Both US President Joe Biden and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau are managing to keep up the orthodoxy that Israel has every right to bombard and invade Gaza however they see fit ("Israel has the right to defend itself in accordance with international law"). The word "cease-fire" gets nary a mention, officially verboten.
What they are not articulating, though, is the fact that Israel's response is already contravening international law in a big way. A committee of experts has issued a report for the United Nations (specifically for its Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights), unequivocally concluding that both Hamas (for its initial rocket attacks on Israel, and for the taking of hostages) and Israel (for its indiscriminate military attacks on Gaza in response, and its apparently targeted attacks on journalists and media workers, not to mention its 16 years of illegal blockade) are committing war crimes.
The report, which was published on 12 October (i.e. pretty early on in the war, just 5 days after Hamas' initial attacks) states, with regards to Israel, "Indiscriminately killing civilians in the context of hostilities, with no regard for the principles of distinction, precaution and proportionality, is a war crime". It also adjudges, "this amounts to collective punishment" (collective punishment - a punishment imposed on a group for acts perpetrated by an individual member or subset of that group - is a war crime under the Geneva Convention).
Furthermore, the report continues, Israel's actions in completely cutting off essential supplies like food, water, power, fuel, etc, to the "human animals" in Gaza, are designed to precipitate a severe humanitarian crisis and an "inescapable risk of starvation". Such an act of "intentional starvation is a crime against humanity".
To be sure, the report also hauls Hamas over the coals: "This is absolutely prohibited under international law, and amounts to a war crime". And, later, "Taking hostages in the context of hostilities constitutes a war crime".
The Israeli Information Centre for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories (B'tselem) has also been outspoken about the illegality of Israel's actions, as has Médecins Sans Frontières.
Biden and Trudeau, however, only seem to be focussing on one side of the events, intent on preserving the traditional Western doctrine that Israel, despite its many manifest offences over the decades, can do no wrong, and (as I have elucidated previously) because they are desperate not to be branded as antisemitic.
Since the UN report was issued, Israel has continued with its indiscriminate bombardment and its blockade of essential supplies to Gaza, and various specific atrocities have been reported. Let's see how long Biden and Trudeau can keep up their clearly partisan points of view.
An article in The Economist, published on 14 August, a couple of days after the UN report described above, makes the complexity and ambiguity of the legal position abundantly clear. The law of armed conflict (LOAC), aka international humanitarian law (IHL), does its best to lay out the rules that govern warfare, but there is still considerable scope for interpretation and uncertainty.
Article 51 of the United Nations charter says that states have the right of self-defence against armed attack (this is the line that Trudeau and Biden lean on so often), PROVIDED THAT the force they use is necessary and proportional (i.e. as much as is needed to address the threat, but no more). This is where things get tricky.
Several commentators (many with distinctly Jewish names, it must be said) argue that Hamas' attack was so egregious that Israel's bombing, invasion and occupation of Gaza is easy to justify legally (although that seems to me to misinterpret the meaning of "proportionality" in this context). Also, while sieges and blockades are not in themselves illegal, the "complete siege" that has been announced, and the terms in which it has been described, may not be. There is an outright prohibition on starving civilians, even if the goal of that starvation is to squeeze the Hamas military machine.
The legal aspects of Israel's forced evacuation of half of Gaza's population are also in some doubt. Temporary evacuation may be lawful, while a permanent displacement, with the intent of preventing return, is not. The International Committee of the Red Cross is clear in its condemnation of Israel's evacuation instructions - particularly given the existing humanitarian situation, Gaza's ruined infrastructure, and Israel's continued bombardment of fleeing refugees - as "not compatible with international humanitarian law".
Perhaps the main issue, though, is the intermingling of Hamas with the civilian population. Soldiers must distinguish between targeting combatants and military objects (fair game) and civilians and civilian objects (illegal). An attack that kills civilians, however many, may still be legal if it is necessary for some military purpose, and also proportional. Some argue that Israel is operating within this parameter, but some argue that "everything in Gaza, almost every building there, is a stronghold of Hamas", which seems disingenuous and opens up the prospect of "absolutely anything goes".
Also, the sheer scale of Israel's bombardment - about 1,000 bombs a day, within a tiny geographical area - suggests that the definition of military targets is being stretched to breaking point, and that their military value cannot possibly outweigh the foreseeable harm to civilians. An Israeli official admitted on state television that "the emphasis is on damage and not on accuracy".
Israel's ex-chief military advocate general (now THERE'S a title!) blusters: "This time it's going to be a war to the end. It's either us or them, because we know what they're going to do to us." This guy is not in charge right now, but it gives a good indication of how Israel's military is probably thinking.
No comments:
Post a Comment