8/4/2019 Free Gaza Movement's Legal Analysis of Uribe

1/3

FREE GAZA LEGAL ANALYSIS OF URIBE (PALMER) REPORT

FREE GAZAS position is that a naval blockade of Gaza is a seriousmeasure of war that is not justified either under the laws of armedconflict (LOAC) or the law of the sea. The conflict between Israel &

Hamas is not one in which there is an applicable right of blockade.

1. Israel's position vis-a-vis Gaza is that of an occupying power

whose policies are violations of the Geneva Conventions. This is the

conclusion of the Goldstone Report & UN GA resolution in 2009, the

UN HRC report in Sept 2010...

a. Those fighting Israel are resisting occupation and there is a

right to resist occupation. (Of course, not by any means). This

resistance is not armed conflict governed by the LOAC

b. If theres no armed conflict, the law of blockade doesnt apply

c. There is no international law that makes it legal for an

occupying power to blockade the territory it is occupying; in fact, it

has a duty to care for the civilian population (4GC)

2. BUT lets accept Israels argument that the occupation of Gaza

ended in 2005, when it removed its settlers & troops & that the

LOAC apply

a. The LOAC apply to ANY use of force between states BUT

Hamas forces clearly dont represent a state

b. According to the San Remo Manual on Armed Conflict at Sea,

which Isr/Uribe Panel rely: STATES engaged in armed conflict can

legally blockade one another for clear MILITARY reasons.

c. The fundamental definition of an international armed conflict

(IAC) under the 4GC is that it involves High Contracting Parties

d. Israel certainly doesnt consider itself in a conflict with another

state. Its currently fighting in UN against recognition of Palestine

as a state.

3. So the legal characterization of this conflict would at best be a

non-international armed conflict (NIAC) with non-state actors (H) &

there is not much support for the proposition that blockade isavailable in NIACs

8/4/2019 Free Gaza Movement's Legal Analysis of Uribe

2/3

a. and then, only in conflicts reaching a high level of intensity

b. Since Isr assault on G in 2008-9, while there have been

frequent Isr air attacks & Pal rockets/missiles fired, the total #

killed & inured dont add up to hi intensity violence

c. labeling those resisting as "terrorists" does not change this

legal situation.

4. But lets assume that the LOAC do apply & Isr has the right to

use naval blockade. There are accepted requirements of lawful

blockade that Isr hasnt met.

a. Legal" blockades have to have a military objective.

i. But theres evidence that Israel's goals for the blockade are

not primarily military but are, instead, economic warfare aimed at

the people of Gaza for having had the audacity to elect Hamas in

2006

ii. Evidence of that: in 2006, shortly after the election of Hamas,

Dov Weisglass, an adviser to then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud

Olmert, publicly stated that the goal of Israeli policy in Gaza was to

"put the Palestinians on a diet, but not make them die of hunger

iii. Wikileaks US embassy cables: Isr officials confirmed to US

emb on multiple occasions that they intend to keep the G economy

on brink of collapse

b. AND any blockade would stop being legal und San Remo if

"damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be,

excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage

anticipated from the blockade."

i. The central issue here is one of proportionality

ii. The naval blockade is part of a comprehensive siege that has

had disproportionate effects on the civilian population of G,

making the naval blockade disproportionate

iii. The Gazan economy has basically collapsed GBrown called it

an open air prison 61% pop food insecure

c. This is collective punishment of 1.5 million Pals living in G & is

ILLEGAL a violation of 4GC

8/4/2019 Free Gaza Movement's Legal Analysis of Uribe

3/3

i. So even assuming the purpose of the naval blockade is to stop

rocket attacks & force the release of G. Shalit, it is still illegal

because it is punishment inflicted on the entire population of Gaza

on account of the acts of individuals or groups for which they cant

be regarded as being responsible

SUMMARY: THE NAVAL BLOCKADE OF GAZA, AS PART OF THENEAR HERMETIC CLOSURE OF GAZA, IS ILLEGAL:

1st BECAUSE GAZA IS OCCUPIED TERRITORY IN WHICH CASERESISTANCE TO OCCUPATION IS NOT ARMED CONFLICT & THELOAC DO NOT APPLY;

2ND ASSUMING NO LONGER OCCUPATION - BECAUSE THE LOACAPPLY TO INTERNATIONAL ARMD CONFLICTS BETWEEN STATES

NOT WITH NON-STATE ACTORS;

3RD IF WE CONSIDER THE SITUATION TO BE A NON-INTERNATIONALARMED CONFLICT WITH A NON-STATE ACTOR, BECAUSE THEN FORTHE LOAC TO APPLY IF AT ALL THE CONFLICT HAS TO BE HIGHINTENSITY;

4TH EVEN ASSUMING LOAC & SAN REMO MANUAL ON NAVALWARFARE APPLY, BECAUSE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A BLOCKADETO BE LAWFUL (MILITARY OBJECTIVE & PROPORTIONALITY) HAVENOT BEEN MET

[[Opposing the illegal blockade is the legal obligation of states & amoral obligation of people of conscience, such as those in FG]]