1. Israel says, “Hamas started the war” 
Or “It is all the fault of Hamas, they started it”
Or “Israel is simply responding to the rocket attacks”
Tension between Israel and the Palestinians has existed since even before the UN partition of Palestine in 1947. Both sides can easily point to some previous incident as an act of incitement, so such tit-for-tat accusations lead nowhere.
In the broader context, however, the international community considers Israel the “occupying power,” which makes Israel much more accountable for the violence from a number of perspectives:
- First, Israel could easily de-escalate the situation by ceasing some of its repressive activities in Gaza and the West Bank. Notably, it could cease the blockade of Gaza, or it could cease its “settlement” activity in the West Bank. Such acts would dramatically reduce tensions in a matter of hours.
- Second, Israel could easily de-escalate the situation by ceasing its military occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, and this would, again, immediately reduce the tension. In fact, such an act would likely lead to regional peace within a matter of days or weeks.
- Hamas rocket attacks are a desperate act by a people with little hope. Non-violent Palestinian resistance to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories is ignored by Israel, or met with violence. International steps to address Israel’s occupation – whether UN resolutions, or international court decisions – are ignored with impunity by Israel. Hamas and other militant Palestinian groups turn to violence because Israel gives them no other avenue of resistance.
2. Israel says, “Hamas’ relentless rocket attacks justify our strong response”
Or “What would you do if someone were shooting rockets at you?”
As mentioned above, both sides frequently point to some previous incident as an act of incitement, so blaming the “start” of the violence on the other is a dead end discussion. Hamas likewise views Israel as the instigator, and points to prior Israeli airstrikes on Gaza as the cause for the current violence.
Regardless of who instigated the current flare up of violence, the violence has been relentless from both sides. The New York Times day-by-day summary on the conflict makes clear that neither side has held back. Hundreds of rockets have been launched into Israel from Gaza, yet a comparable number of targets in Gaza have been struck by Israeli forces.
More broadly, rocket attacks from Gaza began in 2001, and a total of 28 Israelis have been killed from rocket fire since that time. Such rocket fire is in clear violation of international law, because the rockets target the Israeli civilian population. During this same period, however, Israel has killed a much higher number of Palestinian civilians – also, of course, in violation of international law. Between the Israel’s current operation (“Protective Edge”), its operation of 2012 (“Pillar of Defense”) and its operation in 2008/9 (“Cast Lead”), Israel has killed at least 1200 Palestinian civilians.
3. Israel says, “We are only acting in self-defence”
The UN Charter reserves the use of force for Security Council members. Individual countries may act in self defence when a threat is imminent, but the response must be proportionate to the threat faced, and short-term: only until such time as UN agents can intervene. That is, under the UN Charter, member nations are not permitted to “fight it out.”
Israel’s self-defence arguments are unconvincing for the following reasons:
- Israel’s “defensive response” is grossly disproportionate to the threat that it faces, by an order of hundreds to one.
- Israel’s “self-defence” often lasts for weeks, and Israel rarely gives any serious attention to a ceasefire until after its military objectives have already been met, or military avenues have ceased to be fruitful.
- The conflict is highly asymmetrical in Israel’s favour: Israel has a sophisticated modern military with fighter jets, helicopters, tanks, and an anti-rocket defence system. Hamas and other militant groups have primitive and ineffective – often “home made” – rockets.
- A country acting in self defence would not blockade and/or militarily occupy territories belonging to another people for decades on end.
4. Israel says, “We are a peace-loving nation”
Israel says that it wants peace, but it takes no concrete steps to enable it. Instead, Israel seeks to impose its will through violence, with no thought of the legitimate claims or grievances of its adversaries. Throughout its brief history, modern Israel has repeatedly invaded its neighbours: Egypt in 1956; Syria, Jordan and Egypt in 1967; Lebanon in 1978, 1982 and 2006. It has launched airstrikes against Iraq and Syria over the years with impunity.
Israel also maintains one of the longest military occupations of modern times, retaining control of the Syrian Golan, and the Palestinian West Bank, and Gaza for 47 years. Peace-loving countries do not militarily occupy other countries for decades on end.
As Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, “Peace is not the absence of violence, but the presence of justice.” Reaching a just peace with its neighbours would give Israel peace and security which all the military might in the world could never provide. The Arab League has offered twice, once in 2002 and again in 2007, to normalize relations with Israel if it would cease its occupation of the Palestinian territories. The offers were spurned.
5. Israel says, “Hamas didn’t accept the ceasefire, so they are to blame for the carnage”
Or “Hamas rejected ‘repeated offers’ to deescalate the situation”
On Tuesday, July 15th, Canadians awoke to the news that Israel had agreed to a ceasefire negotiated by Egypt, but that Hamas had not. What Canadians were not told, however, was that Hamas had not even been consulted on the “agreement.” In fact, Hamas heard about the ceasefire proposal only through the media.
Thus, the whole “ceasefire affair” of July 16th was theatre for the media. Israel knew that Hamas would not accept an agreement that they hadn’t even been consulted on. The “ceasefire” would be announced, Hamas’ rejection trumpeted, and Israel would have renewed “justification” to continue its bombardment of Gaza.
Hamas has expressed interest in a ceasefire all along, and has publicized the conditions for one. They have requested a release of illegally detained prisoners, a lifting of Israel’s illegal blockade, and freer movement of goods and people into and out of Gaza, among other conditions.
Even well prior to July 15th, Hamas has entertained discussions for a ceasefire. On July 4th, for example, Hamas announced it was ready to cease rocket fire in exchange for a cessation of Israeli airstrikes on Gaza.
One may argue that a ceasefire need not have conditions, and Hamas could have accepted the ceasefire as a means of stopping the carnage. This is true. However, Hamas must grapple with the fact that, were they to sign an unconditional ceasefire, it would simply result in a return to an unacceptable status quo: a situation where 1.8 million Palestinians live under illegal blockade – an “open air prison” – in Gaza.
6. Israel says, “We do everything we can to avoid civilian deaths”
Or “Israel warns civilians to evacuate the area”
In the current conflict, and in previous conflicts, Israel has claimed that because it forewarns victims, it is not responsible for civilian deaths. This rationale, however, is fallacious, and violates international law.
Israel has used various mechanisms to warn potential victims:
- Leafleting areas by air with warnings to flee or evacuate.
- Media warnings to flee or evacuate.
- Calling residences in advance of the attack.
- Dropping a blank shell on a rooftop (called “roof-knocking” by the Israeli army) before dropping a live shell.
None of the above approaches can be used to excuse civilian deaths under international law. International law prohibits a military attack if there is a high risk of civilian casualties. A residential building is, by definition, civilian infrastructure.
In times of war and occupation, international law also asserts that the warring parties must allow civilians to flee the war zone. Yet with its illegal blockade of Gaza, Israel severely limits all civilian access into and out of the territory. Civilians in Gaza are prevented from fleeing – again in violation of international law.
It is interesting to note that even Israel’s “roof-knocking” can be lethal. On July 17th, for example, a “roof-knocking” killed 3 young children playing on the roof on their building in the Sabra neighbourhood.
7. Israel says, “Hamas uses its own people as human shields” 
Or “Hamas hides missiles in schools, homes, and hospitals near civilians”
Every time that Israel wages war against a neighbour, and causes high civilian casualties, it makes this argument. Israel made this argument during its Operation Cast Lead in 2008/9, yet when human rights groups (e.g. Amnesty International, the UN Goldstone Report, etc.) researched the allegation after the conflict had ended, they found no evidence of the use of “human shields.” Similarly, in the aftermath of Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 2006, human rights organizations found there was no evidence that Hezbollah had used human shields.
In the thick of the current conflict, it is difficult to ascertain the validity of assertions on either side. It will be necessary to see what human rights groups say in the follow-up research.
It is important to note, however, that even if Hamas were using “human shields” around military targets, international law would forbid Israel’s engaging such targets. International law prohibits a military attack if there is a high risk of civilian casualties.
It is also interesting to note that, so far, in the current conflict, civilian casualties have occurred when Israel has struck cafés, hospitals, a home for the disabled, homes and apartment buildings, and the like. Under international law, none of these structures should have been targets.
No comments:
Post a Comment