Jimmy Carter in the Guardian’s Comment is Free section:
The world is witnessing a terrible human rights crime in Gaza, where a million and a half human beings are being imprisoned with almost no access to the outside world. An entire population is being brutally punished.This gross mistreatment of the Palestinians in Gaza was escalated dramatically by Israel, with United States backing, after political candidates representing Hamas won a majority of seats in the Palestinian Authority parliament in 2006. The election was unanimously judged to be honest and fair by all international observers.
Israel and the US refused to accept the right of Palestinians to form a unity government with Hamas and Fatah and now, after internal strife, Hamas alone controls Gaza. Forty-one of the 43 victorious Hamas candidates who lived in the West Bank have been imprisoned by Israel, plus an additional 10 who assumed positions in the short-lived coalition cabinet.
As I’ve commented in the past, Jimmy Carter’s say-so that elections are “honest and fair” is worthless as he’s covered for elections stolen by Yasser Arafat and Hugo Chavez.
Still Carter, is not a lawyer and knows nothing about international law. However, David B. Rivkin and Lee Casey specialize in the subject and outlined Israel’s rights and obligations according to international law.
It is because an occupying power exercises effective control over a territory that international law substantially restricts the measures, military or economic, it can bring to bear upon this territory, well beyond the limits that would be applicable before occupation, whether in wartime or peacetime.The Israeli military does not control Gaza; nor does Israel exercise any government functions there. Claims that Israel continues to occupy Gaza suggest that a power having once occupied a territory must continue to behave toward the local population as an occupying power until all outstanding issues are resolved. This “principle” can be described only as an ingenious invention; it has no basis in traditional international law.
The adoption of any such rule (designed to limit Israel’s freedom of action and give Hamas a legal leg up in its continuing conflict) should be actively opposed by the United States. Its adoption would suggest that no occupying power can withdraw of its own volition without incurring continuing, and perhaps permanent, legal obligations to a territory. This issue is particularly acute regarding territory not otherwise controlled by a functioning state — failed states or failed areas of states where the “legitimate” government cannot or will not exercise effective control. Such places — call them badlands — were once rare. Over the past 15 years, though, there has been an explosion in the number of such areas, notably parts of Afghanistan, Somalia and portions of Pakistan.
I suppose that Jimmy should be flattered, they called his declaration that Israel should not be allowed to defend itself “ingenious.” I don’t think they meant it in a complimentary fashion though.
Furthermore restricting Israel’s right to defend itself, has implications in relation to the United States.
Unduly handicapping states that intervene in such badlands — whether to protect their own interests, those of the local population or both — is unrealistic and irresponsible. Requiring agreement by the “international community” (whatever that may be) as a precondition for extinguishing such a designation is equally unproductive if the goal is saving lives. Consider the example of Darfur.Even worse is pretending that groups such as Hamas are merely criminal gangs that must be dealt with as a local policing problem — just one of the potential side effects of imposing an “occupied” status on a territory. This implicates U.S. interests directly, since America’s ability to use robust armed force against al-Qaeda and similar non-state actors remains critical to defending our civilian population from attack.
Perhaps rather than lecturing us about international law, Jimmy ought to sit down and read a book or two on the topic before spouting off.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
“Imprisoned.” Don’t they have longer borders snuggled up to their loving Arab brothers than they do Israel? Why do Jordan and Egypt get a clean bill of health here?
Well Gaza has a border with Egypt although it is not longer than that with Israel but much shorter. Nevertheless, the question why Egypt is getting a pass is a good one. The answer, of course, is that Egypt is not populated by Jews, and has not been demonized for decades like Israel has. Just about everybody on the Left now knows that the de rigeur Third-worldism that is the leftist party line demands the demonization of Israel and the sanctification of Palestinian Arab terrorists.
Their “Arab Brothers” hate and despise the Palestinian Arabs. A couple of years ago the Wahhabist Entity passed a new naturalization law. Muslims who had lived in the Magic Kingdom the requisite time could become subjects of His Wahhabist Majesty, except Palestinians. They are prohibited from becoming naturalized subjects of the Wahhabist Entity. As far as their “Arab Brothers” are concerned, their function in life is as cannoon fodder for the fight against the Jews, and nothing more.