Israel/Hamas, innocent civilians and “both-sidesism”
We must insist that civilian protection under international law applies to everyone
The violence that started with Hamas’ terrorist attacks on Saturday is horrible, tragic and depressing.
Much of the response, especially on social media, has been ugly, toxic and political self-serving, Ronna McDaniel called it a “great opportunity’ for GOP candidates.” Democratic Socialists for America sponsored a rally in Time Square that saw cheerleading for Hamas (amidst legitimate calls for Palestinian rights).
I am not a Middle East expert. I leave it to others for the policy takes. When confronted with complicated international issues, I apply the rubric of international law, which applies regardless of the particular historical, political, religious or cultural context.
One area that should unite people over the Israel/Hamas conflict is civilian protection.
What Hamas did was truly sickening -- killing innocent civilians, imposing collective punishment, taking hostages. The United States has designated Hamas a terrorist organization and for good reason. I have seen comments saying terrorist organizations don’t care about international law. That may be true, but that doesn’t mean that the international law of conflict doesn’t apply to Hamas. Nor does it mean we should refrain from insisting that Hamas abide by it. Because if we stop insisting that parties to a conflict protect civilians as they are obligated to, we weaken the norm that parties to a conflict must protect civilians as they are obligated to.
Which brings us to Israel.
On Sunday Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant ordered a “complete siege” on Gaza to include cutting off electricity and block the entry of food and fuel, and said Israel was at war with “human animals.” A senior member of the Israeli government is pledging to do war crimes. He is openly promising to violate international law. He is deploying dehumanizing language that fuels the intensity of conflict.
This “eye-for-eye” reaction may be appealing. But there is no bloodthirst exemption to the international legal requirement to protect civilians. No injustice can justify another.
Some say this is Israel’s 9/11. OK, but let’s remember that our reaction to 9/11 included domestic restrictions on civil liberties and violations of international law (torture) that have done lasting damage to the United States’ reputation and our moral authority to defend global norms. Do we wish that for Israel too?
Monday’s joint statement by the US, France, Germany, Italy and the UK was a strong condemnation of Hamas’ appalling acts of terrorism. It said Hamas does not represent the “legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people.” It includes the standard promise “to ensure Israel is able to defend itself.” The question is whether the Government of Israel interprets this as a license to act without regard to civilian protection, including the war crimes its defense minister is telegraphing. We must hope that these governments are privately counseling Israeli officials to refrain from committing collective punishment,[1] a crime that innocent Israeli civilians have suffered.
“Both-sides” is often used pejoratively to deflect responsibility or convey inappropriate moral equivalency. I open myself up to such criticism with the argument I am making here, just as some have attacked human rights groups and advocates for saying the same.
But the fact is that “both-sidesim” DOES apply as a matter of international humanitarian law in a time of conflict. (Or more aptly “all-sidesism.”) The purpose of talking about Israel’s legal obligation is not to deflect from the horror of Hamas’ action. As one professor succinctly wrote, “Israel is not relieved of the burden to conduct itself according to the Laws of Armed Conflict merely because Hamas does not do so.” The fact that a senior Israeli official is pledging to breaks such Laws makes the need to talk about it urgent and compelling.
Those who insist on respect for international humanitarian and human rights law in times of conflict and terror and anger tend to get portrayed as a bunch of out-of-touch pedants. But remember there are very good REASONS why the world created this body of law in the 20th century. If rule of law is to mean anything it has to mean something, and it has to apply to everyone. We must be Unexemptional.
[1] I don’t mean to imply that the defense minister’s comments, if acted on, would represent the first case of collective punishment by Israeli authorities. The UN and human rights groups have long reported on such violations, notably the home demolitions, as well as war crimes committed by Palestinian armed groups.