The empty seat among the speaker’s panel was the most revealingly. Iyad Nasr, working for the Red Cross in Gaza, was denied access by Israel at the very last moment, leaving the legal conference on Gaza without a Gazan presence and demonstrating yet another violation of International Law regarding the freedom of movement. Regretfully, because as a teacher in International Humanitarian Law (IHL), he knows IHL from the ground. His students are not only school-going youngsters but also Palestinians involved in resistance and even armed militants to whom he teaches their position in International Law.
After being welcomed by the organisers of the conference, Sari Bashi, director of Gisha, opens the debate. Gisha is an Israeli organisation with the aim to protect the freedom of movement of Palestinians. She speaks about the ways Israel tries to escape its obligations under IHL as an occupying power. First there was the so-called “disengagement program” from Gaza in September 2005. But it was clear from the beginning that this was an empty phrase since Israel keeps a tight control over the key factors of Gazan life, especially the passage of persons and goods, and that there are invasions by the Israeli military on an almost daily basis.
Then in September 2007, after the Hamas take-over of Gaza in June, Israel declared Gaza a “Hostile Entity”. Although this statement has no value from a legal point of view, it was a pretext to implement even more severe restraints on the Strip. Now nothing distinguishes Gaza any more from a huge open air prison. Obviously, this isolation policy is a form of collective punishment, another grave violation of IHL, which is still binding Israel regardless of any claim of “disengagement”.
Afterward, Gareth Gleed, legal researcher for Al Haq, a Palestinian grass roots human rights organisation, explains more about the current “West Bank first” policy of Israel. It means the establishment of different legal regimes, first of all between Gaza and the West Bank, but also within the West Bank itself. The main aim of this policy is to avoid the obligation and the restrictions imposed by IHL on Israel as an occupying power. But, as said before, facts on the ground totally contradict the Israeli claim of disengagement.
After the speakers, questions from the public. The tone is bitter. Israeli violations of IHL are rife, so it is hard to see the value of it. But as the speakers made clear, IHL remains the most important framework for justice. All the key issues, like borders, the status of Jerusalem, the Palestinian refugees and others are addressed by international law. And this is why International Humanitarian Law is the keystone of a just and lasting peace.