[MENTION=19170]Coyote[/MENTION], aris2chat,
et al,
There is no question that the events and situations experienced in the latter part of the 20th Century and the first decade (+) of the 21st Century have developed such that the question of "when an occupation has ended" has become muddled.
I'm not talking about "legality" - I'm talking about the accuracy of a claim. Israel did not leave Gaza completely.
And nothing I said has anything to do with shortages - I was pointing out a fact which is Israel did not leave Gaza completely - they left controlling some pretty important things.
from outside. Israel has controlled the air and water space since 1979 Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty
Israel supplied 1/3 of the electric power till gaza tried to take out the Israeli power station and cut their own power supply instead. Other commodities as with everyone else in the world, have to be bought and paid for. Israel has continued to deliver humanitarian items but hamas has to buy gas, water and other items from the PA who then buys them from Israel or in emergencies others buy the items for gaza like fuel when hamas won't fork over the money and intentionally causing blackouts and rolling schedules of a few hours a day.
Gaza raise fish in hatcheries, grow many of their own vegetables, raise goats sheep and cows for milk and meat, more than a third of the population rely on UN for their needs. Malls are well stocked as are most grocery stores. Basic medical supplies get delivered, some elective or alternative meds are not included and have to be bought separately. Israel still treats gazans in Israel hospitals on a permit basis issued by the PA or emergency basis.
Items that can be used in weapons are still restricted, and building items for the UN are cleared but too often hijacked by hamas.
Egypt has been more strict with their crossing because of attacks in sinai and smuggling through tunnels.
The point remains that they did not leave Gaza completely. Their control of the Gaza coastline has had a detrimental effect on the Gaza fishing industry for example. The point is you can not claim that they left Gaza completely when they have control over some pretty important items.
(CONSIDERATIONS)
In the case of the Gaza Strip, the questions are huge and varied in concept.
The first question is:
- After the withdrawal, did the Israeli Forces (foreign forces) continued to exert effective control over the territory (Gaza Strip)?
The underpinning behind the definition of an "Occupation" starts with Article 42 of the
Hague Regulations of 1907.
Annex to the Convention: Regulations respecting the laws and customs of war on land - Section III : Military authority over the territory of the hostile state - Regulations: Art. 42. said:
Article 42
Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
SOURCE: ICRC, IHL,
Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague, 18 October 1907.
The applicability of this IHL definition rests with the question relative to the facts on the ground or at sea.
SET ONE:
- When did Israel have "effective control" of the Gaza Strip?
- What is meant by "effective control?
- Did Israel have "effective control" of the Gaza Strip, prior to the most recent incursion?
--- OR ---
- Did Hamas have "effective control" of the Gaza Strip, prior to the most recent incursion?
SET TWO:
- When was the Gaza Strip "placed under the authority of the hostile army;" - the Israeli Defense Force (IDF)?
- Was the Gaza Strip, prior to the latest incursion, "under the authority of the hostile army?"
--- OR ---
- Was the Gaza Strip, prior to the latest incursion, under the authority of HAMAS?
(DISCUSSION POINTS)
Is it accurate to say that "if" Israel had "effective control" of the Gaza Strip, prior to this latest incursion, that it could have used such influence to disarm HAMAS and neutralize the ability of HAMAS to fire rockets, missiles, and mortars (indirect fire) before an incursion was required?
Is it accurate to say that Israel, in order to "effectively control" and neutralize the ability of HAMAS to strike Israel by means of indirect fire, it had to make an incursion?
Who is the authority for the Gaza Strip? Is Israel the voice of authority for the people of the Gaza Strip? --- OR --- Is HAMAS the voice of authority for the people of the Gaza Strip?
(COMMENT)
In
Post #203 I addressed the more narrow scope of the Blockade, and the considerations that are made relative to
San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea. But in this discussion, we have to dig a bit deeper and ask the hard questions.
First, yes I agree that --- the separation barriers representing security in depth, the effective quarantine, and the containment of the hostile elements within the Gaza Strip do have an impact on the quality of life within the containment area. This does not, however, constitute either "effective control" or "placed the Gaza Strip under the authority" of Israel. It limits the spread and threat potential from escaping into areas to commit acts of Jihad and other forms of violence. This does not override the requirement and the duty of the Government of Israel from taking such steps as may be necessary to protect the people and sovereignty of their nation and citizens.
Second, the complaint of "Gaza" that they are under "occupation" does not fit the actual ground truth. Israel would not find it necessary to periodically mount military operations and penetrate the borders of Gaza, if it already had and maintained "effective control."
Most Respectfully,
R
