“Electronic Intifada” Debut
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed. Thanks for reading!
Electronic Intifada just published an article I wrote here - the article was previously posted on harmonicminor.com as Disengagement Two Years On and was taken from research I conducted with my good friend Jonas Ecke.
I was also interested to notice that as soon as my name was published on EI, the University College of Cork Ireland created a profile for me on their Palestine: Information with Provenance database. The database seems to include authorship information for various people writing about Palestine - blogs are excluded.
5 comments »
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post or for TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Let me understand something. The Palestinians scream that Israel should get out of Gaza because they don’t want or need the occupation, they can govern themselves. Then when Israel leaves Gaza (I know the counterargument is going to mention that Palestinians can hear Israeli helicopters at times) the Palestinians beg Israel to come back and “assume their responsibilities as the occupier” (Gaza is not the ONLY place in the world with a low standard of living).
Does that sound reasonable to you?
Comment by david friedlander — November 26, 2007 @ 5:06 am
David:
Thanks for commenting. Simply speaking, Palestinians wanted the occupation to end – not for Israeli troops to merely leave the ground. There is a difference. By the standards of international law, Israel has not given up “effective control” of the Gaza Strip because a modern army has the ability to control land without the aid of ground troops. Removing ground troops made it look like a full withdrawal but let me tell you I hear Israeli jets 4-5 times daily (loud sonic booms are not uncommon at 3.00 am) Israeli ships fire upon Palestinian fishermen and no on is allowed to some within 500 meters of the border unless they want to be shot by Israeli snipers. The disengagement was an attempt to continue what Israel has always done: deny that it occupies anything and thereby deny that is has any responsibilities as occupier. As I wrote Ariel Sharon in his usual frankness stated this purpose on multiple occasions… Strategic control, abandonment of responsibility (not that Israel ever fulfilled its duties as occupier anyway, even during the conventional occupation).
No one in Gaza wants Israel to return to the Strip… to infer that is absurd. But Israel still maintains effective control over every aspect of life and like it or not is bound by international law. . My article contains more than ample evidence and you can find a consensus on this with 99% of international lawyers and certainly among the international community. Not even the United States has officially come out to say that Israel no longer occupies Gaza. Occupiers have no rights, only responsibilities
I have no idea where you live, but you have obviously never been to Gaza. While standards of living are certainly lower in most parts of Africa… Gaza is unique. The depression has been inflicted upon Gaza as a matter of policy. The speed and severity of the situation are unparalleled, but quite understandable given the wider imperial mentality. Destroying Gaza economically will preclude a Palestinian state with the West Bank and Gaza united. Again economists all agree on this – even the World Bank (whom we can hardly attack for being too left-leaning). Read the parts I wrote about Israel intentionally undermining the work of the World Bank in Gaza.
I won’t repeat the arguments I laid out in the article because I already addressed your comments in the article itself. But if there is something in the article you challenge, feel free to let me know.
Comment by Kris Petersen — November 26, 2007 @ 8:42 am
Thanks for the response.
Ok, in this message you concede that Israel has removed ground troops but that this is an optical illusion. Unless you have evidence beyond the uncomfortable noise of jets flying (this is the evidence you provide for the fact that Israel is still occupying Gaza) you seem to be presenting a zero sum situation - if Israel is inside Gaza they are liable, if they leave Gaza they are liable also since it only “seems” like they left.
There are a number of problems with this line of reasoning. First of all it seems like the only way the IDF can redeem itself is if they go and settle an a far away island so that they will be farther away from your definition of an occupier.
More importantly, the IDF is most certainly going to be involved in some military activity while rockets are falling in Sderot and its surroundings, a fact that you conveniently leave out.
I happen to be a law student and I am not going to nitpick but your “99 percent of international lawyer” makes little sense. As a graduate student you should give some sort of citation to this statistic or anything eluding to this statistic. Even that would not be enough as the number of people supporting a proposition does not mean the proposition is right. Most Americans support Israel and I am certain you disagree with them.
The next paragraph is incoherent. You claim Palestine is unique to any other place in the world (kashmir, africa, tibet, etc..) again, without backing it up. Then you claim its part of a wider imperial mentality. If its part of a wider imperial mentality than how is it unique.
Comment by david friedlander — November 27, 2007 @ 6:14 am
David:
Apologies for the lack of references – I was writing hastily and wasn’t sure of my audience. You should read these articles if you want to gain more insight into the legal aspects of the disengagement.
Aronson, Geoffrey. “Issues Arising from Implementation of Disengagement and the End of Israeli Occupation in the Gaza Strip,” A paper prepared for Canada’s International Development Research Centre (2004) Available online: http://www.fmep.org/analysis/articles/pdf/Aronson_IDRC_Paper_04.pdf
Bashi, Sari & Kenneth Mann. “Disengaged Occupiers: The Legal Status of Gaza” Gisha Legal Center For Freedom of Movement (2007) Available online: http://www.map-uk.org/images/content/File/Documents/Resource%20Room/Documents/Report%20on%20legal%20status%20of%20Gaza.pdf
Roberts, Adam. “Prolonged Military Occupation: The Israeli-Occupied Territories Since 1967,” The American Journal of International Law 84 (1): pp. 44-103.
Roy, Sara. Praying with Their Eyes Closed: Reflections on. the Disengagement from Gaza,” Journal of Palestine Studies 34 (4): 64–74.
Essentially international law is unclear about how an occupation ends, apart from this – it must end the “effective control” outlined in the Hague Convention. It is agreed upon that such a move must be recognized by the international community as an end to occupation… which is why Ariel Sharon stressed this point so much when he was going about preparing the disengagement.
However, as the Hague regulations were drafted prior to the advent of aviation – they obviously do not consider the use of modern warfare in maintaining an occupation. The Roberts article discusses this as well as the problem of the sheer longevity of Israel’s occupation (38 years if you believe that disengagement was the end – 40 if not) in light of the necessarily temporary nature of belligerent occupation.
Post-disengagement Israel can be said to occupy Gaza because it has gone out of its way to undermine the governmental structures in Gaza (kidnapping scores of MPs, withholding Palestinian taxes, targeted assassinations, etc.) on top of its military presence and continued control. The argument is NOT that Israeli troops alone must leave. Israel must give up its total control of the Strip. Read the disengagement plan – it explicitly states that NOTHING will change regarding Israel’s control over border regimes, trade, airspace or sea space – nothing but the withdrawal of settlements and soldiers.
Let me provide some context: No one comes in or out of Gaza today. Sick Palestinians cannot seek treatment in Egypt or elsewhere because the borders are totally sealed by Israel… Cancer patients are dying like flies – there was a woman who died this week and another two last week. And Gazan hospitals are missing basic medical supplies because of the border closure. Students have also been prevented from leaving… Travel by sea is forbidden. Gaza is banned from trade with anyone but Israel - allowing Israel to control food, energy and all other supplies coming into Gaza. (This is why ignorant people blaming Gazans for “hating Israel” but happy to take their energy resources are disingenuous – They are simply not allowed to get their supplies from anyone else!) Grocery stores are very empty these days. On top of this, Israeli troops may have abandoned permanent military installations, but they have been operating inside Gaza for the last two months at least, camping close to the border but nevertheless inside Gaza. These patrols conduct raids and military strikes every day, though in advance of the peace talks things seem to have gotten a bit quieter. Moreover, a 2004 decision by the International Court of Justice ruled that an occupation can be said to exist even without the presence of troops in the territory in question (Congo was the country is question but I can’t remember the actual case offhand… it won’t be too hard to look up though). There is another important argument… Gaza and the West Bank are a single territorial as agreed upon during the Oslo Accords; As the occupation the West Bank has not ended, the entire Palestinian territory can still be said to be occupied. Israel must also withdraw from the West Bank…
(I would send you a copy of a paper I wrote last year about this topic, but my laptop is currently out of order – when I get it back, I will email you the paper and you can find many more sources on the topic. I just can’t remember them all offhand. If you look up the articles I listed, you have a good start into some of these issues… and there is certainly an abundance of material on the topic of disengagement.)
As for the rockets which of course must be addressed… International law protects military resistance to occupation. This allows militant groups (like it or not) to target military installations anywhere they please. The rockets aimed towards civilian areas are of course a breach of this rule – but I tend to place my criticism more against the occupier than the occupied. Again, the occupier has no rights under international law – only responsibilities to the population.
Finally – to the wider imperial mentality I mentioned. I did not mean wider as in all imperial conflicts… I meant the mentality upon which Israeli policy seems to be based. Everything Israel does in this conflict reflects the assumption that Israeli lives are worth more than Palestinian lives and that Israel’s security can come at the expense of the occupation. The most unique aspect of the situation in this case is the colonial settler nature of the occupation, which is now a moot point in Gaza, but continues unabated in the West Bank. I will not go into this as my response is already too long.
When I say that occupiers have only responsibilities: they are the following: The occupier must 1) provide humanitarian services for the occupied population, 2) act only in defense militarily and 3) punish those responsible for crimes. Israel has never recognized itself as an occupying power (the arguments are interesting but discredited), has never recognized any of its responsibilities in this regard and has never officially recognized the IV Geneva Convention as applicable to the territories (though it has argued that it does enforce the convention independently). The first two are frequently upheld by occupying powers, but the last is virtually alien to the imperial mentality. Punishing crimes (the use of human shields by Israeli soldiers, torture [banned in 1999 in Israel], attacks against civilians by Jewish settlers, etc.) is so far removed from the imperial mentality to render it pointless to even discuss.
Comment by Kris Petersen — November 27, 2007 @ 9:54 am
Hi Kris,
I read your article on disengagement from Gaza at the Electronic Intifada website. Thanks for your analysis. Very helpful and interesting. I work with a new group called the Arab Jewish Partnership for Peace and Justice in the Middle East. I just need to know if you have an credible source that can confirm that the unemplyment rate in Gaza today is 80%. I’ve seen this number in quite a few articles and I’m trying to see if anyone can confirm it? Thanks Kris. Peace, Maha
Comment by Maha Jarad — December 3, 2007 @ 12:51 am