Skip to main content

"Immoral and illegal"

It is against the Geneva Convention to impose collective punishment on a people. That hasn't stopped the Israelis over the last 40 years during its occupation of Gaza and the West Bank breaching the Geneva Convention in a variety of ways. Faced with rockets being fired into Israel from Gaza, the Israelis have responded with collective punishment by cutting off the water and electricity supply into the already blighted Gaza area.

Haaretz is spot on in its editorial when it says that what the Israelis are doing is "immoral and illegal":

"Communities in the western Negev are now enduring their seventh year of rocket attacks. Israel's inability to halt these attacks stems from fear that the cost of a military operation in the Gaza Strip, which the Israel Defense Forces left two years ago, would be higher than the benefits: Many soldiers would be hurt or killed; there would also be Palestinian casualties; international understanding of Israel's need to defend itself would evaporate; and in the end, the operation would turn out to have produced only a lull before the next battle between Israel and the Palestinian organizations - which use various means against it, and not only rockets.

The distress of Israel's government, which is responsible for defending its citizens, periodically gives rise - and with greater force than usual this week - to desperate ideas. One such idea, which is being advocated by Minister Haim Ramon and, more guardedly, by Defense Minister Ehud Barak, is hitting Gaza's water and electricity networks. Stopping the flow of water and electricity is a painful and punishing step, but ostensibly not a fatal one. Its goal is to cause the Palestinian public to pressure Hamas and Islamic Jihad to stop the fire.

This idea is complete nonsense. Factually speaking, cutting off water and electricity can kill. Moreover, there is no proof that making the Palestinian public suffer would make Hamas take pity on it and embark on a cease-fire. On the contrary: Hamas consistently sabotages the flow of essential goods through Gaza's border terminals. What is being presented as a way to avoid war is counterproductive, immoral and illegal."

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...
Post a Comment
Read more

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...
6 comments
Read more