4 ms·

Claiming Palestine is a state in its current form is a huge stretch and would probably undermine the rest of the court case. Is Israel actually supposed to sup

• deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
• bawolff 1y ago
  > Is Israel actually supposed to supply food for the independent state of Palestine whose controlling government in Gaza (Hamas) has initiated said war, while the war is ongoing, and where the food is transferred to areas that are not even controlled by Israeli forces? I don't think that's very common in warfare between states Under the geneva convention Israel (or any state engaged in war) is expected to do 2 things: - not unduly hinder aid shipments provided by relief organizations (there are a bunch of details here im glossing over) - anywhere where they are occupying they are expected to ensure that the civilian population has the neccesities of survival. Providing it themselves if neccesary. It doesn't matter who started the war, who is right, who is wrong. The rules are for the protection of non combatants, not for the people involved in the war.
  • breppp 1y ago
    It actually does matter If Israel is not occupying that territory then it does not need to, and when there are no troops in the area it is the responsibility of the Palestinian government. Then it becomes really a palestinian problem as they decided to start a war with no food supplies against its food supplier, while actually destroying most of their food sources during the attack
    • bawolff 1y ago
      The geneva convention still requires parties to not unduly hinder aid supplies even if its destined for places not currently under occupation (you are still allowed to inspect it, administer how its delivered, prevent it from being misappropriated, etc. And there is a lot of ambiguity in that part so some its not the most clear cut). Like the rules are different between the occupation and non-occupation cases, but there are still rules related to food in the non-occupation case. Israel (or any other country at war) probably doesn't need to feed the areas it doesn't occupy. However per the geneva convention they are not allowed to prevent others from supplying the food, and they can't actively take actions to intentionally to cause the starvation of civilians. See section II of aditional protocol 1 of the fourth geneva convention https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Geneva_Convention/Protocol_I#Section_II._Relief_in_Favour_of_the_Civilian_Population https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Geneva_Convention/Protocol_I#... (article 54 in the other section is also relavent) [Israel is not a signatory to protocol 1 of the fourth geneva convention but parts are considered to be customary and apply to everyone]
      • breppp 1y ago
        I agree, however when not occupying, and when Gaza has a border with Egypt, it really comes to the Palestine government deciding to prioritize its troops for food instead of its citizens (also happens with aid by the way), and to furthermore politically navigate it to a situation of food shortage (multiple steps in stupidity which was starting this war) And if starvation ensues (which did not, by the way), then in reality it's the problem of the palestinian government which really worked hard in causing a food shortage Regarding hindering the transfer of aid, even barring Egypt, Israel does not need to allow the transfer of aid if it is diverted or that it is being used to give military advantage to the adversary. This is well documented as the aid is taken over by the Palestinian government, passed to its troops and the rest is sold in exorbitant prices while the proceedings are passed to pay wages to the Palestinian military. All of this without even raising the current issues around the prosecution in the ICC and behavior that might show a conflict of interest, as well as criminal behavior
        • 1y ago