Amnesty: Gaza is Still Under Israeli Occupation

On May 31, Amnesty International called on the Israeli government to immediately hold a credible and independent investigation of the killings carried out by the IDF on the “Marmara” ship that tried to break the siege on Gaza. “It seems clear that Israeli forces used excessive force,” said Malcolm Smart, director of Middle East and North Africa at Amnesty International. “Israel claims that the troops were attacked by the demonstrators and that they apparently acted out of self-defense, but there is a doubt that the level of deadly force used by Israeli forces can be justified. It seems that things got out of proportion in relation to the threat posed.”

“The activists on the ships made it clear that their primary purpose was to protest against the ongoing siege on Gaza, which is considered a means of collective punishment and as such is a violation of international law,” added Itai Epstein, Director of Amnesty International in Israel. Amnesty’s statement also said that for three years Israel, which is an occupying power in Gaza, has instituted a boycott policy and is stopping the supplies to Gaza, with the exception of basic humanitarian goods that are only transferred by international aid organizations. Only a handful of patients was allowed to leave Gaza for medical treatment, but dozens have died while waiting for permits. Israel , Amnesty says, has a duty under international law to maintain the welfare of Gaza residents, including the right to health, education, food and decent housing.

Shalom Life spoke with Itai Epstein, Director of Amnesty International in Israel, in order to find out Amnesty’s viewpoints on this issue and on the principle questions arising in connection with a siege on Gaza and dealing with terror.

Are you accusing the IDF of using excessive force?

What was said is that there is a serious concern that excessive force was used against something that in its nature was a non-violent act of protest.

You argue that it was a non-violent act of protest. Do the photos that were shown on TV, stabbing of soldiers and their abduction, not indicate that this was a violent act?

The flotilla by its nature was a non-violent act of protest that was met with violent opposition in international waters. As for what exactly happened there, I think this should be investigated. Israel and its various spokespeople described the force they are going to apply against unarmed protesters and this force looks excessive and far-fetched.

Does Israel have the right to check if there were weapons on the ship?

Had the ship been in Israel’s territorial waters they would have had a right. If the ship were outside Israel’s territorial waters, the answer is no.

What is the reasoning for this claim?

The international law which distinguishes between territorial waters and international waters. Israel, like any other country, has powers within 12 miles of its beaches and 12 additional miles of water adjacent, and beyond these, Israel has no sovereign authority.

Amnesty claims that Israel is still considered an occupying force in Gaza. Does Israel not have the authority to check if weapons which can be put to use by Hamas arrive in Gaza?

Of course we do not back the transferring of weapons to Hamas, which is a violent regime and a violent political group which has committed war crimes. Having said that, I think the issue here is not the transferring of weapons but rather the siege Israel imposes on Gaza, which does not hurt Hamas and is not directed at Hamas, but rather is directed at a civilian population and it hurts those who are weaker and poor. This is why 4 out of 5 of Gaza’s residents require humanitarian assistance. The siege hurts the sick who cannot leave Gaza, and only in the past year, 28 people have died in this manner.

The operation was conducted on ships making their way to Gaza. I am asking a question of principle, whether Israel, which you claim is still an occupying force in Gaza, has the authority to check if there are weapons on the ship?

The answer in principle is unrelated to the occupation of Gaza. Gaza is under siege and an Israeli occupation, there is no question about it. Even by Israel’s announcement that it is imposing a siege on Gaza. The question of the search on the ships is related to a different legal question, and that is the question of sovereign authority in territorial waters versus the authority in international waters.

This is a question of principle, since Israel is inspecting for weapons through the land border crossings.

Israel does not check for the possibility of weapons entering through land border crossings. Israel transfers, what little it transfers, on its own.

There is international assistance which arrives and there is also import coming in through the Ashdod Port with weapons and ammunition, and Israel inspects it. The principle question is simple: According to Amnesty’s perception, does Israel even have the authority to check ships headed to Gaza near Gaza’s water and see if they contain weapons?

The answer is very simple. The siege is illegal. All the actions performed as part of the siege are illegal.

With your permission, I’m going back to the question because there is a question of principle regarding the raiding of a ship.

I don’t think that’s a principle question at all. I think the principle question is whether it is permitted to impose a siege on Gaza.

Does Israel have the authority to inspect a ship at a distance of 12 miles from the Gaza shore to see whether there are weapons on it?

It has the authority to do it within Israel’s territorial waters.

Also in Gaza’s waters?

Gaza doesn’t have waters, Gaza is an occupied territory under Israeli rule, it has no territorial waters because it doesn’t have sovereign authority.

You claim in your statement that only a handful of sick people from Gaza were allowed to leave to receive medical treatment. How many patients were allowed to leave Gaza to receive treatment?

I don’t have the numbers in front of me. We’re talking about very small numbers.

Are we talking about dozens?

I can’t tell you exactly.

How many patients were not allowed to leave Gaza?

I don’t want to give you incorrect statistics, since I don’t have the numbers in front of me. I can check and get back to you with precise statistics. It’s important to remember in this matter that Israel does not have full disclosure of data and we have to receive it from different sources, both Israeli and other ones. I can check the data and get back to you. I don’t remember them by heart and I don’t want to say something inaccurate.

You used the word few. According to Hamas’ data, in 2009 more than 5,000 patients left Gaza and only 150 were refused. Does this meet the definition of few?

I’m not aware of these statistics and don’t know how to treat them.

Those are official statistics by the Hamas government.

I’m not aware of this.

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.

Assuming Israel is attacked by non-conventional weapons causing many casualties, how should a democratic country respond? Can it only attack military targets or can it expand its targets?

The answer is simple and unequivocal. The State of Israel has an obligation as all countries do to distinguish between military targets and civil targets even at the price of giving up on military achievements.

What if Syria or Hezbollah attack Haifa using chemical weapons?

I am not referring to these options since I don’t know if they are options or not.

Does Amnesty not discuss the possibility of attacks with chemical weapons?

Amnesty does not deal with assessments on how conflicts are conducted.

But that happened during the Iran Iraq war. How should a country respond to an attack using chemical weapons?

I don’t deal with speculations on what a certain person might do. I don’t know how to answer this question. I do know how to answer to the basic question of how Israel, as any other country, should respond when attacked.

What does international law say?

International law says, and laws regarding war apply to all forms of war, that there is an obligation to distinguish between military and civil targets and every response must be proportionate, and the most important principle is to distinguish between a legitimate military target and a civil one. It’s Israel’s obligations as well as all armed organizations. Hamas also has an obligation to abstain from hitting civilians and that’s why we condemned the non-differentiated rocket fire against Israel which is a war crime.

Assuming that a country or another party uses chemical weapons and kills 20,000 people in a certain city, Haifa for example, do we stick to the definition that only military targets are attacked, for example in Syria?

I can’t address speculations of this kind. I can only say what international law says, and it distinguishes between military and civil targets.

In any case?

In any case.

I contacted the IDF in the past regarding conducting dialogue with human rights organizations about military operations. From the list of prohibitions by human rights organizations it appears that during fighting you cannot actually do anything, since almost any action you take in Gaza can endanger civilians, since there are no sterile weapons and no invisible character roaming around Gaza. Does Amnesty have an interest, beyond establishing a list of prohibitions, in conducting discussions with Israel military officials in order to formulate practical operative solutions for operations in built areas where terrorist organizations are located?

I don’t think our role is to advise countries or armed political organizations how to conduct a war. That’s certainly not our role.

Do you not have an interest in this?

It’s definitely not in the mandate of Amnesty International.