Israel Makes Badly to the Health
The conflict seen under the International law - the images speak for itself. Per weeks we had images of a slaughter: mutilated bodies and children deceased haunting the screens of the television and shocking in photographs in periodicals and the Internet. Israel used its sophisticated armory all to destroy the Hamas. E the Hamas, in turn, continued to shoot its rockets in Israel.
The images speak for itself.
Per weeks we had images of a slaughter: mutilated bodies and children deceased haunting the screens of the television and shocking in photographs in periodicals and the Internet. Israel used its sophisticated armory all to destroy the Hamas. E the Hamas, in turn, continued to shoot its rockets in Israel. Since that Israel launched its operation in Gaza in day 27 of December of 2008, 1010 Israeli Palestinians and trezes had been died (1). In accordance with the Health department in Gaza, one terço of deceased is children. Approximately 5000 Palestinians had been wounded. We do not know the accurate ratio of combatants of the Hamas enters the deceased numbers. Israel also blocked the entrance of international journalists for an independent verification of the facts. In resolution 1860, the Advice of Security of the ONU detached the urgency of the situation and made one appeals one " immediate, durable and complete respect to the cease-fire, leading to the withdrawal of Israeli forces of Gaza". The resolution was being ignored for the two sides and Israeli troops had entered in the City of Gaza. But it was this necessary war? E was legally acceptable? In the first morning where Israel launched its offensive in Gaza killing 225 Palestinians, the Israeli ambassadress for the ONU, Gabriela Shalev directed a letter to Secretary-Generality announcing that " after a long period of supreme self-control, the government of Israel decided to exert, in this morning, its right to legitimate defesa". Two weeks after the beginning of the conflict, the House of representatives of U.S.A. adopted a resolution " recognizing the right of Israel to self defense against the attacks of Gaza" for a majority of 390 votes against 5. In day 6 of January of the 2009, when an attack of an Israeli tank killed 40 Palestinians in a school of the ONU, first-minister of Australia, Kevin Rudd reaffirmed that " Australia recognizes the right of Israel to legitimate defesa". In the last conference to the press, then president George W. Bush declared that Israel has right if to defend, but would have to attempt against for " the people inocentes". She can cause astonishment that, although these declarations, many specialists in International law argue that Israel cannot support the right to self defense to justify its action in Gaza. In a letter published in the Sunday periodical Teamses (2), the argument of self defense intended for Israel will be rejected by two dozens of specialists in International law. They argue that the Israeli actions in the Band of Gaza are a aggression and not self defense.
2. Self defense: what it is an armed attack? An article 51 of the Letter of United Nations (3) supports that the state-members have the inherent right self defense, either individual or collective, if attacks to occur. The question then is what it is an armed attack? For the common sense, the word " attack armado" it can mean any attack. But under the International law the subject is not of easy solution. If, for example, an only detonation through a border was considered armed attack for the intentions of article 51 of the Letter of United Nations, States could invoke its " inerente" right to self defense and to leave for the attack for lesser offences. This would cause interminable instability in the international relations and could still take the accidental wars. It is enough to think about the tensions between India and Pakistan, China and Taiwan, Coreia of the north and the South, Greece and Turkey, Russia and Geórgia to perceive this danger. In addition, if the artifice for an armed attack so was reduced, States could " effectively; fabricar" a war: everything that would need would be to provoke an incident in the borders, to allege that previously they had been attacked and to send its troops. In the case " Nicarágua" , the International Cut of Justice traced the distinction between " efeitos" scales and; of particular a military operation that could then be classified as one has attacked armed in opposition " a mere incident of fronteira". The Cut declared that one has attacked armed launched for " seted bandos, irregular groups or mercenários" it would have that to be of " such gravity that if it compares with a true attack lead for forces regulares" , imposing a criterion for mensuração binding it the harmful potential of the action. The jurisprudence of the Cut in the case " Nicarágua" it was kept in the relative case to " Platforms of Petróleo" , where it was said that to determine if an armed attack it had occurred would be necessary to distinguish " the forms most serious of use of the force in relation menores". Exactly cumulative attacks, according to Cut, would be necessary that they were accumulated to the point to reach the one level " attack armado" for the ends of article 51 of the Letter of the ONU. In the case of the Israel-Palestine conflict, one is not about a singular shot through borders. We are facing decades of territorial disputes. Taking that the right to self defense as explicit in article 51 if it applies the not-state actors as the Hamas, the rockets gone off for its military section are in " efeito" scales and; to the point of if constituting one " attack armado" e not one " incident of fronteira"? E is of " so great gravidade" what are equalized to the attack perpetrated for a regular military force? In this in case that, as if it can quantify the attacks of the Hamas for the intention to constitute an armed attack? It would be through the number of detonations? Or for the number of caused deaths? A rocket gone off in an open field or an empty building is an armed attack? E if this rocket cause damages, wounding or killing somebody? Although it is not possible or exactly desirable to quantify necessarily what it constitutes an armed attack in these terms, a time that this appreciation will be dependent of individual factors of each in case that, the death of a dozen of civilians caused for the Hamas, in the scale of one assassinated per year, for more deplorable than either if would not characterize as an armed attack for the intentions of the Letter of the ONU. In more, it is not possible to ignore the behavior of the Armed Forces of Israel in busy territories e, in this way, to examine the attacks of missiles of the Hamas in isolated. Two parts in this conflict exist. In the three years after the rearrangement of the Israeli troops in Gaza, 11 Israelis had been died for attacks of rockets. E enters 12 of September of the 2005 (day where Israel declared as having findado the process of " retirada" of its illegal nestings in Gaza) and day 27 of December of 2008 (it dates where Israel launched its first aerial attacks of the last operation), the army of Israel already had assassinated approximately 1250 Palestinians, in accordance with data collected for the Coordination of Humanitarian Subjects of the ONU. In accordance with a report produced for the proper consulate of Israel in New York, the average of missiles and gone off mortars of Gaza had fallen for next the zero and in this average if they had kept for next the four months, after the cease-fire initiated in June of 2008. As Nancy Kanwisher, Johannes Haushofer and Anat Biletzki they had pointed in Huffington Post, the cease-fire finished in 4 of November of 2008 " when Israel killed Palestinians and, only then, Palestinians had answered with rockets against Israel". However, for intentions of the International law, the question is not who attacks first - even so the definition of the article 2º Resolution that defines Aggression approved for the General meeting of the ONU stipulates that " the first use of Armed Force for a State in contravention with the Letter will have to constitute cousin facie evidence of an act of agressão". As professor Yoram Dinstein, of the Israeli University of Tel Aviv, it argues in its book War, Aggression and Self defense (War, Aggression and Self-Defence, Cambridge University Press, 2005, P. 191), " it is not the first shot, but that one that the legal limit pparently undertook in a irreversible way crossing. To spread the death, on the contrary of the first detonation, is that it constitutes the beginning of an attack armado". But, without doubts, it was the Israeli attack in 27 of December of 2008, the biggest aerial attack in the Band of Gaza since 1967, that it constituted " to trespassar of the limits legais" , to use the phrase of Dinstein. Although, in accordance with the Israeli government, the Hamas went off hundreds of missiles against the south of Israel in the previous week to the attack of 27 of December, only one Israeli civilian (that he was in its apartment in Netivot) was died. Not less important, this rocket was gone off as retaliation of the Israeli action of murders of Palestinians in day 4 of November of 2008.
3. Proportionality: a great picture Certainly the position could be defended of that Israel cannot invoke a right to self defense, therefore the military reply was not necessary or proportional, that in result of the insufficient results of the missiles launched for the Hamas would not arrive to constitute aggression. In the advisory opinion on " Nucleares" weapons; , the International Cut of Justice stipulated that " the force use that is proportional inside of the right to the defense must, to take care of the legality criterion, to fill the requirements of the applicable right in cases of armed conflict, what it implies in the observance in particular of the principles of the International law Humanitário". In other words, all and any use of the force, despite in self defense to repel an attack armed, must take care of the criteria of the necessity, proportionality and be in compliance with the Humanitarian International law (Laws of the War). In any analysis of proportionality, the facts of the allegation must be had of legitimize defense in particular. One has attacked cannot be analyzed separately, but to be interpreted from the incidents that had supposedly provoked it. This is the interpretation of proportionality adopted for the International Cut of Justice in the case of " Platforms of Petróleo". Evaluating the proportionality of an Iranian attack, the Cut decided that " could not; to appreciate the proportionality of the action stops without judging that it was a reply to the aggression; not being able to close the eyes for the totality of operação". In other words, when evaluating the Israeli pretension of self defense and questions correlatas of proportionality, if it must have in mind the deaths in the Band of Gaza, caused for the operations of Israel previously to the evolution of the hostilities. Thus, exactly during the call cease-fire, Israel it assassinated Palestinians in Gaza, as in the attack in 4 of November of 2008, killing six people. Israel also surrounded and blocked Gaza for the 18 months that had preceded the attack. Therefore, in any evaluation of proportionality, it is not possible to ignore the complete picture of the situation, where numbers of Palestinians died in the 3 preceding years to the December of 2008 totalize 222 children. Also if it cannot ignore the number of civilians massacreed in the most recent hostilities. It is the death of an Israeli civilian in the antecedent week to the aerial attack of 28 of December of 2008 proportional to the deaths of more than a thousand Palestinians? To read more: http://www.socialismo.org.br/portal/internacional/38-artigo/1017-gaza-uma-guerra-que-certamente-nao-e-de-legitima-defesa
The images speak for itself.
Per weeks we had images of a slaughter: mutilated bodies and children deceased haunting the screens of the television and shocking in photographs in periodicals and the Internet. Israel used its sophisticated armory all to destroy the Hamas. E the Hamas, in turn, continued to shoot its rockets in Israel. Since that Israel launched its operation in Gaza in day 27 of December of 2008, 1010 Israeli Palestinians and trezes had been died (1). In accordance with the Health department in Gaza, one terço of deceased is children. Approximately 5000 Palestinians had been wounded. We do not know the accurate ratio of combatants of the Hamas enters the deceased numbers. Israel also blocked the entrance of international journalists for an independent verification of the facts. In resolution 1860, the Advice of Security of the ONU detached the urgency of the situation and made one appeals one " immediate, durable and complete respect to the cease-fire, leading to the withdrawal of Israeli forces of Gaza". The resolution was being ignored for the two sides and Israeli troops had entered in the City of Gaza. But it was this necessary war? E was legally acceptable? In the first morning where Israel launched its offensive in Gaza killing 225 Palestinians, the Israeli ambassadress for the ONU, Gabriela Shalev directed a letter to Secretary-Generality announcing that " after a long period of supreme self-control, the government of Israel decided to exert, in this morning, its right to legitimate defesa". Two weeks after the beginning of the conflict, the House of representatives of U.S.A. adopted a resolution " recognizing the right of Israel to self defense against the attacks of Gaza" for a majority of 390 votes against 5. In day 6 of January of the 2009, when an attack of an Israeli tank killed 40 Palestinians in a school of the ONU, first-minister of Australia, Kevin Rudd reaffirmed that " Australia recognizes the right of Israel to legitimate defesa". In the last conference to the press, then president George W. Bush declared that Israel has right if to defend, but would have to attempt against for " the people inocentes". She can cause astonishment that, although these declarations, many specialists in International law argue that Israel cannot support the right to self defense to justify its action in Gaza. In a letter published in the Sunday periodical Teamses (2), the argument of self defense intended for Israel will be rejected by two dozens of specialists in International law. They argue that the Israeli actions in the Band of Gaza are a aggression and not self defense.
2. Self defense: what it is an armed attack? An article 51 of the Letter of United Nations (3) supports that the state-members have the inherent right self defense, either individual or collective, if attacks to occur. The question then is what it is an armed attack? For the common sense, the word " attack armado" it can mean any attack. But under the International law the subject is not of easy solution. If, for example, an only detonation through a border was considered armed attack for the intentions of article 51 of the Letter of United Nations, States could invoke its " inerente" right to self defense and to leave for the attack for lesser offences. This would cause interminable instability in the international relations and could still take the accidental wars. It is enough to think about the tensions between India and Pakistan, China and Taiwan, Coreia of the north and the South, Greece and Turkey, Russia and Geórgia to perceive this danger. In addition, if the artifice for an armed attack so was reduced, States could " effectively; fabricar" a war: everything that would need would be to provoke an incident in the borders, to allege that previously they had been attacked and to send its troops. In the case " Nicarágua" , the International Cut of Justice traced the distinction between " efeitos" scales and; of particular a military operation that could then be classified as one has attacked armed in opposition " a mere incident of fronteira". The Cut declared that one has attacked armed launched for " seted bandos, irregular groups or mercenários" it would have that to be of " such gravity that if it compares with a true attack lead for forces regulares" , imposing a criterion for mensuração binding it the harmful potential of the action. The jurisprudence of the Cut in the case " Nicarágua" it was kept in the relative case to " Platforms of Petróleo" , where it was said that to determine if an armed attack it had occurred would be necessary to distinguish " the forms most serious of use of the force in relation menores". Exactly cumulative attacks, according to Cut, would be necessary that they were accumulated to the point to reach the one level " attack armado" for the ends of article 51 of the Letter of the ONU. In the case of the Israel-Palestine conflict, one is not about a singular shot through borders. We are facing decades of territorial disputes. Taking that the right to self defense as explicit in article 51 if it applies the not-state actors as the Hamas, the rockets gone off for its military section are in " efeito" scales and; to the point of if constituting one " attack armado" e not one " incident of fronteira"? E is of " so great gravidade" what are equalized to the attack perpetrated for a regular military force? In this in case that, as if it can quantify the attacks of the Hamas for the intention to constitute an armed attack? It would be through the number of detonations? Or for the number of caused deaths? A rocket gone off in an open field or an empty building is an armed attack? E if this rocket cause damages, wounding or killing somebody? Although it is not possible or exactly desirable to quantify necessarily what it constitutes an armed attack in these terms, a time that this appreciation will be dependent of individual factors of each in case that, the death of a dozen of civilians caused for the Hamas, in the scale of one assassinated per year, for more deplorable than either if would not characterize as an armed attack for the intentions of the Letter of the ONU. In more, it is not possible to ignore the behavior of the Armed Forces of Israel in busy territories e, in this way, to examine the attacks of missiles of the Hamas in isolated. Two parts in this conflict exist. In the three years after the rearrangement of the Israeli troops in Gaza, 11 Israelis had been died for attacks of rockets. E enters 12 of September of the 2005 (day where Israel declared as having findado the process of " retirada" of its illegal nestings in Gaza) and day 27 of December of 2008 (it dates where Israel launched its first aerial attacks of the last operation), the army of Israel already had assassinated approximately 1250 Palestinians, in accordance with data collected for the Coordination of Humanitarian Subjects of the ONU. In accordance with a report produced for the proper consulate of Israel in New York, the average of missiles and gone off mortars of Gaza had fallen for next the zero and in this average if they had kept for next the four months, after the cease-fire initiated in June of 2008. As Nancy Kanwisher, Johannes Haushofer and Anat Biletzki they had pointed in Huffington Post, the cease-fire finished in 4 of November of 2008 " when Israel killed Palestinians and, only then, Palestinians had answered with rockets against Israel". However, for intentions of the International law, the question is not who attacks first - even so the definition of the article 2º Resolution that defines Aggression approved for the General meeting of the ONU stipulates that " the first use of Armed Force for a State in contravention with the Letter will have to constitute cousin facie evidence of an act of agressão". As professor Yoram Dinstein, of the Israeli University of Tel Aviv, it argues in its book War, Aggression and Self defense (War, Aggression and Self-Defence, Cambridge University Press, 2005, P. 191), " it is not the first shot, but that one that the legal limit pparently undertook in a irreversible way crossing. To spread the death, on the contrary of the first detonation, is that it constitutes the beginning of an attack armado". But, without doubts, it was the Israeli attack in 27 of December of 2008, the biggest aerial attack in the Band of Gaza since 1967, that it constituted " to trespassar of the limits legais" , to use the phrase of Dinstein. Although, in accordance with the Israeli government, the Hamas went off hundreds of missiles against the south of Israel in the previous week to the attack of 27 of December, only one Israeli civilian (that he was in its apartment in Netivot) was died. Not less important, this rocket was gone off as retaliation of the Israeli action of murders of Palestinians in day 4 of November of 2008.
3. Proportionality: a great picture Certainly the position could be defended of that Israel cannot invoke a right to self defense, therefore the military reply was not necessary or proportional, that in result of the insufficient results of the missiles launched for the Hamas would not arrive to constitute aggression. In the advisory opinion on " Nucleares" weapons; , the International Cut of Justice stipulated that " the force use that is proportional inside of the right to the defense must, to take care of the legality criterion, to fill the requirements of the applicable right in cases of armed conflict, what it implies in the observance in particular of the principles of the International law Humanitário". In other words, all and any use of the force, despite in self defense to repel an attack armed, must take care of the criteria of the necessity, proportionality and be in compliance with the Humanitarian International law (Laws of the War). In any analysis of proportionality, the facts of the allegation must be had of legitimize defense in particular. One has attacked cannot be analyzed separately, but to be interpreted from the incidents that had supposedly provoked it. This is the interpretation of proportionality adopted for the International Cut of Justice in the case of " Platforms of Petróleo". Evaluating the proportionality of an Iranian attack, the Cut decided that " could not; to appreciate the proportionality of the action stops without judging that it was a reply to the aggression; not being able to close the eyes for the totality of operação". In other words, when evaluating the Israeli pretension of self defense and questions correlatas of proportionality, if it must have in mind the deaths in the Band of Gaza, caused for the operations of Israel previously to the evolution of the hostilities. Thus, exactly during the call cease-fire, Israel it assassinated Palestinians in Gaza, as in the attack in 4 of November of 2008, killing six people. Israel also surrounded and blocked Gaza for the 18 months that had preceded the attack. Therefore, in any evaluation of proportionality, it is not possible to ignore the complete picture of the situation, where numbers of Palestinians died in the 3 preceding years to the December of 2008 totalize 222 children. Also if it cannot ignore the number of civilians massacreed in the most recent hostilities. It is the death of an Israeli civilian in the antecedent week to the aerial attack of 28 of December of 2008 proportional to the deaths of more than a thousand Palestinians? To read more: http://www.socialismo.org.br/portal/internacional/38-artigo/1017-gaza-uma-guerra-que-certamente-nao-e-de-legitima-defesa
Comentários