Response to letter on Gaza situation by international law professors

Dozens of legal scholars have signed a letter condemning the Israeli attack on Gaza. It is important and welcome; however, at the same time in reinforces certain misconceptions and double standards. The full text of the letter can be seen below or at the Times On-line website. I want to dissect this letter to show how short it falls of reality and justice. Let me sum up the letter's main points:

- The Hamas rockets do not entitle Israel to invoke self defense because of their "scale and effect."
- The killing of almost 800 Palestinians is not commensurate to the
deaths caused by Hamas rocket fire.
- For 18 months Israel had imposed an unlawful blockade
- In the three years after Israel's redeployment from Gaza, 11 Israelis were killed by rocket fire, while the Israeli army killed about 1,250 Palestinians in Gaza, including 222 children.
- Gaza is occupied territory under international law.

ALSO
- Hamas rockets are "deplorable" and a "war crime."
- Israel does have a right to self-defense provided it is a last resort and is proportional.

Now lets look at the concluding paragraph:
"We condemn the firing of rockets by Hamas into Israel and suicide bombings
which are also contrary to international humanitarian law and are war
crimes. Israel has a right to take reasonable and proportionate means to
protect its civilian population from such attacks. However, the manner and
scale of its operations in Gaza amount to an act of aggression and is
contrary to international law, notwithstanding the rocket attacks by Hamas."

First of all, why is this letter even talking about suicide bombings with reference to Hamas. Even the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs page titled "Suicide and Other Bombing Attacks in Israel" does not accuse Hamas of having carried out or even having provided material support for any "suicide or other bombings" since it was elected in 2006. The Ministry only states that Hamas "praised" one bombing and notes that a fatal rocket was fired from "Hamas-controlled Gaza." Second, the letter makes no reference to the cease fires that have extended throughout most of Hamas' rule that were either unilateral or observed by Hamas despite incessant violations by Israel. (These include March 2005-June 2006, November 2006-April 2007, June 2008-December 2008. Even the mainstream sources I cite make it clear that Hamas only broke the cease fires after deadly Israeli attacks. Hamas sought other cease fires only to be rebuffed by Israel.) The fact is that Hamas has refrained from firing rockets except after extreme provocation, despite incessant attacks by Israel.

Moreover, the paragraph affirms Israel's "right to take reasonable and proportionate means to protect its civilian population." However, there is no mention of a Hamas' or any one else's right similarly protect Gaza, despite the letter having recognized that Gaza is occupied territory and has been under an unlawful blockade and the Israeli army has killed hundreds of Palestinian children in the past few years. If the "last resort" criterion that the letter mentions is applied, who more than Hamas could claim it? After all, their lengthy cease fires are only reported when they are finally ended, they are excluded from a negotiating process which has failed to bring anything but a deterioration of conditions after 16 years, and their people were placed on the brink of starvation. Why do the signers of this letter only recognize the occupiers' right to self defense while condemning the only means of resistance available to the occupied as "war crimes?"

The Israelis use the Hamas bogeyman to rationalize the on-going genocide in Gaza. Hamas has been vilified not only through Israeli lies but also through omissions of facts such as those I have cited above. This letter, although well-meaning, contributes both to the vilification of Hamas and to bizarre double-standards regarding the right of self-defense, and thus whatever positive impact it could have is reduced.

Titus North

*Israel's bombardment of Gaza is not self-defence – it's a war crime
*
ISRAEL has sought to justify its military attacks on Gaza by stating that it
amounts to an act of "self-defence" as recognised by Article 51, United
Nations Charter. We categorically reject this contention.

The rocket attacks on Israel by Hamas deplorable as they are, do not, in
terms of scale and effect amount to an armed attack entitling Israel to rely
on self-defence. Under international law self-defence is an act of last
resort and is subject to the customary rules of proportionality and
necessity.

The killing of almost 800 Palestinians, mostly civilians, and more than
3,000 injuries, accompanied by the destruction of schools, mosques, houses,
UN compounds and government buildings, which Israel has a responsibility to
protect under the Fourth Geneva Convention, is not commensurate to the
deaths caused by Hamas rocket fire.

For 18 months Israel had imposed an unlawful blockade on the coastal strip
that brought Gazan society to the brink of collapse. In the three years
after Israel's redeployment from Gaza, 11 Israelis were killed by rocket
fire. And yet in 2005-8, according to the UN, the Israeli army killed about
1,250 Palestinians in Gaza, including 222 children. Throughout this time the
Gaza Strip remained occupied territory under international law because
Israel maintained effective control over it.

Israel's actions amount to aggression, not self-defence, not least because
its assault on Gaza was unnecessary. Israel could have agreed to renew the
truce with Hamas. Instead it killed 225 Palestinians on the first day of its
attack. As things stand, its invasion and bombardment of Gaza amounts to
collective punishment of Gaza's 1.5m inhabitants contrary to international
humanitarian and human rights law. In addition, the blockade of humanitarian
relief, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, and preventing access to
basic necessities such as food and fuel, are prima facie war crimes.

We condemn the firing of rockets by Hamas into Israel and suicide bombings
which are also contrary to international humanitarian law and are war
crimes. Israel has a right to take reasonable and proportionate means to
protect its civilian population from such attacks. However, the manner and
scale of its operations in Gaza amount to an act of aggression and is
contrary to international law, notwithstanding the rocket attacks by Hamas.

Ian Brownlie QC, Blackstone Chambers
Mark Muller QC, Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales
Michael Mansfield QC and Joel Bennathan QC, Tooks Chambers
Sir Geoffrey Bindman, University College, London
Professor Richard Falk, Princeton University
Professor M Cherif Bassiouni, DePaul University, Chicago
Professor Christine Chinkin, LSE
Professor John B Quigley, Ohio State University
Professor Iain Scobbie and Victor Kattan, School of Oriental and African
Studies
Professor Vera Gowlland-Debbas, Graduate Institute of International and
Development Studies, Geneva
Professor Said Mahmoudi, Stockholm University
Professor Max du Plessis, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban
Professor Bill Bowring, Birkbeck College
Professor Joshua Castellino, Middlesex University
Professor Thomas Skouteris and Professor Michael Kagan, American University
of Cairo
Professor Javaid Rehman, Brunel University
Daniel Machover, Chairman, Lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights
Dr Phoebe Okawa, Queen Mary University
John Strawson, University of East London
Dr Nisrine Abiad, British Institute of International and Comparative Law
Dr Michael Kearney, University of York
Dr Shane Darcy, National University of Ireland, Galway
Dr Michelle Burgis, University of St Andrews
Dr Niaz Shah, University of Hull_,___

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.