Hamas’ brutal attacks in Israel on October 7 killed at least 1,400 people and the group took more than 200 hostages, according to Israeli authorities. In the wake of the assault, Israel launched an aerial bombardment of Gaza that Palestinian health officials say has killed more than 5,000 people. Israel also announced a “complete siege” on the enclave, withholding vital supplies of water, food and fuel.
If they actually get it. Hamas has already shown they will take it and not give it to their citizens.
Unless Hamas decides to prioritize its citizens, there is nothing the world can do and they are dead.
So, to Israel, are Gazans less important? Because Israel as already shown they will bomb the Rahah checkpoint and not allow fuel in knowing full well it’s needed for generating electricity and providing clean water?
I’m genuinely asking: what do you think is Israel’s responsibility towards civilians in Gaza and their own hostages stuck in Gaza as well?
As with any nation - yes, your citizens are less important than mine.
I won’t comment on the checkpoint as I am not informed on the full story. I have however formally studied war crime in the general sense (not this specific example though).
Blockades are legitimate and commonly used in warfare - denying supplies are practical and it can be reasonably assumed they will find their way into the hands of the enemy. Saying that, it must be proportional and cause as little disruption to the civilian population as possible.
hamas has shown it will cross borders to kill and abduct civilians, and kill them at a later date (undisputed war crime there).
Hamas has shown they will claim aid destined for civilians
hamas has shown they will withhold supplies from it citizens
Therefore, it can be reasonably assumed that any supplies crossing the border will be used in direct action against Israel. If the aid was finding its way to civilians, was being utilized for humanitarian reasons and distinctly separately from armed forces supplies it could be argued that the blockade is now illegal. This would also apply if Hamas was no longer a threat.
Israel responsibility lies with its citizens first. Does it suck for civilians stuck in the middle - absolutely.
@HappycamperNZ
It’s not a food fight. Deliberate starvation is against international law..
I don’t know what you “studied formally” but either you misunderstood what it means to consider the effects on the civilian population, or the person teaching you was some kind of monster.
Reading your link - deliberate starvation of civilians with intent to cause civilian harm or death, or eliminate a part of the population is indeed a war crime.
Also quoted from your link - a blockade is only intended to remove resources from adversarial forces, impediment of humanitarian aid is incidental harm. They key difference here is intent, and with Hamas seizing aid crossing the border and not distributing it any reasonable person would agree that it is stopping supplies to opposing forces.
Does it suck for civilian population - absolutely. But its not a war crime. Personally I think a coalition of multiple countries needs to go in and remove hamas, get aid set up for the civilian population and then investigate crimes on both sides - but that’s not going to happen.
@HappycamperNZ I think you have an eccentric interpretation of international law that is contrary to most expert opinion. Which is fortunate because starving civilian populations for any reason is a gruesome thing to do and is quite rightly illegal.
Starving the civilians in this context is widely seen as illegal. Here are some examples of legal consensus opinion I found from a quick google:
The UN Human Rights Council Israel/Gaza: UN experts urge lawyers advising Israeli military to refuse legal authorisation of actions that could amount to war crimes
The ICJ Israel/Occupied Palestinian Territory: immediately end attacks on civilians
Center For Constitutional Rights, US Rights Lawyers Release Legal Analysis of U.S. Complicity in Israel’s Unfolding Genocide Against Palestinians in Gaza
Second article on this
CFR: What International Law Has to Say About the Israel-Hamas War
Legal opinion in Jurist Hamas Atrocities Cannot Rationalize the Starvation of Civilians
Legal professor quoted in Deutschwelle who sums up consensus Israel, Gaza: What are the rules of international law?
I accept that you will easily be able to point me to competing positions, largely from Israelis and Americans, but I think you should be aware that these are in the minority.
If the people living in Gaza don’t belong to israel to which nation to they belong?
Legally, none. If you mean for travel purposes (passport), then they can apply for that with the Palestinian authority. I haven’t a clue what their tax system is, but they aren’t being paid to Israel. Stateless people exist all over the world. And some people start in one nation, never move, and up in another. This isn’t even a point of contention in the situation.
If Hamas steals the fuel. Allowing the fuel in is defacto allowing the military your fighting to resupply.
Hamas, as the governing body of the Gaza Strip, has a duty to supply it’s populace with sufficient good when conducting a war. It’s inability to do so it’s Hamas’ fault, not the fault of the person they declared war upon.
Collective punishment is a war crime. Why is this being forgotten here? Why does Israel get an okay to commit war crimes and blame it on the population and a government the majority of them didn’t even vote for in 2006 (you do the math, 1.1m Gazans are children, and the other 1.1m other adults needed to have been at least 18 in 2006, and on top of that it was a 40% vote, so the excuse you are making is pure BS to be honest… putting the fault on a “governing body” of a population that is not able to govern itself or have free elections since ever, with Israel making every step in their lives infinitely worse and holding out water).
Israel = genocide.
Because it’s not collective punishment. Collective punishment is things like the Bombing of Dresden or the Battle of Britain where a military/air force explicitly target civilian infrastructure. Declining to supply your enemy isn’t a war crime.
Israel disengaged from the Gaza Strip in 2004/2005. They’ve been self governing since then. Had they (Israel) forced a regime change in the past they would have been criticized by the world for reneging on their commitment to a two state solution. It’s not a great situation, but polling suggests that Hamas is incredibly popular in both the Strip and the West Bank.