3 ms·

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

by 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
  - bawolff 1y ago
    I would agree generally that Hamas seems to want Palestinians to suffer for various political reasons. However i don't think that relieves or really affects Israel's obligations when it comes to allowing aid shipments into Gaza. > 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 I'd agree in so much that Israel is responsible for its own actions and not Hamas's. To that end i believe Israel has an obligation to not intentionally make the food situation worse and to not arbitrarily get in the way of people trying to improve the situation. This is true no matter what Hamas does. > 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 probably one of the stronger arguments. Tbh the extent and limits of this defence is beyond my knowledge so i'm not sure how far it considered valid for [ianal] > 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 This is pretty unconvincing. The prosecutor is accused of sexually harrasing an underling. Despicable but has very little to do with the case. Even if the prosecutor was biased, ultimately its the judges who make the decision, not the prosecutor. I don't think it would make a material difference if the prosecutor was biased in some fashion. Either he proves his case to the judges or he doesn't. The judges are the party that needs to be neutral.
    - breppp 1y ago
      Regarding the prosecutor, it did affect the case 1. The allegations were revealed just before the arrest warrants were released 2. The arrest warrants were rushed, brushing aside valid concerns (the court later decided it was unlawful) 3. The prosecutor himself and people he sent tried to pressure the victim to pull her complaint because it will hurt the palestinian case, which seems to indicate this might have had convinced her So this at least raises the question whether these warrants were rushed or were generally pressed in order to quiet the sexual harassment/rape case. The inability of the ICC to properly investigate its own people also greatly puts the own court ability to investigate foreign matters into question
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

by breppp 1y ago

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
- bawolff 1y ago
  I would agree generally that Hamas seems to want Palestinians to suffer for various political reasons. However i don't think that relieves or really affects Israel's obligations when it comes to allowing aid shipments into Gaza. > 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 I'd agree in so much that Israel is responsible for its own actions and not Hamas's. To that end i believe Israel has an obligation to not intentionally make the food situation worse and to not arbitrarily get in the way of people trying to improve the situation. This is true no matter what Hamas does. > 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 probably one of the stronger arguments. Tbh the extent and limits of this defence is beyond my knowledge so i'm not sure how far it considered valid for [ianal] > 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 This is pretty unconvincing. The prosecutor is accused of sexually harrasing an underling. Despicable but has very little to do with the case. Even if the prosecutor was biased, ultimately its the judges who make the decision, not the prosecutor. I don't think it would make a material difference if the prosecutor was biased in some fashion. Either he proves his case to the judges or he doesn't. The judges are the party that needs to be neutral.
  - breppp 1y ago
    Regarding the prosecutor, it did affect the case 1. The allegations were revealed just before the arrest warrants were released 2. The arrest warrants were rushed, brushing aside valid concerns (the court later decided it was unlawful) 3. The prosecutor himself and people he sent tried to pressure the victim to pull her complaint because it will hurt the palestinian case, which seems to indicate this might have had convinced her So this at least raises the question whether these warrants were rushed or were generally pressed in order to quiet the sexual harassment/rape case. The inability of the ICC to properly investigate its own people also greatly puts the own court ability to investigate foreign matters into question

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]