Creation of "Kill Zones" and What "Occupied Territory" Means

The US is attacking international law, which protects people under occupation and grants them right of resistance

Ahmed Alnaouq: “I want everyone to watch this video and keep watching and repeat it over and over. These body parts you see are of HUMANS, humans like you and me. They are the bodies of children run over by the Israeli tanks at Alshifa HOSPITAL!!!”

Last week, I asked Matthew Miller if the US government “accepts the Geneva Conventions as applying to the occupied Palestinian territory.” He said they of course accept the Geneva Convention. When I asked him later after a briefing more directly if they accept them applying to the occupied Palestinian territory, he refused to answer. See by

Decensored News

:

So, as I concluded in the X/Twitter thread: “This all seems like an orchestrated plan [by the US government] to effectively eviscerate the Geneva Conventions for the Palestinians, while pretending that they are upholding the Conventions.”

I and others had repeatedly warned that what was being constructed was the legal pretext for a free fire zone. Now even the Israel press is reporting on “kill zones”.

Former UN official Craig Mokhiber clarified the meaning of rights under international law including the Geneva Conventions for people in occupied territory:

Indeed, all of Gaza, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan are occupied territory under international law. Israel’s redeployment to the margins of Gaza (while tightening control of Gaza’s land, sea, air entry, and exit) in 2005 did not change the status of Gaza as occupied territory, and Israel remains the occupying party. This is a consensus among the UN, the ICRC, and the international community of states. Israel and its lobby, with occasional help of the US, has tried to obscure this legal reality. But their denial has no legal force in international law. 

International law holds, and the ICJ has affirmed (in the Wall case) that Israel cannot claim self-defense under the UN charter as a justification to go to war against a territory that it occupies. The lawful remedy for risks emanating from its belligerent and unlawful occupation is to end the occupation and withdraw fully to its own territory. 

Its principal legal duty as the occupying power is the protection of the civilian population in Gaza. It can repel immediate attacks, but cannot wage war against Gaza. (If it wants to pursue actors it accuses of warcrimes, it can do so through legal/judicial processes). 

The legal metaphor is that of a home invasion: you cannot invade someone’s home, beat them up, and then, if they fight back, murder them, and then claim self-defense in court. Your jeopardy emanated from your own unlawful act by invading the house. Thus, Israel, carrying out a sustained home-invasion since 1967, cannot claim self-defense 

People under foreign occupation and colonial domination have a right to use armed force to resist. This includes Hamas and IJ [Islamic Jihad]. But they cannot target civilians or take civilian hostages. Israel could have accused some October 7 fighters of war crimes and sought international legal cooperation for judicial prosecution of perpetrators. Instead, they chose to pursue a campaign of collective punishment of the civilian population, war crimes, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, and genocide — all in grave breach of its obligations under international humanitarian law, the UN Charter, international human rights law, and international criminal law. Israel must be held accountable for these crimes.