The new Egyptian Foreign Minister has called the Gaza blockade a violation of int'l law, Angry Arab reports, and David Kenner translates (h/t Ali Gharib). The Foreign Minister is Nabil Elaraby, who was a judge in the historic Int'l Court of Justice Ruling against the separation wall, in 2005, and whose concurrent opinion went further than the other judges, and held that the occupation was illegal.
Meantime, Dennis Loh reports that a march from Egypt to Gaza to bring cement into the blockaded strip today succeeded in getting in the first bag of cement. From Facebook:
The first bag of cement!
By: Ken O'Keefe
The full translation of that sentence from the Angry Arab states that the current position adopted by the Egyptian government (i.e. Mubarak) stands in contradiction to international and humanitarian laws which forbid the imposition of a siege on civilians even during wartime.
Anyway, the moment Mubarak stepped down, the siege didn’t have a chance of surviving. It was inevitable.
Good to hear. One of the main reasons given by the previous dictator for supporting the blockade was that he did not want Israel to shed its responsibility for Gaza on to Egypt.
Although it was cruel, is there any reason to think that there could be unexpected bad outcomes from abandoning the blockade?
There is no question that israel’s multiple fascist party’s would really love to make gaza a foreign country and demand that somebody else be responsible for everything —- while will still attacking gaza at random.
Splitting off gaza would 1. fragment palestine further, 2. limit the numbers of palestinians included in the apartheid state, 3. mean they would not have to provide even residual services. 4. let them say that they are no longer occupying gaza. If there is a problem, cite egypt at the UN, not us.
If Israel tried to palm off responsibility for Gaza onto Egypt, wouldn’t that give Egypt cause to raise the matter in the Security Council, and to sue Israel in the World Court?
In my opinion, the “secret strategy” of Israel is about to collapse.
The strategy was to have an aparheid state, with Gaza bantustan removed from consideration and as many Palestinians as possible to be deported there, and to enclose West Bank Palestinians in unbereable enclaves of two classes, Area C which is a Safari park for settlers and IDF and Area A where the local quislings are largely in control. Gaza is a dumping ground and a shooting gallery.
The cooperation of Egypt was needed in two ways. First, the bantustans have to be weaponless and totally at Israel’s mercy, and Mubarak happily cooperated, being deathly afraid of Muslim Brotherhood.
Second, PA has to be a police state rather than an effective organizer of diplomacy and resistance. Here the Egyptian influence is perhaps less decisive, but I believe, important. After all, Abbas, Fayyad and company are not malevolent homunculi created by USA and Israel but people in hard position who try to make best in a hard situation. And general authoritarian climate of Arab world influences the perception of what is normal and what is not.
I agree Piotr. The collapse of the siege will be a massive blow to Israel. The costs of oppressing the Palestinians are going to rise significantly. None of it is sustainable.
Israel is already 24/27 in a list of most popular countries.
link to haaretz.com
Egypt is also letting university students cross over on Tuesday.
in an effort to keep that spirit* alive
a thought
what if right now the libyan people offer to switch from violent to peaceful revolution
provided, that is, the dictatorship do likewise
and that the struggle for the hearts and minds of the people be the sole battleground
with freedom of speech guarantee, press all the other rights of free people everywhere
but would the dictatorship accept this offer?
won’t matter
the people of libya will decide
and the rest of the world?
cheering
thereby keeping that spirit alive
*that of those eighteen days in liberation square
missed the deadline, so 8th line intended to be – with guaranteed freedom of speech, plus all the other human rights of existing democracies
my double bad, make that – with guaranteed freedom of speech, plus all the other human rights of free people everywhere (this 10′ deadline sure is tough. Still, my bad for not getting it right in time. seemed right until a final post-submit reed, and then, “damn!”
Potsherd2 where did you hear the information about the students? That is fantastic. So many students lost scholarships because they were denied exit visas and if they were told they could leave they had so many hoops to jump through and impossible demands to meet they never made it out.
How I hope Egypt emerges as a strong country….able to resist Israel and US demands. They are in a position to change their relationship with Gaza; if they do that and Gaza has some support what will emerge? Can the changes in the middle east cause Israel to rethink their their attitude towards the countries around them and the Palestinians? How can they continue along there merry way while all around them are looking at new paths? These are amazing times.
Obama needs to return to Egypt and find himself!
Ma’an: link to maannews.net
Unfortunately, they also had: link to maannews.net
speaking of ma’an news has anyone read about this.
sounds like they are shuffling the deckchairs in the pa. what a joke.
2 people who won’t be banned from Mondoweiss, because their opinions dovetail with the viewpoints here.
Khaled Meshall of Hamas and Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir (he of Darfur genocide fame) You are in good company,AVI, Annie, Chaos, Taxi etc.
link to ynetnews.com
I think the joke is on you, on israel, on zionism, on Apartheid:
link to haaretz.com
Read and eat your crow-words in slow-mo, sour-hearted longliveisrael.
Long live Israel. Is that a UHT milk ?
Why didn’t you wheel out the antisemitism slur? Or the Shoah?
Longliveisrael, specifically which opinions dovetail with the viewpoints here? Miss Murabak much?
You are in good company,AVI, Annie, Chaos, Taxi … and yourself too LLI since you are also posting on Mondo …
The wheel fell off the Hasbarrow a long time ago. All you are doing is digging yourself in deeper. Funny to watch though.
Moammar Qadhafi has just stated that he’s only defending himself, just like Israel.
And the clock stops at the right time.
Nabil Elaraby, who was a judge in the historic Int’l Court of Justice Ruling against the separation wall, in 2005, and whose concurrent opinion went further than the other judges, and held that the occupation was illegal.
You may be missing the forest for the trees. The majority opinion found that BOTH the Wall and the associated IDF administrative regime were illegal because they interfered with the exercise of the Palestinian right of self-determination. So, the occupation has become illegal:
“85. Lastly, it should be noted that the construction of the wall has been accompanied by the creation of a new administrative régime. … …142. In conclusion, the Court considers that Israel cannot rely on a right of self-defence or on a state of necessity in order to preclude the wrongfulness of the construction of the wall resulting from the considerations mentioned in paragraphs 122 and 137 above. The Court accordingly finds that the construction of the wall, and its associated régime, are contrary to international law. … …155. The Court would observe that the obligations violated by Israel include certain obligations erga omnes. …The obligations erga omnes violated by Israel are the obligation to respect the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, and certain of its obligations under international humanitarian law. … …160. Finally, the Court is of the view that the United Nations, and especially the General Assembly and the Security Council, should consider what further action is required to bring to an end the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and the associated régime, taking due account of the present Advisory Opinion.” link to icj-cij.org
So, every State has the right to exist and the right to protect and preserve its existence; this right does not however imply that a State is entitled to commit, or is justified in committing, unjust acts towards other States in order to protect and preserve its existence.
Interesting OT.
Inner City Press is reporting that the US and Susan Rice demanded at the UN that mercenaries who helped Gaddafi be exempt from International Criminal Court prosecution if they are not members of the ICC. But look at the curious language of the French Ambassador:
Interesting. In the Bosnia genocide case, the ICJ held that Security Council resolutions are subject to judicial review and that, while Article 103 of the Charter serves as a supremacy clause in the event of a conflict with other conventional agreements, it cannot be used to circumvent jus cogens (customary international law). See paragraphs 99-103 starting on page 65. link to icj-cij.org
The ICC itself merely exercises complimentary jurisdiction over certain “crimes of concern to the international community”. The Security Council cannot prevent other states from exercising customary (universal) criminal jurisdiction over the crimes being committed in Libya. Those crimes are not within the exclusive criminal jurisdiction of a single state. The Security Council is unconditionally bound by peremptory norms of international law. Current and former US officials are already dodging arrest warrants in many other countries. If they persist in their efforts to protect their own impunity, they will eventually end up facing a coalition of willing state prosecutors from other countries.
The USA reportedly has treaty agreements with many countries (small ones, I’d guess) which preclude ICC prosecution of Americans (soldiers, mercenaries, ??). This deal, for Libya, is the same sort of thing. USA/Israel demand and often acquire IMMUNITY/IMPUNITY. Neat, huh?
Someone should propose an ICC referral for crimes committed in Israel and its occupied territories and watch how soon the USA’s veto would come in, perhaps milliseconds, with an “explanation” of how the situation in greater-Israel is different form that in Libya.
Shortly after Operation Cast Lead, the Foreign Minister and the Justice Minister of the PA accepted the jurisdiction of the ICC on behalf of the government of Palestine in accordance with Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute. The declaration was made for the purpose of investigating and prosecuting those individuals responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed on Palestinian territory since 2002.
Israel and its supporters quickly cited the lapsed Oslo Accords and claimed that Israel had sole criminal jurisdiction over Israeli citizens and that Palestine is not a “State” within the (undefined) meaning of the term in Article 12(3). Both of those arguments are very doubtful.
The agreement on Gaza and Jericho stipulated that the Palestinian Authority had territorial jurisdiction and that Israel would exercise sole criminal jurisdiction over Israeli citizens through its military commander “in accordance with international law”. In 2004 the ICJ found that Israel was not acting in accordance with international law. In that case the government of Israel specifically argued:
See Annex 1 Summary legal position of the Government of Israel link to unispal.un.org
To clarify things a bit, the word “sovereign territory” appears in hasbara talking points, not in the Convention. Egypt never annexed the Gaza strip; the majority of UN member states have long since recognized the State of Palestine which is now a member of the International Red Cross Red Crescent Organization; and Jordan, Egypt, & Palestine are all signatories of the Geneva Conventions (until a Court says that they are not bound by their signed legal undertakings). In the 2004 Wall case the ICJ noted that the depositary State, Switzerland, considered Palestine’s undertaking to apply the Conventions to be valid (see paragraph 91) and that the Conventions are applicable in the Occupied Territory in any event (paras 92-101). link to icj-cij.org
For example, the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics says that there are over 7,000 prisoners in Israeli jails. That practice violates the non-deportation provisions of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (1949). Recently the Israeli High Court of Justice (HCJ) rejected a petition to order the State to refrain from holding Palestinian prisoners and detainees in facilities located in Israeli territory within the Green Line. The HCJ held that since national legislation overrides the provisions of international conventions to which Israel is party, including conventions that reflect customary international law, the petition should be rejected. But under Oslo, the Palestinians only agreed that Israeli legislation would not derogate from international law in cases involving Israel’s legislation over Israelis in personam. The notion that national legislation can be employed to sanction grave breaches of international humanitarian law or war crimes against Palestinians is part of the judge-made fundamental body of law that the Courts have incorporated into Israel’s unwritten constitution.
International courts have stated time and again that it is a universal principle of international law that a State cannot invoke its municipal law as the reason for the non-fulfillment of its international obligations. Other criminal tribunals have held that any attempt to excuse non-fulfillment of an international obligation on the basis of municipal law constitutes a breach of those obligations. See for example André Klip, Göran Sluiter, Annotated leading cases of International Criminal Tribunals: The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia 1997-1999, Intersentia nv, 2001, ISBN 9050951414, page 134.
Palestine is a member State of the League of Arab States and the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Its officials on mission to those organizations enjoy diplomatic immunity from arrest in accordance with international agreements. Those organizations also have treaties regarding extradition, e.g. the Arab Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism and the Convention of the Organization of the Islamic Conference on Combating International Terrorism. It is a nonsensical proposition to hold that State parties to the Rome Statute, such as Jordan and Comoros, DO NOT intend to treat Palestine as a “State” in accordance with Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute, but DO intend to treat it as a “State” when observing their obligations under agreements on extradition and immunity in accordance with Article 98 of the Rome Statute. Treaties cannot be interpreted that way in good faith. It is also difficult to argue that Palestine does not fulfill the criteria contained in the Montevideo Convention for statehood, when most of the State parties to that Convention accept the legal personality of the State of Palestine “with all the rights and duties determined by international law.” That convention does not contain a compromissory clause or dispute resolution regime, because those sovereign determinations are final and legally binding in the national courts of those states.
If the opening of the Rafah crossing results in arming of Hamas and other militias and they use them, then that will not be a benefit to Gazan Palestinians, but the beginning of another war.
If the opening of the Rafah crossing results in improved economy for Gazans and not to arming of militants, then then that will be a good thing, good for Gazans, good for Israel.
“If the opening of the Rafah crossing results in improved economy for Gazans and not to arming of militants, then then that will be a good thing, good for Gazans, good for Israel”
What a comedown for Zionism.
What about Shalit? And the Israelis who died in Cast Lead? What do you have to say to their families ?
To the Israeli diplomats who had to explain the Mavi Marmara?
Hopefully, Shalit will be released unilaterally.
Your point about Israelis that died in Cast Lead?
A good outcome is a good outcome. Its not determined yet whether the outcome will be good or horrible.
Well if you’re so keen on the good outcomes of opening the border, perhaps you might address why Israel has kept the border shut like a noose around Gaza, and not opened it up for the free trade of goods and commerce, not to mention basic humanitarian supplies.
The siege of Gaza is a waste of Gilad Shalit’s time, a waste of white phosphorous, a waste of conscript soldier lives, a waste of time for the people of Sderot, a waste of a very good relationship with Turkey but most of all it is a monumental waste of goodwill towards Israel and, above all, priceless Israeli political capital.
If the siege collapses Israel will have suffered a massive reputational blow.
And there is no such thing as a good outcome for Israel from the siege other than the absolute surrender of Hamas which is just ain’t going to happen.
Israel didn’t kill 9 people on the Mavi Marmara to have muppets like Richard witty less than one year later welcome the collapse of the siege. This is a disaster for Israeli deterrence.
“If the opening of the Rafah crossing results in arming of Hamas and other militias and they use them, then that will not be a benefit to Gazan Palestinians, but the beginning of another war.”
Is it bad for the Israeli people that Israel is armed? Or are Palestinains not to be permitted the means to defend themselves?
Thank you, Ken O’ Keefe. Are you going to be assisting with bunker and missile construction as well?
Let’s hope so. I know when Israel wants to kill someone they should just roll over for it but self-defense is universal and Palestinians have that right even if they belong to Hamas.
hophmi, are you going to assist in housing those made homeless by Israel’s savage attack? And putting aside the questions of constructing missiles out of cement and Israel insisting on the right to accumulate unlimited offensive weapons (which it freely uses) while Hamas is unable to amass one-millionth of that firepower, how does the bunker argument work? Bunkers are used for defensive purposes only. Doesn’t Israel claim that Hamas fighters hide behind civilians hoping Israel will accidentally kill the innocent? Doesn’t that mean Hamas has no use for bunkers, and if they actually constructed them, they would be more civilized? Doesn’t Israel try to protect its soldiers, the very ones who kill large numbers of people, from counter-attack? Why is it necessary to deny the people of Gaza cement to rebuild their shattered lives on the speculation that Hamas might use the cement not to attack Israelis but to protect themselves from Israeli attack?
“Doesn’t Israel claim that Hamas fighters hide behind civilians hoping Israel will accidentally kill the innocent? Doesn’t that mean Hamas has no use for bunkers,…”
David, you do not understand just how fiendishly cunning the swarthy, unshaven, wild-eyed, Jew-hating, fanatics of Hamas are.
They are going to use the cement to glue schoolchildren and pregnant women together, and make their bunkers that way. From those bunkers they will then fire their missiles made from cement bags and totally destroy all of Israel.
Would it be possible for Egypt and Gaza to build additional crossings?
Why does everything and every possibility have to be good for Israel?????
Perhaps disarming Israel would create peace in the Middle East. It would certainly bring more peace than disarming Palestinians.
When is a militant not a militant? Perhaps when he’s an Israeli settler?….If everyone in Israel is required to serve as a militant; doesn’t that make it a country filled with militants?..
Why are some people obsessively focused on Palestinians? There are few militants. Those who are have weapons that rate less than one on a scale of one to ten; they have no army, no air force, no navy, no nuclear weapons.
Who is the real threat?
If the border of Gaza with Egypt is permanently opened, then Israel will be able (more or less accurately) to claim that there is no occupation of Gaza. If the Palestinians do no more rocket shooting (either in offense or defense), and if Israel also refrains, it could be said that Gaza is no longer occupied and also not at war with israel (even without a treaty) and has become the “free” part of Palestine. I’d really like to hear the Hamas leadership urging the world to bring freedom to the rest of the occupied territories.
Of course, Egypt may not be ready to supply WATER to Gaza, and Israel might shut off such water (not much apparently) as it now supplies (or allows to be imported) (who pays for it?).
Some problems would remain. But mjy guess is that Israel will contrive to close Gaza’s border with Egypt.
pabelmount,
Israel has already effectively recognized Gaza as another belligerent state when the Knesset adopted a statute designating it an “enemy entity” and when Israel put the territory under a blockade. So, long as the armed forces of Israel control the airspace and maritime economic zone and continental shelf, Gaza should still be considered occupied territory.
FYI, the U.S. State Department maintains a web page on the laws of belligerent recognition which explains that blockades have historically resulted in belligerent recognition, because they are “a weapon of war between sovereign states.” link to future.state.gov
I posted some additional information about that at Tikun Olam a while back. link to richardsilverstein.com
Perhaps disarming Israel would create peace in the Middle East.
That is the funniest sentence I have yet seen on MW.
Not as funny/delusional as asking Hizbollah to disarm.
Yes, without arms supplied by the US taxpayer, Israel might have to talk to people, relate to others in the area, make treaties which mean something and ask for some trust which it would give to others. You know, basic civil behaviour which respects human rights. In other words behave equitably, instead of hiding behind a military juggernaut.
But you are right, it is laughable even to think it might happen, when it can just bomb, shoot and imprison people instead.
Why not? Israel has been unending war, terror and banditry from the day it was begotten. The Middle East had relative peace before Israel. It will have the same level of peace after Israel, at least.
“You know, basic civil behaviour which respects human rights”
Uh Huh, something in abundance in those countries that surround and/or threaten Israel.
Oh right, its always THEIR fault. Israel never wages punitive warfare or imprisons thousands without trial, or destroys towns, villages and economies. Israel is the threat and the serial abuser of human rights.
LLI is telling us the countries around Israel don’t respect human rights.
Thanks, we didn’t know that.
Can you at least write your own material and not plagiarize from Mitchell Bard?