| Submit your comments on this article |
| International-UN-NGOs |
| Rachel Corrie violated international law |
| 2006-05-23 |
| In the course of a little link-surfing, I ran across this analysis of the "martyrdom" of Rachel Corrie, written the day after the incident by a blogger who appears to be a bit of an international law geek (using "geek" in a good way). Not new, and not really apropos of any of today's news; posted as a public service to greater Rantburg because the link may come in handy someday. EFL & money quote emphasized. ISM has the text of the Geneva Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War up on its site; I believe the suggestion is that foreign nationals in Israel or the Disputed Territories are Protected Persons under the Convention, and that the IDF would make itself guilty of war crimes by harming them. This is a questionable assertion, to put it mildly, even though UN General Assembly resolution A/RES/54/77 affirmed the applicability of the Geneva Convention (IV) to the "Occupied Territories" (which is questionable enough in and of itself). Firstly, Article 4 of the Convention states: Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are. Any Western activist is therefore not a Protected Person for the purpose of the Convention. Secondly, even if "internationals" were Protected Persons (which, I hasten to reiterate, they are not), Article 5 states: Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State. By serving as human shields for Palestinians, including militants, the "internationals" may be argued to be "engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State" (in this case Israel, since the Palestine Authority is not a recognised state); that case could certainly be made in the Rafah incident, where the houses were being demolished to facilitate the blocking of smuggling from Egypt. On top of that, there is Article 8: Prote cted persons may in no circumstances renounce in part or in entirety the rights secured to them by the present Convention, and by the special agreements referred to in the foregoing Article, if such there be. Use of human shields is a war crime, because it forces one's opponent to fight with one arm tied behind his back (if the opponent has any shred of decency). Even the use of human shields who volunteer is a war crime. It is therefore also illegal to volunteer to be a human shield. It should be noted that ISM states that it seeks to use non-violent resistance to the Israelis, even while affirming the Palestinians' right to "armed struggle." That's trying to have it both ways; it boils down to standing in the middle of a firefight, while only trying to make only one side (in this case, the IDF) hold their fire. And that, dear reader, is the essence of a human shield. At best, ISM is wilfully ignorant of international law; at worst they're lying scum who dupe well-meaning kids into getting themselves killed by the IDF in order to make political capital from it. Whatever the case, they had no right to waste Rachel Corrie's life. |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #2 International law, hell! Anyone getting in the way of a bulldozer will answer to the Laws of Physics. And there ain't no appeal! |
| Posted by: SteveS 2006-05-23 18:59 |
| #1 http://www.catdestroyshomes.org/article.php?id=337 And I thought Cindy Sheehan was butt ugly! What is it with the name.... "Cindy?" |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2006-05-23 17:21 |