Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Sahara Occidentale, Kashmir, Tibet

e Gaza, certo. Facciamo un reality check.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1200572509800&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
Prisoners of Gaza
ERIK SCHECHTER , THE JERUSALEM POST 	Jan. 21, 2008
The IDF posts are gone. The settlements are gone. Hamas even declared
Gaza liberated. Yet two-and-a-half years after the disengagement, at
least one local human rights group still considers the Strip occupied.
And, surprisingly, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International agree.
In a report entitled "Disengaged Occupiers," Gisha - Legal Center for
Freedom of Movement writes: "Israel's withdrawal of settlements and
its permanent military ground installations from the Gaza Strip did
not end Israeli control of Gaza but rather changed the way in which
such control is effectuated."
It all sounds so fascinating, so subversive. But what about that
little document called the 1907 Hague Regulations?
Article 42 clearly states that territory is occupied when "under the
authority of the hostile army." Now the lawyers may quibble over how
far ahead of the invading troops the law of occupation extends. But,
basically, it's boots in - military occupation; boots out - no
military occupation.
To get around this, Gisha displays an impressive level of creativity.
First, it argues that technological advances like drones, gunships and
laser-guided missiles have shattered the old paradigm. Second, the
group notes that the IDF still occupies the West Bank, and the Oslo
Accords consider the territories one unit.
Besides, the issue is not troops but "effective control," adds Gisha.
Israel may only have close-circuit cameras at the Rafah crossing, but
we limit the entry of people and goods into Gaza. We also set the
customs rates, verify Palestinian IDs, and withhold tax money. If
Israel wants to bottle up the Strip for 148 days, it can - and it has.
If Gisha is right, then Gaza becomes our little bedraggled ward. We
must let the Palestinians import and export goods, if not through
Rafah, then through Israel. We must supply the Hamas government with
electricity until it repairs the transformers destroyed in June 2006.
We have to do all this, and more.
Of course, the alternative is to open Gaza to the world and watch the
rockets, guns and bombs flood the Strip.
ADMITTEDLY, no one likes being called the O-word. That's why the UN
and NATO frame their non-belligerent occupations as "peacekeeping
missions." Still, there are good reasons why we ought to reject
Gisha's notion of occupation: It is disconnected from reality,
conceptually weak and only applied to Israel.
First, despite Gisha's lavish praise of hi-tech weapons, they do not
keep public order, pick up the trash, or perform any other government
task. Nor is our well-stocked army in any position to quickly reassert
Israeli rule in Gaza. That's why, after 1,000 or so Palestinian rocket
attacks, we have not reconquered the place.
That said, we do assert authority over taxes, customs and ID cards.
And there is Rafah. We retain a voice over what goes on at the
crossing, but our power is almost all on paper. It is the Egyptians
who really control the border, and if they want to let Hamas smugglers
into Gaza (as they did two weeks ago), they can.
A SECOND, equally crucial point raised by Gisha is the nature of the
territories. True, the Oslo Accords did hold them to be one political
entity, but since the Hamas takeover of the Strip in June 2007, they
are no longer so. Thus, the idea that Israel can control Gaza City via
Ramallah is untenable.
Ultimately, the NGO report comes off vague and arbitrary. Israel is
guilty, of course, but we are not sure why. The group offers no
formula for how much "indirect control" makes an occupation. Nor it
does explain how our domination of Gazan airspace and waters differs
from an ordinary blockade.
That others would adopt a similar approach to Gisha is all the more
jarring given how Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International usually
address conflicts around the globe. Indeed, most other military
occupations (i.e., foreign rule, troops and settlers) go unremarked
upon by the human rights community.
Take the case of the Western Sahara. In October 1975, the
International Court of Justice ruled that this Spanish colony had the
right to self-determination. However, Spain had other plans. The
outgoing colonial power cut a side deal with Morocco and Mauritania,
and in April 1976, the two states annexed Western Sahara.
The hard-fighting Sahrawi rebels forced Mauritania to withdraw in
1979. But it was Morocco - not the local nationalist movement - that
took control of the evacuated areas. Confronted with this new reality,
the UN General Assembly issued two resolutions that recognized Western
Sahara as under Moroccan occupation.
Curiously, none of this registers with Human Rights Watch and Amnesty
International. Both groups insist on calling Western Sahara a
"disputed territory" or "Moroccan-administered" - anything but
"occupied." This legal conservatism stands in stark contrast to the
super-elastic category used for Gaza.
EXPLAINING the contradiction, Human Rights Watch legal adviser James
Ross tells me that his group uses terms "widely accepted" by the
international community. True, interested parties often shape this
discourse, but not to worry: The law, not the label, is what counts.
And human rights law is applied to Western Sahara.
However, Ross admits that the laws of occupation are not applied. So
while human rights groups count our closed-circuit cameras at Rafah,
they ignore 200,000 Moroccan settlers living in Western Sahara. We get
slapped for not feeding Hamas-run Gaza, but Morocco can happily
deplete Sahrawi fish stocks and phosphate mines.
Obviously, this myopic obsession with Gaza cannot continue. First, it
chains Israel to a make-believe occupation. Second, it confirms the
Palestinian conceit that they are victims of forces beyond their
control. Third, it overlooks very real occupations across the globe.
Finally, it does violence to very concept of equality before the law.
NOW, BEFORE you get out the pitchforks and torches, let me say a word
about the human rights community. They are good people. But they are
just people, and, like the rest of us, they too can make errors in
judgment - sometimes very serious ones. We need to keep human rights
groups on track, not tear them down.
Donors, sympathizers and due-paying members ought to petition their
organizations to be more forthright in outing occupiers. Academics can
likewise be recruited to the cause. After all, few scholars deny that
Pakistan conquered a part of Kashmir, or that China has swamped Tibet
with settlers.
Once human rights groups commit themselves to using a reasonable and
consistent definition of occupation in their reports, it will be
harder for states to play politics in international fora. Then, who
knows? We might just end up with something that resembles
international law.
The writer is a former military correspondent of The Jerusalem Post

 
http://www.jpost.com/
uh,uh, adesso leggiamo il jerusalem post....lo slittamento a destra si
sta completando definitivamente....:D