Tel Aviv has violated all international laws

It's probably a wonder that anyone at this point still supports the Israeli massacre of Gaza. Unless of course, you are Foxnews, which miraculously manages to have more articles on, as they call it, the radical Islamist terror of Hamas. And yet Hamas rockets have killed four people; compare that to the more than 750 dead in Gaza. US President George W. Bush seems to be taking his cue from them, as his radio address a week ago blamed the carnage on Hamas, reiterating the blatant lies that Hamas caused the humanitarian crisis, that they fired rockets only because they are hell-bent on the destruction of Israel, and that Israel's acts of genocide are but a response.

What would have been laughable were the situation not so grim, is that the US, Israel and their supporting propagandists use their lies as well as a heavily distorted view of international law to support their illegal actions. With media support, the Israeli version of events and how international law is applied, is beamed across the world, so much so that ordinary people accept it as fact. This is not new, and one can hardly expect many mainstream media outlets or the US government to take a moral stand or even to be objective. So it's time to set the record straight.

The Israeli narrative is as follows: The Israelis were forced into the current conflict because of the constant barrage of rockets being fired by Hamas militants. It was Hamas that declared the truce over, which was signed in June, by firing rockets into Israel. Because of this, Israel invoked its right of self-defence and began to retaliate. The reason for this extensive operation is to remove the immediate as well as future threat. In an interview with Skynews, Mark Regev, spokesperson for the Prime Minister of Israel, said, "250,000 people, about 100,000 children, [are] living in bomb shelters, we couldn't continue... No society would continue to see its civilian population targeted in this way."

The humanitarian crisis, naturally, is Hamas's fault, as Bush stated in his weekly radio address, "Since Hamas's violent takeover in the summer of 2007, living conditions have worsened for Palestinians in Gaza".

Two main points are of importance here under an international law perspective:

- Is the claim of self-defence valid? This will be examined under the rules for the use of force, as Israel's actions under international humanitarian law have been studied in other articles.

- What law is applicable to Israel's blockade?

Self-defence is a right enshrined in international law and codified by the United Nations Charter. Its validity however is dependent on some basic rules; mainly that there is an attack occurring or there is an imminent threat of an attack; the act of self-defence must be necessary (i.e. all other means have been exhausted); and that act must be proportionate.

According to US representative to the UN Alejandro D. Wolff, Israel has the right to defend itself because Hamas is always sending rockets to Israel. The arguments of disproportionality are brushed aside because the operation is meant to prevent future attacks.

Before examining these claims though, the actual facts must be known. As regards the first condition, the BBC reported that "Hamas has fired multiple rockets into Israel hours after six fighters died during Israel's first major incursion into the Gaza Strip since June's truce." (November 5, 2008). In this case, it is Hamas exercising its right to self-defence, even if the rockets are inaccurate and do little harm.

For argument's sake though, let us imagine that it was indeed Hamas that violated the ceasefire. Were Israel's actions indeed a last resort as is claimed, thus satisfying the necessity principle?

In reality, Hamas has consistently shown a willingness to commit to a truce with Israel. However, both sides claim that the other must first cease its hostilities. Yet what is rarely shown is that even when Israel desists in its attacks, it is strangling Gaza by allowing the bare minimum of required basic goods.

Proportionality

What of proportionality? It is a contentious issue for some, as it is stated that symmetry with the original attack is fruitless. Proportionality must be placed in the context of the size of the threat. Yet as Judge Koroma states in the Advisory Opinion on Nuclear Weapons, a State cannot "wipe out the rest of humanity" if it unilaterally decides that its survival is at stake. It is widely known that Hamas's rockets are ineffectual.

In the past two weeks, four people have been killed as a result. Israel's bombardment of the Gaza Strip, which has destroyed universities, mosques, homes and the general infrastructure are certainly not a proportionate or logical response to home-made rockets.

To return to Israel's responsibility, ever since the "disengagement", the people of Gaza have been trapped in an open-air prison where Israel has controlled the airspace, the sea, as well as entry and exit into the Strip of both people and goods. Under international law, an occupying power has "the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population". UN and other aid agencies have repeatedly complained of the lack of food and medical supplies.

What is crucial at this point is for the International Court of Justice to take a stand and make a judgment on the facts.

No matter what people argue, the highest court in the world will have spoken. In the 2005 Advisory Opinion on the Israel Wall, the court ruled in a judgment of 14-1 that the wall is illegal. Whatever Israeli propagandists may articulate about the effects the wall has had on security, it remains as a fact of law that it is illegal.

As of yesterday, the death toll in Gaza was approaching 800, and the injured are more than 3,000. Israel is extending its massacre in its ground offensive. And those capable of putting an end to this are still silent.

Jinan Bastaki is a UAE writer based in Dubai.