Israel bows to pressure and agrees to ease Gaza blockade

[Bonam]

No thats not really the case with international law. Theres no court of law to determine if yorue guilty or not. Essentially about 15 of your peers each consult their own internal legal council, and internal case law, and then they VOTE on whether youre guilty or not.

Theres no such entity.

Of course there is. The ICJ, as mentioned above.

Yes it does seem the ICJ is the entity that determines international law. It's not very effective in enforcing any ruling it hands down. International pressure is more effective than international law. It was international pressure that changed Israel's stance on the blockade. Israel lifted some restrictions and more aid now is getting through.

International pressure is one thing. But the claim that Israel violated law, which naomi and others repeatedly make, is false unless the allegation has been upheld in a court of law.

Since those same friends hold some powerful seats in the UN, I fail to see how the ICJ is ever effective in these cases. How can the ICJ and the UN punish a country for it's actions when one simply veto can kill the movement?

The effectiveness or lack thereof of the ICJ is irrelevant. It is the only international organ capable of legally stating that a nation is in violation of international law, and even that, only under certain conditions (check the limitations on its jurisdiction). It has only issued one judgment in regards to Israel's actions, and that was only an advisory opinion, some years ago. Nothing about the Lebanon war, nothing about the Gaza incursion, nothing about the blockade, or the flotilla. None of these actions have been found by a court of law to be in violation of international law.

Slander, not very welcome here.

Interesting that you bring up slander. Slander is exactly what naomi and others are doing in regards to Israel: making claims that it violated international law when that has never been proven to be the case.

Edited July 13, 2010 by Bonam

[Army Guy]

Since those same friends hold some powerful seats in the UN, I fail to see how the ICJ is ever effective in these cases. How can the ICJ and the UN punish a country for it's actions when one simply veto can kill the movement?

The key word here is the punishment can be vetoed, but not the verdict,or their decision...that will always remain on record. and yet in this case no verdict or decision was reached....

The US has vetoed many resolutions that were brought up against Israel over the past few decades. Some which would have had a great impact in/on Israel, never came to be, simply because of one veto.

Some of them for a good reason, Israel is not very popular in the middle east,or other areas of the world...

[GostHacked]

Sure you do. As well as not knowing what slander is, this is another topic where you lack background and the intellectual capability to form a cognet opinion.

Well, calling someone an "Arab terrorist supporter" is a very good example of slander (or libel or defamation). I also admit that I am not very knowledgeable when it comes to this topic. It is something I am interested in and am learning things all the time. I know there are other posters, including yourself that engage in a type of debate that can't be argued against because you have the notion you are always right.

I'll admit my shortcomings. I do not expect you to do the same.

[GostHacked]

Interesting that you bring up slander. Slander is exactly what naomi and others are doing in regards to Israel: making claims that it violated international law when that has never been proven to be the case.

If that is the case, do we have to slander the slanderer? I mean how effective is that in debate and getting a point across? There are many cases where I'd like to post, but after I think about it, it's just a complaint about another poster. I am guilty of it as well, but I have been trying to avoid (it's hard to resist but there you go).

[GostHacked]

I'd also like to point out, that the easing of the blockade was a good thing on Israel's part. I was hoping the thread would be a positive one, but that did not happen.

[Bonam]

I'd also like to point out, that the easing of the blockade was a good thing on Israel's part. I was hoping the thread would be a positive one, but that did not happen.

You were hoping a thread started by naomi about Israel would be a positive one? Heh. No comment.

[GostHacked]

You were hoping a thread started by naomi about Israel would be a positive one? Heh. No comment.

I can hope. It was a good chance.

The only one that is ever going to defeat Naomi in a debate is herself. She has made posts that have contradictions in them. And others do point them out. It's the equivalent of feeding a troll. If you feel she is trolling, then the best thing to do is to stop posting and bringing attention to the topic.

[ToadBrother]

There is no document. Theres a patchwork of treaties and agreements, coupled with a loose and voluntary enforcement mechanism.

Like I said, maritime, or admiralty law, as some call it, is the only body of international law that is largely recognized and enforced by most nations.

[naomiglover]

Interesting that you bring up slander. Slander is exactly what naomi and others are doing in regards to Israel: making claims that it violated international law when that has never been proven to be the case.

The ICJ, The Goldstone Report The Red Cross, HRW, Amnesty International, B'Tselem and several other organizations have concluded that Israel has violated international law.

If you don't think they know what they're talking about, who does?

Edited July 13, 2010 by naomiglover

[Army Guy]

Really the ICJ, could you provide a link into their verdict, as i could not find it any where.

[Bonam]

The Goldstone Report The Red Cross, HRW, Amnesty International, B'Tselem and several other organizations, after their investigations have concluded that Israel has violated international law.

If you don't think they know what they're talking about, who does?

None of those are courts of law. Whether they know what they are talking about is irrelevant. They can make allegations, but they cannot find Israel guilty of anything. And speaking about Israel as if it has been found guilty of crimes, based on statements from these groups, is slander.

The ICJ

As for ICJ, its only judgment against Israel was regarding the legality of the security barrier, and that was only an advisory opinion.

[GostHacked]

The ICJ, The Goldstone Report The Red Cross, HRW, Amnesty International, B'Tselem and several other organizations have concluded that Israel has violated international law.

If you don't think they know what they're talking about, who does?

International Law seems to be arbitrary and subjective to interpretation by you, me, the people you quote and the people others quote. Also since the ICJ and the UN have not backed up your claims, (no teeth to make the claim/verdict stick) it's hard to tout 'international law'.

What is needed is for those countries that support Israel, they need to put pressure on Israel to change. Only then will it be effective. It worked well with easing the blockade of Gaza in this round, so, it's a start.

[ToadBrother]

The ICJ, The Goldstone Report The Red Cross, HRW, Amnesty International, B'Tselem and several other organizations have concluded that Israel has violated international law.

If you don't think they know what they're talking about, who does?

For the most part, no one. International law is not a homogeneous body of law like, say, Common Law. It's a very muddy mess, with only certain aspects having anything close to universal acceptance (the aforementioned maritime law). International law, simply put, is not what you think it is, or wish it was.

The only meaningful expression of International Law we have is the largely voluntary signing and enactment of treaties (with a great deal of uncertainty about what happens with non-signatories) or, ultimately, the UN Security Council resolutions, the strong forms of which are usually pretty rare because of the competing interests of the Permanent Members make resolutions with any teeth, like Resolution 687 which gave the US and its allies the go-ahead to liberate Kuwait, all but impossible to achieve. Even with that there was some disagreement, with Margaret Thatcher advising the first President Bush to push all the way and take out Hussein's regime, and the elder Bush feeling that the resolution didn't give him that kind of authority. General Assembly resolutions, if not backed up by the Security Council, are pretty much not worth the paper their written on, and even a lot of Security Council resolutions are perhaps useful for wiping your ass with, but not much else.

You can pretend to yourself that International Law somehow represents the international equivalent of domestic law, but it doesn't.

Edited July 13, 2010 by ToadBrother

[M.Dancer]

Really the ICJ, could you provide a link into their verdict, as i could not find it any where.

The ICJ has an opinion about the legality of the anti terrorism barrier. Nothing more consequential than that. That being said, neither Hamas, the palestinian authority or Israel recognize the ICJ's jurisdiction

[naomiglover]

You were hoping a thread started by naomi about Israel would be a positive one? Heh. No comment.

Posting about Israel's violations of international law does not always have to be balanced out with feel good stories from Israel. In fact, I have a hard time finding any feel good stories in relations to the Israeli government and the Palestinian people. Israel has been violating the Palestinians' human rights for decades and there are no signs that Israel is willing to make a real effort to change this.

The Israeli government has had its chance to make it right and they have failed. Unfortunately, the Israeli government is heavily influenced by the extremists and those who can only accept Greater Israel. When the prime minister's party has repeatedly vowed to never allow a Palestinian State, what real hope is there?

Israel will not voluntarily do the right thing. This is why Israel must be pressured into giving Palestinians their rights just like Apartheid South Africa was.

[naomiglover]

International Law seems to be arbitrary and subjective to interpretation by you, me, the people you quote and the people others quote. Also since the ICJ and the UN have not backed up your claims, (no teeth to make the claim/verdict stick) it's hard to tout 'international law'.

What is needed is for those countries that support Israel, they need to put pressure on Israel to change. Only then will it be effective. It worked well with easing the blockade of Gaza in this round, so, it's a start.

The ICJ has concluded that Israel has violated international law.

[naomiglover]

Really the ICJ, could you provide a link into their verdict, as i could not find it any where.

Sure.

The Court draws a distinction between the legal consequences of these violations for Israel and those for other States.

In regard to the former, the Court finds that Israel must respect the right of the Palestinian people to self‑determination and its obligations under humanitarian law and human rights law. Israel must also put an end to the violation of its international obligations flowing from the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and must accordingly cease forthwith the works of construction of the wall, dismantle forthwith those parts of that structure situated within the Occupied Palestinian Territory and forthwith repeal or render ineffective all legislative and regulatory acts adopted with a view to construction of the wall and establishment of its associated régime, except in so far as such acts may continue to be relevant for compliance by Israel with its obligations in regard to reparation. Israel must further make reparation for all damage suffered by all natural or legal persons affected by the wall’s construction.

As regards the legal consequences for other States, the Court finds that all States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction. The Court further finds that it is for all States, while respecting the United Nations Charter and international law, to see to it that any impediment, resulting from the construction of the wall, in the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self‑determination is brought to an end. In addition, all States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention are under an obligation, while respecting the Charter and international law, to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in that Convention.

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 its associated régime, taking due account of the present Advisory Opinion.

The Court concludes by stating that the construction of the wall must be placed in a more general context. In this regard, the Court notes that Israel and Palestine are “under an obligation scrupulously to observe the rules of international humanitarian law”.

ICJ

Edited July 13, 2010 by naomiglover

[Bonam]

The ICJ has concluded that Israel has violated international law.

Haha, gotta love how your statement is so purposefully vague. How much more blatant than that could you get? The ICJ's ruling has nothing to do with all of the topics you've started claiming that Israel violates international law. For example, it has nothing to do with any of the incidents related to the blockade, nor to any of the incidents related to the 2006 Lebanon war, nor to Operation Cast Lead. These are all instances in which you routinely make the claim that Israel violated international law.

In fact, the vast majority of court rulings against Israeli military actions have been by Israel's own courts. More than any other court with jurisdiction, the Supreme Court of Israel has issued such rulings. This is proof that the Israeli justice system is keeping Israel in check itself, with no need of international meddling.

Israel is a state which upholds the rule of law, and when and if law is violated, its own courts find it to be so and take appropriate action.

[naomiglover]

Haha, gotta love how your statement is so purposefully vague.

How is it vague? The ICJ has concluded that the barrier is illegal and the occupation of East Jerusalem is illegal (this was not in the bit I posted). It has not ruled on the other violations but the violations have been investigated by many other organizations.

The Red Cross and other organizations who are experts in international law and have covered other human rights violations all over the world for decades have repeatedly concluded that Israel (and Hamas in some instances) have violated international law. There are UN resolutions that have outlined the legality of the occupation and how international law applies to different situations.

Your failure to show respect for international law does not change the fact that Israel has repeatedly violated it.

[GostHacked]

How is it vague? The ICJ has concluded that the barrier is illegal and the occupation of East Jerusalem is illegal (this was not in the bit I posted). It has not ruled on the other violations but the violations have been investigated by many other organizations.

The Red Cross and other organizations who are experts in international law and have covered other human rights violations all over the world for decades have repeatedly concluded that Israel (and Hamas in some instances) have violated international law. There are UN resolutions that have outlined the legality of the occupation and how international law applies to different situations.

Your failure to show respect for international law does not change the fact that Israel has repeatedly violated it.

But the organization that is to uphold any ICJ ruling is ineffective at best. So the UN is almost violating itself because rulings are not enforced or the violating country is not held accountable.

I understand the international law bit .. however, inaction on a ruling is about as good as no ruling at all.

[Guest American Woman]

Gotta love this (emphasis mine):

The Red Cross and other organizations who are experts in international law and have covered other human rights violations all over the world for decades have repeatedly concluded that Israel (and Hamas in some instances) have violated international law. There are UN resolutions that have outlined the legality of the occupation and how international law applies to different situations.

Your failure to show respect for international law does not change the fact that Israel has repeatedly violated it.

Hamas, as an afterthought, "in some instances" has violated international law, but Israel has "repeatedly" violated it.

[naomiglover]

But the organization that is to uphold any ICJ ruling is ineffective at best. So the UN is almost violating itself because rulings are not enforced or the violating country is not held accountable.

I understand the international law bit .. however, inaction on a ruling is about as good as no ruling at all.

If the question is whether or not Israel is violating international law, the answer is clear; Israel is violator of International Law.

On top of what ICJ has ruled, what the Red Cross has said, what the Goldstone Report concluded and many expert human rights organizations have concluded, there are several UN resolutions that Israel has failed to recognize and follow.

[naomiglover]

Gotta love this (emphasis mine):

Hamas, as an afterthought, "in some instances" has violated international law, but Israel has "repeatedly" violated it.

Israel has been violating international law since well before 1967.

Hamas has been in the scene for less than a couple of decades.

The number of violations committed by Israel is so much more than what Hamas or any Palestinian group has done. Then there is also the fact that no one (at least not here) contests Hamas' violations. Everyone agrees that Hamas has violated international law by their past suicide attacks and the recent rocket attacks. There is also a universal agreement that Hamas is violating Shalit's rights by not following the standard law when it comes to prisoners.

There is no question that Hamas has violated international law in these instances.

However, the many violations that Israel has committed which considerably out number anyone else's in this conflict, never receive the same response from Israeli apologists. Apologists such as yourself, Dancer and Bonam who will go to any length to try to justify them.

[JB Globe]

What a failure the blockade has been.

It hasn't broken the will of Gazan civilians, it didn't curb Hamas' influence or power, it didn't stop weapons from being smuggled into the territory, and it was a huge black eye for Israel PR-wise and culminated in a terrible incident.

Hopefully this will hurt Bibi politically, because as long as he's in power Israel isn't doing anything progressive without serious pressure.

[GostHacked]

If the question is whether or not Israel is violating international law, the answer is clear; Israel is violator of International Law.

On top of what ICJ has ruled, what the Red Cross has said, what the Goldstone Report concluded and many expert human rights organizations have concluded, there are several UN resolutions that Israel has failed to recognize and follow.

My point is that the charges mean squat unless they are acted upon. The UN needs to enforce the rulings coming from the ICJ. If not then it's about as effective and means as much as doing nothing at all. That is my problem with this.

Yes they violated international law. Now, who is going to enforce the ruling? And how are they going to do it? These are the more important questions to answer in my view.

If there is little to no way to hold Hamas accountable for their actions or inaction (ICJ ruling that never gets enforced), then how do you expect to hold Israel's feet to the fire?

Israel violated international law. Yes I agree, I have yet to disagree with that. But now what?