess, you 'forgot' that Hamas had nothing to do with those rockets? By withdrawal from Gaza and with no blockade, Israel took a gamble to place some measure of trust that such concession will earn some peace. Can you explain why Hamas attacked?
To pretend that the blockade is a more peaceful posture is not correct. Blockade currently serves as an additional means to target Gazans as a whole regardless of militant or civilian; it is not an alternative to the bombardment carried out by IDF.
There is no pretense here that a blockade is are more restrained form of warfare. If you want Israel to specifically target Hamas military-type areas, feel free to point them out to me. Else Israel would have to reenter Gaza as a belligerent occupier. A blockade is an act of war. So is launching rockets into another's territory. Or did you forget that there were rockets?
The fact remains that Israel has blockaded Gaza and does not let in ample provisions as per UN and other independent sources. There is a severe shortage of provisions for the use of ordinary Civilians who are all suffering as a result.
And there are plenty of sources that contradict you...
CIC Scene Facts Beyond the Spin: Israel Delivers Massive Aid to Gaza
The Muqata: Exclusive: Interview with Senior Israeli Official from COGAT
As of now, there are 8 trucks at the Israeli - Gaza border crossing of Kerem Shalom; 7 of which contain medical equipment for the disabled and elderly, including 100 electric mobility scooters and hundreds of wheelchairs.
Unfortunately, the disabled, sick and elderly in Gaza are denied this aid, because Hamas has forbidden anyone in Gaza to coordinate the distribution of this equipment.
Hamas has stated that until every last one of the flotilla activists have returned to their home countries, they will refuse to allow the aid to enter Gaza."
So Hamas is punishing Gazans but no one raised hue and cry about it.
"On a daily basis 80-100 trucks with humanitarian aid enters Gaza via Israel. The aid is not only medical supplies, but also contains supplies that support a wide range of important infrastructure projects, including water, sewage, and electrical power. We [COGAT] coordinate our efforts with UNRWA, UNESCO, WHO, UNICEF and we even help facilitate the transfer of toys and the enabling of mobile swimming pools for Gazan summer camps.
The result of the current policies is that theirs a wide inventory and scale of food products, medical equipment and medications. Any allegations to the contrary are baseless; these facts are well-documented in UN agencies' official reports.
If there are any discrepancy of aid figures between COGAT and the UN, they can be explain or reconciled, but it cannot be said that Israel is not working with the UN or NGOs to deliver aid, provided that any shipment is available for inspection, which is legal under blockades. So COGAT is openly challeging any UN official who declared otherwise.
Q: If its urgent for all this humanitarian aid to get into Gaza, why is Hamas not allowing it in?
A: We (COGAT) have even asked the Red Cross to help with distributing the medical equipment, yet they have refused to get involved. We have 13 trucks waiting in Israel, not including the 9 at the Keren Shalom crossing, and we're just waiting to send it in.
To be fair to the Red Cross, if there is insufficient security or protection from the fighting, then the Red Cross is undestandibly reluctant. But it begs the question of why is there fighting in the first place when Israel withdrew from Gaza and had no blockade back then. Can you explain why?
And the ICRC blames differences between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority for some of Gaza's shortages.
A watered down criticism. You can criticize both parties but to mislead you would cast the heaviest condemnation onto one. Did the ICRC say anything about originally there were no blockade?
But the key message from the body which rarely publicly criticises governments is that Israel's blockade of Gaza must be lifted.
Yes...That is desirable. But so is Israel's security from the Gaza territory. Who is the guarantor?
The alleged illegality of the blockade has certainly not died an analytical death as you have commented.
Yes it has.
The blockade is not legal since it is a deliberate attempt to harm non combatants and innocents.
If that is true, then blockades are never 'legal' to start. What you mean here is if a blockade is justified. UN resolutions 661 and 665 are blockades against Iraq. Throughout history, there are plenty of other blockades that are justified, at least in some views. The American blockade of Cuba, in the US view, was justified but it can arguably be illegal since Cuba was not in any armed conflict against the US. The nuclear weapons severity necessitated the total blockade of Cuba. For Gaza, the blockade is justified because Israel does not want to be a belligerent occupier but is compelled to impose the blockade because of Hamas. Or did you conveniently forgot about the rockets that Hamas smuggled in when there was no blockade?
It is not just being used to screen for weapons or contraband as per comments by Israel on the purpose of the blockade.
Then what is it for?
At the end of the day, it is deliberately being used against all Gazans to regulate everyday items and create a shortage of these items; it is being used to let in not more than 25% of what was the requirement in 2005.
The intent therefore is to deliberately and directly make life difficult for the ordinary civilian living in Gaza.
The intent is to deliberately make the non combatants suffer.
The intent is criminal, not legal.
The action is in violation of international humanitarian law and hence it is not legal.
If this was not the intent then Israel would have had no problem in satisfying UN and other neutral parties over the amount of provisions it lets into Gaza, the policy of depriving a people of basic provisions of life in adequate quantity is not something we can allude to as legal or justified.
Then all Hamas has to do is stop using Gaza as a war staging front. Do you agree? Remember, Israel withdrew back in '05 and there was no blockade? Care to explain why there is a blockade now?
All in all, there is an urgent need to restore some sort of normalcy in Gaza, which is impossible with the blockade in place.
You mean you want it normal as in normal for Hamas to launch rockets? Care to explain why the rockets when Israel withdrew from Gaza back in '05 and there was no blockade?
Regarding what really happened during this particular episode, the facts have yet to be established regarding who started the violence. Surely relying just on IDF accounts and a brief video processed by Israel is not enough evidence in a court of inquiry.
The peace activists give a different account. The video released so far by Israel stops before the soldiers in the video open fire. The other videos are in bits and pieces as well.
The activists were killed by bullets and not paintball guns, the IDF did not just use paintball guns at the end of the day.
Here is a screenshot of the activist video that I downloaded...
That was from the full 60 min video, not from the IDF but from Iara Lee, who was on that ship and in that video. At around the 36 min. mark is where some actions begin. Israeli helo troop drop did not happened until after the above screenshot. We can clearly see that Israeli troops were shooting with paintball guns. The first 'shots' in the video were from 'flash-bangs'. I know that sound. The 'flash-bangs' can be painful but they are not lethal. These 'peace activists' probably learned of this fact from the other ships. They were prepared to assault those Israeli troops.
Were the Israeli commandos in a do or die situation prior to killing the activities?
Were the dead activists attacking IDF soldiers when they were shot? What were the dead activists armed with when they were killed? When did IDF first shoot at the flotilla?
In the confusion of any gunfight, especially one in close quarters, probably some were killed by stray shots not because they were directly in a fight. Some were killed because they were in direct fights. But if you are outnumbered two or more why is it unreasonable to assume that you are in a life threatening situation?
If IDF did nothing wrong and all evidence is in its favor as you so vehemently have been advocating, then surely Israelis have nothing to fear from an independent inquiry by UN.
A UN inquiry is something very much valid here since this was an event which occurred in international waters and with many nationalities involved. What better way to exonerate its soldiers than a UN inquiry?
We can criticize Israel for not using the UN. But an 'independent' UN enquiry should have a basis, meaning what is it investigating for? Is it illegal to board ships in international waters? Not really...
Crimes Under Flags of Convenience | YaleGlobal Online Magazine
In June, 2002, French commandos boarded the Cambodian-registered freighter Winner in international waters in the Atlantic amid an exchange of gunfire that injured one of the 12 crew members. The troops seized more than one tonne of Colombian cocaine worth well over $100 million in a cargo that was registered as scrap iron destined for Bilbao in Spain. Officials said that the raid was the result of 15-months of surveillance involving U.S., French, Spanish and Greek authorities.
A blockade is an act of war. Running a blockade, regardless of one's claim to peaceful intent and under the full knowledge that there is a blockade, is also an act of war. That mean intercepting a blockade runner in international waters is legal. International law state that the moment a non-combatant pick up a weapon, even an improvised one, and attack a soldier, one who is clearly distinguished such as wearing a uniform, the civilian loses immunity from attack or reprisal. That is not debatable.
I am not a betting man, but i can bet one thing.
The day USA stops shielding Israel in the UN security council, the situation will start to improve, otherwise it is a highway to hell for the Palestinian people.
You can also bet that the day Hamas lay down its arms in Gaza and there is a competent authority in Gaza to assure Israel of its right to security, Israel will no good cause for any blockade or any travel restrictions in/out out Gaza. Funny that Egypt is not mentioned since Egypt is doing the same thing as Israel. But then again, if these 'peace activists' had dared to run the Egyptian land blockade, all of them would have been dead.
