Comments on: Gaza Conflict, Response, Proportionality and Limitations

By: hello

hello — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 07:52:39 +0000

we are with u gaza

By: smoky

smoky — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 07:45:46 +0000

I m realy sad to see this information about gaza………….. I just requested to isaraeel “plz stop this horrible and silent war……..

By: Whither now, Additional Protocol I? « International Law Observer

Whither now, Additional Protocol I? « International Law Observer — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 09:18:03 +0000

[...] Protocol I is often cited in reference to the Arab-Israeli conflict. For example, it is said that Israel’s recent actions in Gaza violated the principle of distinction ‘enshrined [...]

By: EU freezes upgrading of its economic relations with Israel « International Law Observer

Thu, 22 Jan 2009 02:05:17 +0000

[...] Gaza Conflict, Response, Proportionality and Limitations [...]

By: Jeremiah

Jeremiah — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 15:21:45 +0000

The argument that Israel is an “occupying power” in relation to this conflict is dubious at best. While Gaza might have the label “occupied territory,” they clearly dictate their own political leadership and act as sovereign nation. What do you mean by “dispossessing” the Palestinians? The terminology being thrown around on this board seems about as vague as international law.

By: Israel launches air strikes on Gaza, 120 dead - Page 32 - Islamica Community Forums

Fri, 16 Jan 2009 23:52:15 +0000

[...] to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv).� Gaza Conflict, Response, Proportionality and Limitations International Law Observer Also, several UN sites and vehicles have been hit up to this point, with Israeli officials [...]

By: More on proportionality « International Law Observer

More on proportionality « International Law Observer — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 13:22:51 +0000

[...] Gaza Conflict, Response, Proportionality and Limitations [...]

By: Jürg Gassmann

Jürg Gassmann — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 01:53:29 +0000

I am surprised that the fact of Israel being the Occupying Power in Gaza is mentioned as aside – this is a very crucial fact, and makes nonsense of any comparisons with Lebanon or the invocation of Art. 51. As Israel is still the Occupying Power, its responsibilities regarding peace, order and application of force are governed by Geneva IV and Hague Regulations IV.

Back in 2005, when Israel unilaterally demilitarised Gaza, it deliberately failed to address the question of how it might continue to fulfil its GC IV obligations, intending to deny them altogether. But that does not relieve Israel of those obligations, nor does it give Israel carte blanche now.

By: Aeyal Gross

Aeyal Gross — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:39:35 +0000

Thanks for the debate. I second Valentina’s concern that we should not abstract from the context of occupation. I think there is something problematic in Israel saying it acts to defend its sovergenity while it continue to dispossess the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. THere is a complex question of how we take this into effect. Also, I suggest you read this short report from HRW:
http://www.hrw.org/middle-eastn-africa/israel-and-occupied-territories
Ultimatley, in thinking of IHL, we should consider whether we want a IHL that become apologia for kiliing of children and civilians? Because I fear the use by Israel and some of it defenders takes IHL to that direction. This is possible because of the structure of IHL itself but also because of this total abstraction from context.

By: olewpedersen

olewpedersen — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 16:41:08 +0000

For further debate on this contentious issue see other good posts on the EJIL blog by Marko Milanovic http://www.ejiltalk.org/a-follow-up-on-israel-and-gaza/, by Kevin Jon Heller on Opinio Juris http://opiniojuris.org/2009/01/03/dershowitz-on-israel-and-proportionality/ and Eric Posner on the Volokh Conspiracy http://www.volokh.com/posts/1231001072.shtml