Iron Swords - Law - Siege / Blockade
The urbanization of armed conflict undeniably exposes civilians to immense risks. Military planners consider sieges essential in the context of urban warfare. A siege is a military effort to surround and cut off an area. The siege itself is always cruel and brutal. It is a tactic intended to keep human beings hungry, thirsty, cold, miserable, and without medication. Unable to maintain hygiene without running water, those inside the blockade may experience cholera, dysentery, and many other diseases.
On average, humans require approximately 2,200 calories per day. Experts have claimed that for a short time — up to a month, maybe two — a person can survive on 1,200 calories. The inmates of the Auschwitz concentration camps were fed 1,000 calories. Humans also need an average of five litres of water per day for drinking, cooking, and personal hygiene. Experts have said that in emergencies 1.5 litres may suffice, with considerable sacrifice.
Sieges are among the oldest of military operations. The attacker cuts off the communications and supplies of their enemy, hoping that deprivation, disease, and demoralisation will cause the besieged forces, and the civilians blockaded with them, to stop resisting and surrender. The siege has continued as a central tactic from the Middle Ages to the present time, with the development of its forms and its support with international political support from the United Nations, as happened with sanctions on Iraq, Libya and Sudan.
Siege has historically been associated with a state of war, as it was a tactic aimed at forcing a country or city to surrender, by cutting off supplies and military supplies for a long period. One of the oldest experiences in this regard is the Spartans’ siege of the Athenians in the fifth century BC. Blockades in times of peace, and economic sanctions arrangements, were also present in ancient Greece. The famous Chinese philosopher Sun Tzu discussed the siege tactic in his book “The Art of War,” warning of its dangers to attackers in most cases.
The term blockade is usually applied to two types: comprehensive blockade and economic sanctions. Definitions of blockade differentiate between what is effective, ineffective, or formal, and the matter is related to the extent of the ability to enforce it. For example, Iran has been able to circumvent international sanctions through barter agreements , supported by political and military moves that seek to delegitimize the sanctions, threatening to use hard force to protect its exports, and targeting the interests of countries seeking to implement blockade measures. Such behavior aims to keep the blockade ineffective. Short of an outright submission, the invader can hope that the defenders’ morale and fighting capability will be so eroded by a long siege that they would eventually succumb to a determined attack. In the olden days, if civilians were not slaughtered by an invading force, the best they could hope for would be to end up as prisoners, hostages, or slaves. Nowadays, such extreme treatment is considered unacceptable — but civilians invariably suffer, even if they escape with their lives.
International law does not define sieges, but their essence is the isolation of enemy forces from reinforcements and supplies. The goal is to isolate enemy forces from reinforcements and supplies. The besieging party is allowed to sttack forces and other military objectives in besieged areas, and limit supplies that reach them. In 2007, after Hamas’ takeover of the Gaza Strip, the area was subjected to an Israeli land siege, complemented in 2009 by a sea blockade. Since then, the already-dire living conditions in the Strip have declined consistently and the area’s dependence on external aid has grown.
Sieges are not prohibited under international law. However, international humanitarian law (IHL) prohibits sieges that endanger civilians by depriving them of essential goods. The purpose of IHL is to protect the life, health, and human dignity of civilians and combatants. The five most commonly cited principles of IHL are: Military necessity, Distinction, Proportionality, Humanity, Honor.
A blockade may not be used for the purpose of starving the civilian population, and the expected incidental harm to the civilian population may not be excessive in relation to the expected military advantage to be gained from employing the blockade. The carriage of qualifying relief supplies for the civilian population and the sick and wounded should be authorized to pass through the blockade cordon, subject to the right of the blockading force to prescribe the technical arrangements, including search, under which passage is permitted. Such special authorization may be made subject to such conditions as the blockading force considers to be necessary and expedient.
AP II art. 14 “Starvation of civilians as a method of combat is prohibited. It is therefore prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless, for that purpose, objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as food stuffs, agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works.” Military action intended to starve enemy forces, however, must not be taken where it is expected to result in incidental harm to the civilian population that is excessive in relation to the military advantage anticipated to be gained.
Six decades of US sanctions on Cuba did not succeed in changing its policy, despite their contribution to the widespread suffering of the Cuban people. This is similar to the case of North Korea, where the regime strengthened its alliance with Washington’s opponents, and developed a nuclear program and military industries that strengthened its power and weakened the possibility of it being exposed to an external attack.
The Bosnians were able to neutralize the effectiveness of the Serb siege of their capital, Sarajevo, in the years 1992-1996 by digging a tunnel that provided the city with fighters and civilian and military needs, which led to changing the course of the war and contributed to their gaining autonomy.
What the Gaza Strip is being exposed to is a mixture of economic sanctions in times of calm and a comprehensive siege in times of war. The Euro-Mediterranean Observatory documents this by saying that Israel imposed the siege on the Gaza Strip after the Hamas movement won the legislative elections, and then tightened it after it took military control of the Gaza Strip in June 2007, as Israel declared this sector a hostile entity. Israel also imposed additional sanctions that directly affected the basic rights of the population, including imposing severe restrictions on the entry of fuel and goods and the movement of individuals to and from the Gaza Strip.
Over the years, the Israeli authorities have worked to establish a policy of isolating the Strip, by separating it from the Palestinian territories in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, in addition to controlling the quantity and quality of goods and materials entering the Strip and banning hundreds of them, causing a comprehensive economic recession and a sharp rise in poverty rates. And unemployment. Moreover, the Israeli blockade has particularly affected the health sector in Gaza, as many basic medical items and supplies are not available, and many patients are forced to wait months for surgical operations.
Since Hamas won the legislative elections and the emergence of signs of international rejection of the Palestinian people’s choice, it has sought to form a government that brings together the various types of the Palestinian political spectrum in a way that weakens the legitimacy of any international punitive measures against the Palestinians. However, international pressure and the bet on the failure of any government led by the resistance prevented the formation of such a government at that time. Hamas also sought to export a political discourse that would ease international pressures and their living repercussions on the people of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, so it adopted the “National Reconciliation Document” as the basis for the program of the National Unity Government headed by Ismail Haniyeh, with the participation of ministers from the Fatah movement, the Democratic Front, and other Palestinian forces. However, this did not prevent the siege from continuing. In 2007, the authority of the government headed by Hamas was limited to the Gaza Strip, and the occupation tightened its siege on the Gaza Strip. Egypt cooperated with the occupation’s requirements and granted it the right to decide what enters and exits through the Rafah crossing. In the face of this reality, Hamas sought to ease this siege through several means. At the political level, it conducted long negotiations for reconciliation with Fatah, and one of its most important goals was to ease the siege on the Gaza Strip, and for the Authority to assume responsibility for providing living requirements for the people of the Gaza Strip. However, the Authority’s declared linkage of reconciliation to requiring Hamas’ approval of the Oslo Accords was a major reason for the failure of this path. At the level of relations with Egypt, Hamas avoided media and political escalation in order to ease the conditions of the siege, and cooperated with it in controlling the border security situation, which contributed to the existence of conditions that eased the siege for many periods. Lifting the siege was a primary goal in the rounds of military escalation and wars that the resistance fought with the occupation in the years: 2008, 2012, 2014, 2021, and 2023, in addition to the return marches that continued from March 2018 until September 2019. While this strategy contributed to easing the siege temporarily, However, the occupation was intending to deepen the people's wounds through the widespread destruction caused by its aggression on the Gaza Strip, and its obstruction of reconstruction through an understanding with the Egyptian authorities, and with American and European cover. To provide civilian and military supplies and confront the siege, the people of the Gaza Strip resorted to digging tunnels and smuggling across the sea and land, which contributed to building the resistance’s combat system over the course of nearly two decades. However, since October 2013, the Egyptian regime launched a massive campaign to destroy the tunnels and establish a buffer zone within the Egyptian borders, which reduced the ability of the tunnels to provide for the sector’s needs. In another reaction to the siege, the people of the Gaza Strip resorted to crossing the border with Egypt in large numbers to supply their necessary needs twice, first in September 2005, and the second time in January 2008. However, the Egyptian authorities subsequently erected a separation wall and strengthened their security deployment to prevent Repeating the event. There was an international solidarity movement in which land convoys and naval flotillas carried humanitarian aid to the people of the Gaza Strip, seeking to put pressure on the occupying state and the Egyptian authorities to lift the siege. The most prominent of these are the “Miles of Smiles” land convoys and the freedom flotillas in 2010, 2011, 2015 and 2016, the arrival of which was prevented by the occupation forces. The Israeli attack on the First Freedom Flotilla in 2010 led to the martyrdom of 9 Turkish activists, and led to a diplomatic crisis for years with Ankara. Since the beginning of the siege, the interest of the people of the Gaza Strip in plant and animal production projects has increased, including various types of agriculture, raising livestock, poultry, and fish, in addition to fishing. This has remained a subject of conflict with the occupation, which has been destroying these projects in wars and restricting them by closing the crossings, obstructing the entry of their supplies, and impeding their export. This contributes to In these occupation efforts, the Egyptian authorities keep the Rafah crossing designated for the crossing of individuals and not goods. After October 7, Israel announced a comprehensive blockade on Gaza 48 hours later by Defense Minister Yoav Galant, and Energy Minister Yisrael Katz ordered the water supply to Gaza to be cut off.
Israeli Energy Minister Israel Katz: “Until these days, we supplied the Gaza Strip with 54,000 cubic meters of water and 2,700 megawatts of electricity per day. Now this is gone. They will have enough fuel for the generators for a few more days, and after a week without electricity, the sewage system will completely stop working. This is what the nation of child killers deserves. What happened will no longer happen.”
UN agencies called on Israel to lift its siege of Gaza, warning that the denial of lifesaving assistance is prohibited under international humanitarian law. "Goods that are vital for the survival of a civilian population must not be restricted," said Ravina Shamdasani, spokesperson for the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, at a news briefing for reporters 10 October 2023 in Geneva. "Civilians must be allowed to leave besieged areas if they wish to do so. Any restriction must be justified by a military necessity or may amount to collective punishment," she added. "This is clearly prohibited under international humanitarian law, and it could amount to a war crime."
Srinivas Burra, an international humanitarian law expert and professor at New Delhi’s South Asian University described Israel’s actions as a “clear violation” of international law. “Israel’s prime minister has said that his country is at war. Once you make that declaration, you are required under international law to follow the rules of war,” Burra told Al Jazeera. Israel isn’t doing that, he said. “It’s the first rule of war: It must stay between combatants,” Burra added. “When you punish civilians in the way Israel is doing, that’s clearly illegal.”
Maxime Nijs concluded "that civilians who remain within a besieged area are protected against excessive incidental civilian harm under the proportionality principle. Three arguments have been presented to substantiate the claim that a siege can be considered an attack in the sense of Article 49(1) of AP I, which is constrained by the principle of proportionality."
Even the European Union, which has strongly backed Israel’s assertion that its response to the Hamas attack was driven by a desire for self-defence, has criticised the total siege on Gaza. Josep Borrell, the EU’s foreign policy chief, on 10 October 2023 said Israel was violating international law.
The US is in active discussions with Israel and Egypt on the safe passage of civilians out of the Gaza Strip, a White House official said 11 October 2023. "We're actively discussing this with our Israeli and Egyptian counterparts. We support safe passage for civilians," National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby said during a media briefing. under a safe passage proposal, US citizens would be able to leave Gaza via the Egyptian Rafah crossing, only needing to show their American passports to exit the enclave.
Rafah is the only crossing out of Gaza not controlled by Israel, with the rest of the enclave bordered by the sea or by Israel, which has announced a total siege and is considering a ground invasion. It is therefore the only way for people to leave Gaza. Israeli strikes have hit the crossing several times since Saturday, forcing it to temporarily close. The movement of other Palestinian civilians out of Gaza would be restricted to 2,000 people a day, CNN reported.
Sean Watts noted that "The law of war treaties and customs that regulate the means and methods of attacks apply fully to siege operations. ... as with legal limits on war generally, these rules reflect a compromise between human needs and military demands. Siege rules fully vindicate neither humanity nor military necessity; each concedes something to the other."
Article 27 of the Hague Regulations annexed to both the 1899 Hague Convention II and 1907 Hague Convention IV, adopted a rule specific to siege. "In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes." What is “possible” refers only to what can be done the means at hand and consistent with overall and immediate mililtary neccessity.
Article 54(1) of Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions provides, “Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited.” Sean Watts noted "incidental though foreseeable effects of civilian starvation are not prohibited, although they must not be disproportionate, that is, excessive in relation to anticipated military advantage. Although this latter view is held by the United States (§. 5.20), it reduces the rule’s humanitarian effect, perhaps to the vanishing point."
Article 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention requires that parties to a conflict allow passage of relief supplies for particularly vulnerable classes of persons, but only if the Parties are satisfied no advantage will result “to the military efforts or economy of the enemy ….”
The requirement that consent must not be arbitrarily withheld finds support in the negotiating history of the Additional Protocols. It was understood during those negotiations that states did not have “absolute and unlimited freedom to refuse their agreement to relief actions”. A state refusing consent had to do so for “valid reasons”, not for “arbitrary or capricious ones”. Consent is withheld arbitrarily if (i) it is withheld in circumstances that result in the violation by a state of its obligations under international law with respect to the civilian population in question; or (ii) the withholding of consent violates the principles of necessity and proportionality; or (iii) consent is withheld in a manner that is unreasonable, unjust, lacking in predictability or that is otherwise inappropriate.
Circumstances where withholding consent to humanitarian relief operations would violate a state’s obligations, and thus be arbitrary, includes wthholding consent to humanitarian relief operations in order to punish the civilian population for acts for which it is not responsible, such as acts committed by the party to the conflict with effective control over it. This would violate the prohibition on collective punishment.
International tribunals and other bodies that have interpreted the concept of arbitrariness have consistently held that in order not to be arbitrary, a measure must be necessary, no more than necessary, and proportionate to the end sought to be achieved.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wrote 11 October 2023 "The population of Gaza is about 2 million. Nearly half are children. Millions of innocent people cannot be made to pay for Hamas’ horror. Collective punishment is a war crime. So are blockades to food and water. We cannot allow dehumanization to descend into further atrocity."
Mark Goldfeder, Director, National Jewish Advocacy Center, responded that "The central feature of the LOAC is to prevent unnecessary casualties and protect innocent civilians. It does this (primarily) through the application of three fundamental principles: distinction, military necessity, and proportionality.... Proportionality is a prospective analysis that legally permits the risk of collateral damage necessary to achieve a just military objective. The greater the objective, the greater the extent of permitted risk of incidental damage or even, God forbid, death.... In terms of water, "There are three sources of water in Gaza: 92% of the water is secured from the aquifer, 6% is purchased from Israel and 2% through sea water desalination." ... Israel also has no obligation to provide electricity to Gaza. Electricity is vital to Hamas' continued attacks against Israel. Just so you understand, there is no provision in the LOAC which says you must keep handing your enemy more bullets "so it's fair."" Because the aquifer is over-exploited, drinking water in most of Gaza contains high l evels of nitrate, chloride and salt. The water is unfit for consumption, and the risk of contracting an infectious disease is high.
The report of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) - in January 2024 - described the impact of the blockade accompanied by the Israeli military strikes on the Gaza Strip, saying: “Living conditions in Gaza are at their lowest levels since the beginning of the occupation in 1967.” While the UN-backed “Integrated Interim Classification of Food Security” report, issued on December 21, 2023, indicated that “more than 25% of families in the Gaza Strip suffer from extreme hunger.” He also stressed that all Gaza residents "are suffering from a crisis or worse levels of acute food insecurity." It also showed that 26% of the population (about 577 thousand people) have exhausted their food supplies and adaptive capacities, and are facing catastrophic hunger (IPC 5) and acute hunger.
“Israel under international law is an occupying power, which means it is in an offensive posture and therefore cannot invoke self-defence against the Palestinians in Gaza that it is blockading. In the absence of a legal self-defence, Israel is therefore in violation of international law in its use of violence against the Palestinians,” says Sami Hamdi, a Middle Eastern political analyst and head of the International Interest, a political risk group.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
