ACTION ALERT: END THE CLOSURE OF GAZA NOW!
-Forward Widely-
Call (202-667-3402) or email (Embassy@egyptembdc.org) the Egyptian Embassy and demand that Egypt open the Rafah crossing
(1/22/08) Since Friday, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza has escalated to previously unimaginable levels. Over the past five days, Gaza has been completely shut off from the rest of the world due to an Israeli - and Egyptian-enforced - closure of all border crossings. By Sunday, approximately 800,000 Gazans were left without electricity as Gaza's only power plant ran out of fuel. Many of the hospitals and medical clinics were also left with dwindling medical supplies and little to no fuel to power generators. As a result, approximately 75 Palestinians have reportedly died from the closure, and a number of patients in intensive care units have died as their emergency life support equipment cannot function without electricity. Many hospitals are forced to choose which equipment to keep running: dialysis machines, neonatal units, or heart and oxygen machines.
Furthermore, with no fuel or electricity for the water pumps and sewage treatment plants, most Gazans have now lost their running water, with several neighborhoods, including the large Zatoun neighborhood east of Gaza City, flooded with sewage.
The closure has resulted in a deliberate and collective punishment of the entire civilian population of Gaza (nearly 1.5 million Palestinians). Such collective punishment directly contravenes explicit provisions of the 4th Geneva Convention, to which Israel is a signing party.
John Ging, director of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) in Gaza said the civilian population was living in "abject misery" and had been stripped of their human dignity.
"People here in Gaza have been living in abject misery and hardship now for a long time," Ging told Al-Jazeera. "On top of that they are living in darkness… You have to see how miserable the situation is. The civilian population is under occupation. It is collective punishment - they are victims."
For its part, Egypt has willingly assisted Israel in the closure, preventing any Palestinian from leaving Gaza through the Rafah crossing. In particular, several ambulances carrying critically ill patients have been refused entry by Egyptian authorities. Faced with starvation and death, a group of Palestinian female protestors attempted to leave Gaza, only to be turned away by water cannons, gunfire, and baton-wielding Egyptian soldiers. At least 25 Palestinians have been injured by Egyptian soldiers enforcing Israel's closure.
Though the media has reported that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak telephoned Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to express opposition to the humanitarian crisis, Mubarak has followed these empty words with affirmative acts to enforce the closure. Egypt does have the power to alleviate Palestinian suffering by at least allowing entry of fuel, emergency medicine and medical supplies, and supplies needed by aid agencies to distribute food .
Call the Egyptian Embassy in Washington D.C. and demand that Egypt open the Rafah crossing, and cease enforcing the closure of Gaza now!
Embassy of Egypt
3521 International Ct. NW
Washington, DC 20008
TELEPHONE: (202) 667-3402 –or- (202) 895-5400 – or - (202) 966-6342
Email: Embassy@egyptembdc.org
For example: "As an [Arab/Arab-American/Egyptian/Concerned American], I am concerned with the humanitarian crisis that is currently transpiring in Gaza. I am especially concerned with Egypt's participation in the closure, and refusal to open the Rafah crossing as hundreds of thousands of Palestinians are trapped in life-threatening conditions."
Call the Israeli Embassy in Washington D.C. and demand an end to the closure of Gaza now!
Embassy of Israel
3514 International Dr., NW
Washington, DC 20008
TELEPHONE: (202) 364-5500
Emergency Protests
Anaheim, California: Saturday, Jan. 26, 1 p.m. 512 S. Brookhurst St. Between Orange Ave. & Broadway)
Washington DC: Friday, Jan. 25 (time tba), at the Israeli Embassy, 3514 International Dr. N.W.
San Francisco, California: Friday, Jan. 25, 4-6 p.m., Israeli Consulate, 456 Montgomery St. (near California)
New York, New York: Saturday, Jan. 26, 1 p.m. at the Israeli Embassy, 43rd St. and 2nd Ave.
Chicago, Illinois: Tues., Jan. 29, 5 pm at the Lakeshore Theater, 3175 North Broadway (at benefit for the Friends of the Israeli Defense Force)
Seattle, Washington: Friday, January 25, 4 p.m., Westlake Park, 4th & Pine Sts.
Cleveland, Ohio: Saturday, Jan. 26, 2 p.m. at 25th & Lorain across the street from the West Side Market
17 comments:
Did you miss Article 4, Fadi?
Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
Or do you feel that applies to Palestinians in Gaza? I realize you are a lawyer, but I think even you would find it a bit of a stretch to claim that all Gazans are "in the hands" (which means under the control of) the Israelis.
You probably meant part II, though:
GENERAL PROTECTION OF POPULATIONS AGAINST CERTAIN CONSEQUENCES OF WAR
Art. 13. The provisions of Part II cover the whole of the populations of the countries in conflict, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, nationality, religion or political opinion, and are intended to alleviate the sufferings caused by war.
Art. 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.
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.
The Power which allows the passage of the consignments indicated in the first paragraph of this Article may make such permission conditional on the distribution to the persons benefited thereby being made under the local supervision of the Protecting Powers.
Such consignments shall be forwarded as rapidly as possible, and the Power which permits their free passage shall have the right to prescribe the technical arrangements under which such passage is allowed.
That is the Article you have (or don't have) a case with. Article 23. There is no case for collective punishment, as what Israel is doing is not recognized as collective punishment.
Did you actually read it, Fadi? Or are you just repeating what you read some UN clown said? The sad part is that it's the UN that enforces the Geneva, Hague and Vienna conventions, but it seems the average UN employee has never even read them.
There is no case for collective punishment, as what Israel is doing is not recognized as collective punishment.
The proof of that, by the way, is the fact that the convention addresses the issues you complain about in Article 23. The one I copy pasted. Conditions under which supplies are to be allowed through to "protected persons" would not be enumerated separately, if blockading enemy supplies was considered collective punishment.
The article on collective punishment is pretty short:
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.
That's the whole thing. And they are talking about punishment for criminal acts. Somebody from the neighborhood shoots a soldier. Ten people from the neighborhood are rounded up at random, and executed. That is collective punishment, Fadi.
Your argument means shit when Israeli leaders come out and say the purpose to make life uncomfortable for Gazans.
Here's to explosives: the cause of — and solution to — all of life's problems.
Your argument means shit
It's not my argument. It's international law. The very Geneva Conventions that Palestinians like to accuse Israelis of violating so much, though they never seem to be able to find any violations committed by themselves.
If I wanted to be dismissive of the charge that Israel's current activities are in violation of the Geneva Conventions, I would have just pointed out that what they are doing is not and never has been considered collective punishment.
Instead, I copy pasted the section of the Geneva Conventions that is relevant. I don't know if an International Court could be convinced Israel is in violation Article 23 or not. I'm not a lawyer. Fadi is (as far as I know). What do you think, Fadi? I think it's a close enough thing that an international court might be at least willing to consider it. It's certain that this "Collective Punishment" accusation on Article 33 will never see the inside of a court room, which means the EU and the UN both completely screwed Gazans when they made allegations article 33 had been violated.
when Israeli leaders come out and say the purpose to make life uncomfortable for Gazans.
That is one of the purposes of warfare, is it not? Why should the Israelis deny it? Why do Palestinians launch rockets(not to mention all the other things Palestinians have done in the past)? To make Israelis happy?
I think the point being made Craig is that Israel itself has admitted the purpose of their activities is to collectively punished Palestinians - that's quite dispositive at this point. Sure, there's an argument to be made that Israel is acting to prevent Hamas from acquiring weapons or what not - which you believe is not collective punishment. But when Israeli leaders themselves make statements that the purpose is to make lives uncomfortable for Gazans, and to punish Gazans, yes, this is collective punishment under the 4th Geneva Convention.
Either way, this argument is pointless. For once, this is an argument Palestinians need not entertain. The world pretty much agrees with us on this one. Good luck in your campaign to convince everybody otherwise.
But when Israeli leaders themselves make statements that the purpose is to make lives uncomfortable for Gazans, and to punish Gazans, yes, this is collective punishment under the 4th Geneva Convention.
No, Fadi, it's not. I thought you said you were a lawyer? What Israelis say or don't say, has no bearing on whether Israel violated the Geneva Conventions or not.
Either way, this argument is pointless. For once, this is an argument Palestinians need not entertain. The world pretty much agrees with us on this one.
"The World" pretty much agrees with you on everything. At least in public, and in the form of the EU and the UN. And at the same time they completely fuck you by obfuscating the facts with what must be deliberately false accusations against Israel.
That's been going on for decades. How many condemnations against Israel has the UN approved? Compare that to the number of convictions. They know damn good and well that these "condemnations" are meaningless because they would never be sustained by a court.
Is that what you want? To muddy the waters with emotional and unsupported accusations? Or would you rather actually have something be taken before the Hague, and a conviction against Israel decided upon?
Good luck in your campaign to convince everybody otherwise.
And good luck in your campaign to defeat Israel by defaming them. That's never worked before, and it doesn't seem to be working now, but who knows? Maybe some day, in 100 years, you'll get what you want.
But when Israeli leaders themselves make statements that the purpose is to make lives uncomfortable for Gazans, and to punish Gazans, yes, this is collective punishment under the 4th Geneva Convention.
Establishing intent doesn't matter, if no law has actually been broken, Fadi. Does it? If I tell people I like to drive really fast, it doesn't make me guilty of speeding if I've never actually broken the speed limit, does it?
Where did you go to law school, Fadi? I can't be the only one who thinks it's weird for a lawyer to be making the kind of statements you make.
"...if no law has actually been broken"
Where are you getting this from? Listen Craig, the 4th Geneva Convention has been violated here... that's the law that has been broken. In particular, Israel is collectively punishing the entire Palestinian population in Gaza. That is the effect of their actions, that constitutes a breach of the 4th Geneva Convention. If Israel is to respond that in fact there is no breach, because their intent is to only hurt Hamas, then a question of intent is raised. What you're saying Craig is that there is no such thing as "collective punishment" as long as an occupier or invader can point to one combatant party that is being punished from among the collective. This, of course, has no basis in reality. Israel here is very openly and admittedly punishing the collective Palestinian population in Gaza - both in intent and effect.
"...if no law has actually been broken"
Where are you getting this from? Listen Craig, the 4th Geneva Convention has been violated here... that's the law that has been broken. In particular, Israel is collectively punishing the entire Palestinian population in Gaza. That is the effect of their actions, that constitutes a breach of the 4th Geneva Convention. If Israel is to respond that in fact there is no breach, because their intent is to only hurt Hamas, then a question of intent is raised. What you're saying Craig is that there is no such thing as "collective punishment" as long as an occupier or invader can point to one combatant party that is being punished from among the collective. This, of course, has no basis in reality. Israel here is very openly and admittedly punishing the collective Palestinian population in Gaza - both in intent and effect.
Oh, I know, Fadi! You can charge teh Israelis with conspiracy to violate article 33 of the Geneva Conventions. Only problem is that "conspiracy" is not a concept the Geneva Conventions recognize. Even with the biggest war crim of all, crimes against humanity, there is no such concept. It doens't matter how much people threaten crimes against humanity, or plot them, if there is no actual crime against humanity. It's too bad, because Ahmadihejad would be guilty of that one for sure.
Where are you getting this from? Listen Craig, the 4th Geneva Convention has been violated here... that's the law that has been broken. In particular, Israel is collectively punishing the entire Palestinian population in Gaza. That is the effect of their actions, that constitutes a breach of the 4th Geneva Convention.
No, Fadi. It's impossible for Israeli compliance with Article 23 to be construed as a violation of Article 33. How can COMPLIANCE with the Geneva conventions be at the same time considered to be a violation of them? You must first prove that what the Israelis are doing is a violation of Article 23, and then you can make the argument that the reason they violated article 23 was to collectively punish Palestinians, under Article 33. Without proving that what the Israelis are actually DOING is illegal, you can't call it collective punishment.
Do you believe that the Israelis are in violation of Article 23? Note, the very existence of Article 23 is evidence that this scenario is not unique. It's happened time and again throughout history, and that's why the Geneva Conventions describe what is lawful and what is unlawful. If you can prove a violation of Article 23, you have them. If you can't, you're just blowing smoke.
Craig, are you trying to tell us that Israel's closure of the Gaza Strip is in order to comply with Article 23! Do you know how assinine that is. Preventing humanitarian organizations from distributing foods does not comport with Article 23. Preventing critically ill Palestinians from leaving does not comport with Article 23. Again, like I've said, what Israel is doing - in both intent and effect - is punishing the collective Palestinian population of Gaza.
If Israel is to respond that in fact there is no breach, because their intent is to only hurt Hamas, then a question of intent is raised.
Israel is saying nothing of the kind. Instead of speculating about their intent, why not quote them?
Israel has no means of separating Palestinian combatants from non-combatants, because Palestinians do not separate or distinguish themselves from civilians. They use civilians as cover. The civilians suffer for that, but that is not Israel's fault. Conventions of war exist for a reason. Palestinians disregard them at their own peril.
Israel has no means of cutting of supplies to the rocketeers, except to cut off supplies to the strip.
Still waiting for any of you guys to consider the possibility that stopping the rocket attacks would be a good idea. You pooh-pooh them as not very harmful — in other words, ineffective — but you can't bring yourself to recommend that they stop.
Why is that?
Like I've said, at the least, preventing humantarian organizations from distributing foods and preventing the critically ill from leaving does constitute collective punishment, and a breach of the 4th Geneva Convention.
Fadi, what's assinine is your refusal to actual READ Article 23. I copy pasted it here for you. READ THE DAMN THING.
Preventing critically ill Palestinians from leaving does not comport with Article 23.
There isn't anything in Article 23 that requires a combatant to allow critically ill enemy nationals safe passage. Show me where there is.
Preventing humanitarian organizations from distributing foods does not comport with Article 23.
The Israelis are to allow SOME essentials through, to SOME people, under SOME circumstances.
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:
And then there are 3 cases where the Israelis are justified in not letting those consignments through.
The Power which allows the passage of the consignments indicated in the first paragraph of this Article may make such permission conditional on the distribution to the persons benefited thereby being made under the local supervision of the Protecting Powers.
The "Protecting Powers" is the United Nations. Not "humanitarian organizations". Protecting Powers means the organization responsible for upholding the Treaty. Which has been the UN for the last 50 years.
Such consignments shall be forwarded as rapidly as possible, and the Power which permits their free passage shall have the right to prescribe the technical arrangements under which such passage is allowed.
That means the UN can't just show up with aid and demand to be let through. They have to coordinate it with the Israelis.
Like I've said, at the least, preventing humantarian organizations from distributing foods and preventing the critically ill from leaving does constitute collective punishment, and a breach of the 4th Geneva Convention.
It's nice that you have that opinion, but it doesn't seem to be supported by the Geneva Conventions. I've already said I believe it to be immoral, and I think it is collective punishment, but it's not collective punishment as defined by the Geneva Conventions.
Also, you said previously that your evidence that Israel is collectively punishing Gazans is that they have said they want to make Gazans "uncomfortable". DO you believe a desire to make enemy nationals "uncomfortable" is in any way unusual? Or illegal?
This is the beginning of Part II, which contains both the articles we are arguing about:
GENERAL PROTECTION OF POPULATIONS AGAINST CERTAIN CONSEQUENCES OF WAR
Does that say "ALL CONSEQUENCES OF WAR"? Do you think being "uncomfortable" is one of the consequences of war that the Geneva Conventions are meant to protect people from?
Art. 13. The provisions of Part II cover the whole of the populations of the countries in conflict, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, nationality, religion or political opinion, and are intended to alleviate the sufferings caused by war.
Does that paragraph say "eliminate the sufferings caused by war", Fadi? Or does it say "alleviate"?
Post a Comment