Gaza embargo, by the numbers
For those interesting in detailed data on the Gaza embargo, the best source are the bimonthly reports produced by PalTrade and the World Bank, which you'll find here, along with a great deal of other economic data.
The most recent monitoring report on the World Bank website at the moment shows that, in January 2010, some 1,933 trucks entered Gaza to supply the 1.6 million people there. This compares to an average of 10,400 per month prior to the current, draconian restrictions being put in place in early 2007.
In short, around 8,400 trucks less than the normal civilian/commercial needs of Gaza are currently entering each month. Some of this material is simply not getting in--that represents shortages, and decreased economic activity. Some of this is coming in via the tunnels, smuggled from Egypt.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that half of the shortfall is smuggled. This would be equivalent of 4,200 trucks of material entering Gaza (via the tunnels) with no Israeli inspection each month--compared to the old pre-embargo system where almost everything entering Gaza went through an Israeli crossing point, and hence was inspected. As I suggested earlier, the perverse effect of the blockade, therefore, has been to spur the growth of a massive smuggling industry (scores or hundreds of tunnels, thousands of workers) which has given Israel less ability to interdict contraband.
(On a side note, I would argue that Israel's pre-blockade restrictions were too draconian and wrong too, but that's another issue.)
Somebody set a trap and the IDF
fast roped right into it.:eek: Clearly, if Wilf thinks this was stupid it almost certainly was.
As to your 600 pound gorrilla point, Mike, "too right you are." But that is unlikely either for far too many reasons to bother with here.
And, in the "for what it's worth department" I've referred my AMU students to this thread as it is the most reasonable discussion of what actually happened or should have happened going.
cheers
JohnT
Some basic legal FAQs ...
currently running on our SWJ Blog Feed; from Reuters, Q&A: Is Israel's naval blockade of Gaza legal?:
Quote:
(Reuters) - Israel has said it will continue a naval blockade of the Gaza Strip despite growing global pressure to lift the siege after a navy raid on a Turkish ferry carrying aid killed nine activists this week.
What is the legality of the blockade and did Israel's intervention breach international law? Below are some questions and answers on the issue:
CAN ISRAEL IMPOSE A NAVAL BLOCKADE ON GAZA?
Yes it can, according to the law of blockade which was derived from customary international law and codified in the 1909 Declaration of London. It was updated in 1994 in a legally recognized document called the "San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea."
Under some of the key rules, a blockade must be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral states, access to neutral ports cannot be blocked, and an area can only be blockaded which is under enemy control.
"On the basis that Hamas is the ruling entity of Gaza and Israel is in the midst of an armed struggle against that ruling entity, the blockade is legal," said Philip Roche, partner in the shipping disputes and risk management team with law firm Norton Rose. .... (more in article)
What is legal is not necessarily wise.
Regards
Mike
US Law on Naval Operations
Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations (1995), and its Annotated Supplement (1997), covered the US view toward Neutrality in general (chap 7) and Blockades in particular (Section 7.7).
The Commander's Handbook was updated in July 2007 (same chap and section refs); and that update can be found at the Naval War College (MCWP 5-12.1 in Marine indexing). The 1997 Annotated Supplement has not been updated.
---------------------------
Perhaps, Rex, there is something to this:
Quote:
from Rex
It seems to me that there is likely a difference between the legality of 1) the naval blockade, and 2) the legality of the blockade/embargo as a whole (which arguably comprises, in its present form, collective punishment of the civilian population of Gaza, and in its sweeping extent is disproportionate to any military advantage gained).
although I haven't thought enough about Gaza issues to pontificate.
Most all blockades, embargoes and sanctions are de facto "collective punishments" of the civilian populations at which they are aimed - regardless of their status de jure. They also do the most damage to the "least of us" - and the "Powers That Be" rarely suffer. Thus, I find these so called "less than war operations" to be often less humanitarian than outright military incursions.
As to "occupied" or not, our FM 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare, has these statements re: occupation:
Quote:
351. Military Occupation
Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. (HR, art. 42.)
and
Quote:
355. Occupation as Question of Fact
Military occupation is a question of fact. It presupposes a hostile invasion, resisted or unresisted, as a result of which the invader has rendered the invaded government incapable of publicly exercising its authority, and that the invader has successfully substituted its own authority for that of the legitimate government in the territory invaded.
and (emphasis added by me)
Quote:
360. Maintenance of Occupation
Occupation, to be effective, must be maintained. In case the occupant evacuates the district or is driven out by the enemy, the occupation ceases. It does not cease, however, if the occupant, after establishing its authority, moves forward against the enemy, leaving a smaller force to administer the affairs of the district. Nor does the existence of a rebellion or the activity of guerrilla or para-military units of itself cause the occupation to cease, provided the occupant could at any time it desired assume physical control of any part of the territory.
If, however, the power of the occupant is effectively displaced for any length of time, its position towards the inhabitants is the same as before occupation.
361. Termination of Occupation
The law of belligerent occupation generally ceases to be applicable under the conditions set forth in paragraphs 353 [JMM Note: 353 is annexation of the occupied territory] and
360. However, with respect to the provisions of GC alone, Article 6 of that Convention provides:
Quote:
In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; however, the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation, to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory, by the provisions of the following Articles of the present Convention; 1 to 12, 27, 29 to 34, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 59, 61 to 77, 143.
Protected persons whose release, repatriation or re-establishment may take place after such dates shall meanwhile continue to benefit by the present Convention. (GC, art. 6, 3d and 4th pars.)
Of course, reasonable persons can argue about questions of fact until the cows come home (or the horses come back to the beach). My own IMO is that Israel has a good argument for no occupation by Israel (and for occupation by Hamas) following the lines of FM 27-10.
Cheers
Mike
Insight on the "boat people"
From an Israeli source, with details on the activists from the IHH aboard the ship, photos of weapons and more. Yes some information gained from those detained and released.
Link: http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/mal...hamas_e110.htm