Israel defies International Law

Human shields, International law and the seige of Gaza

David Foster from Inside Story (UK) interviews guests from Tel Aviv, Doha and London.

Don't say you didn't know about:
Israel and international law.
Drafted by Richard Kuper and Daniella Jaff-Klein with thanks to Azem Bishara.

The Fourth Geneva Convention 1949:

The Fourth Geneva Convention was specifically designed to protect civilians in time of war and focuses on the treatment of civilians in the hands of the adversary, whether in occupied territories or in internment. * It was adopted on 12 August 1949 and entered into force on 21 October 1950.

2. Applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the Occupied Territories * Israel ratified the Fourth Geneva Convention with effect from 6 July 1951. * The convention is considered to have been elevated to the status of "customary international law", which means it applies irrespective of whether a State has ratified it. * Apart from Israel, the entire international community, has unambiguously accepted the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to those territories captured and occupied by Israel in the 1967 war, which include the West Bank and Gaza. * Both the Security Council and the General Assembly have consistently issued resolutions calling on Israel to recognise the applicability of the Convention, a view that has been endorsed by the International Committee of the Red Cross.

3. Scope of the Fourth Geneva Convention * The Convention deals specifically with the treatment of what it calls 'protected persons' - civilians who find themselves in enemy hands as a result of a conflict or an occupation. * The Convention prohibits, among other things, violence to life and person, torture, taking of hostages, humiliating and degrading treatment, sentencing and execution without due legal process, and collective punishments of any kind, with respect to all "protected persons". It calls for them to be humanely treated at all times, with no physical or moral coercion, intimidation, deportation. * It specifies 'grave breaches' of the Convention as including willful killing; torture or inhuman treatment; willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health; unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person; willfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial; taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• International Law
• Israel
• nazis
• propaganda
• Gaza
• Palestinians
• middle east
• United Nations
• death
• destruction
• children

[OBZ]

@steute2011 I agree, the Refugee issue is the biggest issue to deal with. Whatever becomes the Palestinian state will be the national home of the Palestinians, though I believe that compensation should be a collective effort by Israel and the Arab nations (since Israel did not initiate the war which led to their plight, and many refugees were encouraged to flee by the Arab governments). With that, I also believe that Jewish Arab refugees following 1948 should also get compensation for losses.

[OBZ]

@steute2011 Yes there are debates about who was the defender and aggressor. I look at it this way sometimes: Israel's pre-emptive strike began with Egypt. Jordan, being unharmed, attacked Israel following that and after two major warnings, they did not stop attacking. Therefore, Israel went in there and captured the territory following Jordan's aggression. I know it's probably not a proper way to look at it, but I feel like it's worth understanding.

[OBZ]

@steute2011 Yes, inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war is highly stressed by Lord Caradon, but again you must look at the big picture. The resolution calls for peace and then return of land, not simply returning territory unconditionally. There were two peace treaties and neither Egypt nor Jordan wanted Gaza and the West Bank respectively, so Israel kept them.

[OBZ]

@steute2011 That's generally where the idea of land swaps comes in, and I think that's the likely solution.

[OBZ]

@steute2011 Lord Caradon may have considered those territories to be occupied, but he continuously stressed looking at the resolution as a whole and not simply taking parts out. He stressed a withdrawal from territories rather than "the" territories, and if you read his interviews you will discover that he did not believe that Israel should return to the 1967 line because it is "just the places the soldiers of each side happened to be the day the fighting stopped in 1948." Continued->

[steute2011]

@OBZ Certainly the Arab Palestinians will need to give a promise of peace, negotiate in good faith and recognition, which I believe they are prepared to do. However, I think the biggest issue will be the Refugee question. This is the one issue where I completely side with Israel. There is no way they can accept 5 million Arabs into Israel proper. So, I think if they gave the occupied territories back and compensation for the refugees. Maybe it would work?

[steute2011]

@OBZ The emphasis on the law "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war", without an exception for being the defender. There is also some question as to whether the the 1967 war was in fact considered defensive, since Israel launched a preemptive strike against Egypt and most Scholars do not consider a preemptive strike to be defensive. It assumes that the other side was going to attack without it having done so. Naturally the other side will say it was never going to attack.

[steute2011]

@OBZ I believe this statement by Lord Caradon, the chief author of the resolution: It was from occupied territories that the Resolution called for withdrawal. The test was which territories were occupied. That was a test not possibly subject to any doubt. As a matter of plain fact East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan and Sinai were occupied in the 1967 conflict. It was on withdrawal from occupied territories that the Resolution insisted. Sums up that question. Cont.>>

[OBZ]

@steute2011 But one thing I do agree with is that Israel should not have built and grown settlements, they are extremely politically contentious and as you said, would have helped Israel gain world support whereas now I think most nations are opposed to the settlements.

[OBZ]

@steute2011 It turned out that Egypt agreed to sign a peace treaty with Israel in 1979 in exchange for territory (Sinai but not Gaza, since Egypt did not want it) and then again with Jordan in 1994, both in accordance to Resolution 242. Now we have yet to negotiate with Syria regarding the Golan Heights.

True, Israel is a strong nation technologically and militarily, but it is still very easy to harm its citizens without causing significant damage to the state(i.e. qassam rockets from Gaza)