An Israeli occupation that forcibly denies the Palestinians their right to self-determination is something they have the right to fight against.
When threats from the Middle Ages turn into war crimes: Israel's violations of international law.
What is the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination?
What's the problem between Palestine and Israel?
Israel is now committing crimes that are similar to those that were tried at Nuremberg one week later. It has already bombed trucks bringing in food aid from the Egyptian side and dropped white phosphorus on Gaza's port. It has also declared a siege on Gaza, warning that its two million residents—half of whom are children—will be without electricity, food, water, or fuel.
Israel is following through on its vows from the Middle Ages that the foe would suffer a price "like they have never known before."
The Israeli war engine has also started to whirl, bending international law to suit its purposes. The Israeli point of view, according to which Israel's activities have a strong legal basis while Hamas' do not, is expected to be ventriloquized the most in the coming days. That is not the situation.
An Israeli occupation that forcibly denies the Palestinians their right to self-determination is something they have the right to fight against. This right came into being during the decolonization process, and it has been reaffirmed in several UN General Assembly resolutions.
According to General Assembly Resolution 37/43 of the UN, an occupied people has the right to resist occupying forces "including armed struggle" and other legal methods. In addition, General Assembly Resolution 3070 acknowledges the use of force by national liberation forces and urges member nations to provide both moral and material support to those fighting for their inalienable right to self-determination.
Former UN Special Rapporteur Richard Falk on Palestinian human rights claimed that Israel's violations of international law as a belligerent occupier amounted to a fundamental denial of the right to self-determination and, more broadly, of respect for the framework of belligerent occupation, giving rise to a right of resistance for the Palestinian people.
They are thus allowed to employ force, but they must confine it to military goals and cannot specifically target civilians or civilian property, such as their homes, hospitals, or schools.
However, pro-Israel international attorneys claim that since withdrawing from the region in 2005, Israel has not been occupying Gaza and never has. Three conditions must be met in order for there to be an occupation under international law: there must be a territory, a hostile army, and effective control.
Israel claims that after disengaging, its soldiers are no longer permanently stationed in that region and do not control what happens there. To define effective control, however, it is not necessary for there to be a physical presence of troops at all times in the seized region.
The Nuremberg tribunal stated in the List case that the "test for application of the legal regime of occupation is not whether the occupying power fails to exercise effective control over the territory, but rather whether it has the ability to exercise such power." By conducting military operations in Gaza, policing the import of products, and supplying it with 60% of its fuel and electricity, Israel both has the capacity to exercise this power and does so. For the past 12 years, it has also maintained a blockade by land, sea, and air, through which it controls who can enter and exit the strip. Without a doubt, it is under effective control.
"Statements by the government of Israel that the withdrawal ended the occupation are grossly inaccurate," according to UN Special Rapporteur John Dugard. Furthermore, the ease and speed with which Israel can besiege the strip indicates that it has the capacity to exert effective control over it.
The ability to defend oneself
Israel does not have the right to self-defense in a territory it occupies since it is an occupying force. Instead, the laws of war govern what is appropriate behaviour. According to these regulations, Israel is required to make sure that civilians and civilian-related objects are not intentionally targeted, that any collateral damage is not excessive compared to the desired military advantage, and that efforts are taken to preserve civilian life when they can be.
The laws of war, which do not forbid sieges, are not violated by Israel's announcement that it will entirely besiege Gaza. However, given that it forbids starving civilians as a tactic of warfare and classifies this as a war crime, its declaration that it will cut off water, food, and power supplies would violate the law of armed conflict.
According to a judgment by the Israeli High Court, "the State of Israel accepts and respects the laws of war and is committed to continuing to provide the amount of fuel and electricity required for the basic humanitarian needs of the civilian population in the Gaza Strip."
Ironically, Israel is now breaking even the most basic of its own laws. Furthermore, it must approve relief plans on behalf of the occupied population even though it is the occupier's primary responsibility to guarantee that food and medical supplies are available to them. Israel is currently flagrantly breaching this obligation and using starvation as a form of warfare to force Hamas to submit, which is also against the law, by bombing trucks carrying in supplies from the Egyptian side of the border.
Ironically, Israel is now breaking even the most basic of its own laws. Furthermore, it must approve relief plans on behalf of the occupied population even though it is the occupier's primary responsibility to guarantee that food and medical supplies are available to them. Israel is currently flagrantly breaching this obligation and using starvation as a form of warfare to force Hamas to submit, which is also against the law, by bombing trucks carrying in supplies from the Egyptian side of the border.
In an effort to demonstrate conformity with the law, Israel uses "technologies of warning" such as "roof knocking," which involves firing artillery at buildings' corners, dropping pamphlets, or making phone calls to inform occupants to leave before using more lethal weaponry. After these safeguards are taken, it disregards the laws of war and randomly attacks residential areas.
It used to be that Israeli war attorneys would advise targeting any Palestinian civilians who disregarded these warnings since they were acting as "voluntary human shields." Human shields are illegal to use, but even if they are, they must still be protected because they are civilians.
Israel has now ordered the evacuation of 1.1 million residents from northern Gaza, yet this decision merely aims to give legal cover to what is morally wrong. These individuals are being forcibly relocated, have nowhere to go, and run the possibility of being pushed into uninhabitable situations where they will be vulnerable to more attacks. This is illegal on its own.
Goliath against David
It's vital to keep in mind the almost Pharaonic military asymmetry that parties to the fight possess in addition to only considering the legal aspects of the battle. With its technological superiority augmented by American and British help, one of the world's greatest armies is too strong for Hamas to defeat.
The Palestinians would suffer the most as a result of Israel's rapid and excessive retaliation. It is envisaged that this war will give the Arab world a justification to stop relations with Israel from normalising. Saudi Arabia may have already suspended its agreement, but the people of Bahrain, Egypt, and the UAE should compel their governments to break their promises, set aside their own interests, and support a moral cause.
Despite the completely twisted media narrative, that moral purpose is supported by the law. The conflict's news coverage has been compared to "man bites dog" stories, which retell the regular sequence of events backwards. The world response to conflict in the Middle East typically follows a well-known Sisyphean pattern: a forceful denunciation, a both-sidesism that localizes the conflict in time and geography, and a call for caution.
But this time, no requests for restraint are made. Instead, Israel has been granted complete freedom to act as it pleases as it presents its legal and political case by displaying newborns who have been shot during a recent visit by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken. When compared to more civilised Israel bombarding when under a blockade, he said it was "depravity in the worst possible way."
However, who will hold Israel responsible?
It is Israel's responsibility to court-martial its own military forces in order to hold itself accountable for the war crimes it has done and will continue to commit in the coming weeks. Israel, meanwhile, has largely resisted doing so. If it does act, it often does so in the form of disciplinary sanctions rather than charging or bringing charges against its officers.
The International Criminal Court has jurisdiction over the situation because Palestine is a signatory to the Rome Statute, even if a UN Security Council resolution is improbable given the US veto. Although the previous ICC Prosecutor had a reputation for being fearless in calling out powerful nations and pushing for investigations into the occupied Palestinian lands, her British-Pakistani replacement has not been quite as anemic. In contrast to the Ukrainian invasion, where he rushed to provide a statement within 24 hours, he took more than three days to do so in this instance and appeared hesitant to acknowledge that the court had jurisdiction, even over actions taking place in the state of Israel.
Through universal jurisdiction, one important avenue for pursuing international criminal culpability is in the domestic courts of other states. States that support the Palestinian cause should promote this route because it has been highly successful.
Ariel Sharon was charged with crimes in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Beirut in 1982 by a Belgian court in 2001. Over a thousand lawsuits have reportedly been filed worldwide since then accusing Israeli ministers and IDF personnel of war crimes. This means that if these people ever entered those nations, they may be detained and punished there. However, avoiding certain nations is also a simple way to avoid paying taxes.
As the conflict continues, a tale I once heard about the head of a Pakistani delegation addressing the Kashmir problem with an Algerian politician and requesting Algerian cooperation comes to me. The Algerian commander stood up, led the Pakistanis to a window, and explained how independence is earned by pointing to a cemetery of Algerian martyrs.
I stand in solidarity with the Palestinians under siege, who are being ordered out of a prison by the same guard who is keeping them there. With all those who will be killed in the upcoming months, years, and possibly even decades in the pursuit of self-determination by their peoples. With people who persistently resist cruel occupations around the world despite being told they have no right to do so by society. This, sadly, is how freedom is gained.
Searching for Faisalabad home developments and societies? Find a variety of choices that fit your preferences and budget. Explore our extensive collection of housing developments and societies that provide cutting-edge amenities, practical locations, and a welcoming neighborhood ambiance. Discover your ideal property in Faisalabad today and live the lifestyle that best suits you. Don't pass up this chance to make investments in a booming real estate market. Start looking right away! WhatsApp (03435451000)
0 Comments