IsraCampus.Org.il

"That is correct, because according to international law - and the committee relates to this - if the suffering that is caused the civilian population is excessive, as opposed to the direct military and concrete advantages that are accrued, then the embargo is illegal.... t is possible that if the committee had had a woman or man with a feminist outlook among its members, that person would have attached greater seriousness to the significances of the blockade, the prevention of educational materials from entering Gaza, the entry of building materials for constructing schools and apartments, the prevention of entry of toys. A person with a feminist approach would have understood that a prolonged blockade on a scope like that leads to suffering that is perhaps not proportional to the military advantage it embodies."

Hey Frances - is shooting rockets into homes of Sderot women illegal?

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/prof-frances-raday-were-you-surprised-by-the-turkel-committee-s-conclusions-1.338812

Prof. Frances Raday, were you surprised by the Turkel committee's conclusions?

By Tomer Zarchin
Published 24.01.11

Prof. Frances Raday heads the Concord Research Institute for Integration of International Law in Israel at the College of Management. The center, which seeks to encourage the local assimilation of norms of international law, counts among its members some of the leading researchers in Israel in the field, including Profs. Ruth Lapidoth, Orna Ben-Naftali and Yuval Shany, as well as the former member of the International Court of Justice at The Hague, Thomas Buergenthal.

A few months ago, the center sent a report to the Turkel committee with its own analysis of the flotilla events last May, in which it stated, among other things, that imposing an embargo on Gaza did not conform to international humanitarian law from the point of view of both length and scope.

Raday is also one of the leading figures in the feminist struggle in Israel.

Prof. Raday, were you surprised the Turkel committee gave legal approval to Israel's blockade on Gaza and to its military actions during the events surrounding the Turkish flotilla?

No, I wasn't surprised, but I was pleased that the Israeli government understood that it was necessary to hold a serious and independent probe into the claims that international humanitarian law had been violated. We also thought, even before the Goldstone report, that Israel should begin an independent investigation into complaints about violations of international law with regard to (Operation) Cast Lead, beyond the internal investigation of the Israel Defense Forces.

Did the committee achieve its aims in this respect?

In this respect, yes, but also in terms of the fact that the international observers serving on the committee agreed that they had no doubt that the Turkel committee was an independent body that carried out an in-depth probe of what it was charged with dealing with.

But at the same time, you don't agree with one of the central components of the report, which approves of the blockade of Gaza on the basis of international law?

That is correct, because according to international law - and the committee relates to this - if the suffering that is caused the civilian population is excessive, as opposed to the direct military and concrete advantages that are accrued, then the embargo is illegal. According to the report, the committee reached the conclusion that the State of Israel acted in accordance with the law in imposing the blockade. But my problem is that the committee, in effect, sees that if there is no hunger and no damage is done to the basic essentials of life in Gaza, then no illegal damage has been done to the civilian population. In my opinion, this statement is in dubious in terms of international humanitarian law. It is possible also that a maritime blockade which begins in a non-excessive manner, becomes excessive in time - as we felt happened here.

We are of the opinion that the length of time of the blockade, as well as the conditions it imposed, did not meet the demands of proportionality vis-a-vis the military advantage of the blockade, because after three years we saw that the Hamas government had not fallen and we also did not see a change in the policy of Hamas as a result of the blockade.

In which way do you think, contrary to the Turkel report, that the blockade has not met the rules of international humanitarian law?

It would have been possible to allow the organizations that wanted to build educational institutions to bring building materials into Gaza. It would have been possible to make it easier for food products to enter, and toys for children...

Does the committee's report not relate to this?

Turkel is of the opinion that the change in the government's policy, in the direction of alleviating the blockade after the flotilla events, was welcome. I ask why this change would not have been welcome even earlier, before those events? If loosening up on the blockade did not affect our advantage or our military needs negatively before the flotilla incident - then why was it not done earlier?

It is clear that it was necessary to be strict about preventing the entry of weapons into Gaza, but why prevent the entry of equipment for everyday, essential needs? Why not prevent daily suffering from the population in Gaza? Years of blockade on a scope like this are questionable from the point of view of military advantage and, therefore, unlike what Turkel stated, it does not accord with the rules of international humanitarian law, in our opinion. Again, Turkel doesn't explain in the report why the welcome change brought about by alleviating the blockade after the flotilla events would not have been welcome if it had taken place beforehand.

From the point of view of international law, do you think, contrary to Turkel, that the blockade should have been shorter and more restricted in scope?

They should have decided very soon that its aim was to prevent the entry of weapons to Gaza, as something that harms us from the military point of view, and then our position in the international arena would have been different; there would not have been a pretext for the claim that it was necessary to bring humanitarian aid to the residents of Gaza.

So how will such declarations stand the test of the international legal community?

I think that what will work in Israel's favor is that there was no unambiguous resolution on the part of the international community about the legality of the blockade before the flotilla event. Before the event, the international community had not established that the blockade was contrary to the rules of international law. Even though there was criticism about basic commodities not being supplied - there was no explicit condemnation of the blockade. Therefore, I think the Turkel committee's statement with reference to the blockade gives Israel the chance to claim that its action was not a flagrant violation of international humanitarian law, even though in my eyes there is a flaw in the committee's conclusions since the blockade was too widespread, unfocused. Plus, there are complaints that its objective was not merely military, but also political.

Do you accept the committee's conclusions about the soldiers' actions on the ship?

I think that in this respect the committee's work constitutes a strong statement vis-a-vis the conclusions of the UN Human Rights Council, which issued a decision saying that the military response on the ship was disproportionate.

Do you think that the panel's conclusions would have been different if there had been a woman member?

It is possible that if the committee had had a woman or man with a feminist outlook among its members, that person would have attached greater seriousness to the significances of the blockade, the prevention of educational materials from entering Gaza, the entry of building materials for constructing schools and apartments, the prevention of entry of toys. A person with a feminist approach would have understood that a prolonged blockade on a scope like that leads to suffering that is perhaps not proportional to the military advantage it embodies.

How do you relate to the shouts of joy in the military and political echelons in Israel following the approval granted by the Turkel committee?

(Laughing). Look, I don't like the demonization of Israel, but I think we have a responsibility to behave at a high level. I think we don't see the difficulty in the lives of our neighbors, for which we are partly to blame. I think we must restrict the harm done to the Palestinians in any way possible. I think it's preferable for us to direct our steps in a humanistic way, while taking care of our security needs so as not to reach situations of the kind that occurred here. As the Turkel committee stated, it would have been possible to reduce the scope of the blockade and I think that it would have been worthwhile for that to have happened a few minutes earlier.

Prof. Raday heads the Concord Research Institute for Integration of International Law in Israel at the College of Management. The center seeks to encourage the local assimilation of norms of international law.