Israel Matzav

Amnesty: No matter what it does, Israel will be an occupier

If any of you thinks that anything less than a mass suicide of Jews is going to get the international NGO's to stop harping on us, please consider this interview with Amnesty International's director in Israel, Itai Epstein (Hat Tip: The Volokh Conspiracy). There are no circumstances that will cause Amnesty to change its view that Gaza is still under 'occupation.'

What is required of Israel to stop it from being an occupying force under Amnesty’s definition?

That there will be another sovereign power and that the border crossings to Gaza not be under Israeli control. That’s the meaning of occupation, there’s no other sovereign power there, there’s no control over the border crossings for free movement of people and goods and that’s why Gaza is under occupation.

Is an exit by the Navy from Gaza’s waters an end to the occupation?

No.

Is opening the border crossings with Israel ending the occupation?

That’s a step towards ending the occupation.

Can Israel not ever close the border crossings to Gaza?

Assuming that another sovereign power will be there, there can be international border crossings. That’s not the situation as of today.

Hamas is defined as a sovereign power by the Goldstone committee which treated it as “the authority of Gaza” and is internationally recognized by a large number of countries.

It receives recognition as a de facto regime. The question of the Israeli occupation is not related to Hamas. It’s connected with Israel’s actions.

So what actions must Israel take? You say that the occupation ends if Israel opens the crossings, so if the occupation ends, Israel needs to close the borders since Gaza is defined as an enemy state. There’s a logical contradiction here.

I don’t understand where the contradiction is.

The border between Israel and Lebanon is closed since Lebanon is an enemy state. You’re claiming that Israel needs to open the borders to Gaza and then the occupation will end. And then Israel will have to close the crossings.

I’ll ask you another question. Can Lebanon control the transfer of goods and people to Lebanon not opposite Israel but opposite other countries?

So the problem is with the control by sea and air. If the seas are open there is no occupation?

Of course, had it been possible to enter Gaza freely through the air, by sea and land, that would certainly be one component of the occupation ending.

What are all the components to end the occupation? Amnesty does not present a plan in which Israel stops the occupation. It says that Israel needs to stop the occupation and deepen the occupation by opening the borders. I don’t comprehend that.

Amnesty International does not deal with solving conflicts.

It’s not conflict solving. It’s ending the occupation. Amnesty says that Gaza is under occupation. According to Amnesty, what actions must Israel take in order to stop the occupation?

One of the things which need to be done is to allow the passage of people and goods through the air, the sea and land. That’s one component. There are other components related to agreements of the international community since Amnesty International does not deal with solving conflicts. It only addresses the question of whether the situation is adequate in relation to international humanitarian law and international standards. It doesn’t deal with solving the conflict, not here or anywhere else.

If Amnesty claims that there’s an occupation there should be a definition of when there’s no occupation. Amnesty claims that Israel needs to open all the crossings for free movement from Gaza to Israel and remove the sea and land siege on Gaza, meaning let Gaza be open to the entire world with no connection to Israel, but under those circumstances the occupation no longer exists. So why is there a need to transfer supplies to Gaza? Does Amnesty by the same logic demand the American forces in Afghanistan to help the Taliban? And take care of the sick among the Taliban? That’s the question, when does the occupation end?

I admit that I don’t understand the question. I’m unclear as to what kind of answer you expect.

I am expecting to receive an answer to whether if Israel withdraws its forces from the waters of Gaza, allow the passage of goods to Gaza without inspection, remove the air control of the Gaza Strip and open it to free movement, the occupation will end and Israel will no longer be responsible for Gaza and only for marginal issues, that’s what I expect Amnesty to say.

There are other components of electricity, water. These things do not stand on their own. Removing the siege is one step towards ending the occupation. There are components involving all the aspects of life in Gaza: Social, economic and cultural. Removing the siege is one important step to end the occupation and there are other steps.

What are the necessary steps on which you can elaborate?

One, allow the Palestinians in Gaza free access to drinking water. Israel hasn’t done this in all the years of the occupation until now, and it has a responsibility to ensure that Gaza’s residents have access to water. The same thing goes for health services. For dozens of years the rights of those residents have been prevented and the formations of civil infrastructures were prevented and this became worse during the attacks of last year, and a large part of those infrastructures were destroyed and not rebuilt to this day. This is an obligation of which Israel cannot free itself.

It’s an obligation of which Israel cannot free itself, but it has nothing to do with the occupation. Those are two different things.

It’s related to the situation of the continuing occupation.

Amnesty claims that Israel is an occupying country and is responsible for the welfare of Gaza’s residents. According to this definition, does Israel need to act against the Hamas government in order to care for the welfare and safety of Gaza’s residents?

The State of Israel has an obligation to protect its citizens. It has an obligation to distinguish between military targets and civil targets. When Israel hit legitimate military targets we did not criticize it, because we are not a pacifist organization and we don’t deal with conflict solving, so when Israel hit military targets you didn’t hear any criticism from Amnesty. We certainly criticize Hamas for the internal violence it applies, the illegal executions and imprisonments. We sounded very strong criticism against Hamas’ conduct on these issues.

The question is whether Israel is committed, being an occupying force as Amnesty defines, to be concerned for the welfare of Gaza’s residents and therefore act against the Hamas government and the Palestinian terrorist organizations that control Gaza, in order to protect the Palestinian population?

Israel has a duty to protect its citizens.

Amnesty’s messages said that Israel should take care to protect the people of Gaza. Is the issue of the security of the people of Gaza not an authority which Israel has?

Israel’s duty is to protect its citizens and ensure that the people of Gaza enjoy all the social and economic rights recognized in international law and in the Geneva convention.

So if Hamas is violating the rights of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip to live, as defined in international law, does Israel not have the authority to act against the Hamas government to care for the safety of the people of Gaza?

The problem is first and foremost the rights of the people of Gaza which Israel violates by the illegal siege.

Read the whole thing. You won't believe what this guy says about the number of Gazans being treated in Israeli hospitals.

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 4:24 AM