Last weekend saw a significant upsurge in violence between Israel and the Hamas run Gaza Strip. Sadly, since the 2008 Gaza War, also known as Operation Cast Lead, a significant conflagration seems to be a regular occurrence as the sides jostle for demands and attempt to either change the status quo by launching rockets into Israel or attempt terror attacks, or reinstall deterrence by targeted assassinations, air strikes and sometimes even ground incursions. 2014’s Operation Protective Edge was the last major conflict between Israel and the Gaza Strip. However, over the past year there has been significant violence marked by regular violent protests by the border.
Just like previous conflicts involving Israel, last weekend’s wave of violence highlights how international politicians, activists and commentators criticise Israel for using “disproportionate force” or warn Israel against doing so. For example, while the EU rightly condemned Palestinian rocket fire, calling for it to “stop immediately”, it also called on Israel to act with “restraint” and “proportionality”.
Restraint and proportionality are terminologies that seem to be used every time Israel is engaged in asymmetrical warfare. But what is a restrained response when hundreds of rockets are fired into civilian areas causing deaths, casualties and disruption, a war crime if ever there was one? What is a proportioned response? An explanation of what is a proportionate or disproportionate use of force is needed.
In cases where there have been a disproportionate number of Palestinian civilian casualties than those of Israel’s, often what is being noted is the number of Israelis wounded or killed by Palestinian rocket fire is few than Palestinian casualties resulting from Israeli retaliation. In other words, critics of Israel’s actions are noting that there is a disparity in the number of civilian casualties. The logic of the argument by those who claim that Israel’s use of force is disproportionate in this sense is that Israel’s operations are illegitimate because they cause mass Palestinian suffering and civilian deaths, so much so that Israel’s comparatively smaller death toll does not warrant such a large response or perhaps even one at all.
Although an understandable sentiment, it is a flawed argument. First, if risks letting Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) actions go unpunished. It is one thing to demand rocket fire end, but without a significant military response (I will discuss what is a proportionate response later) these are just empty words. Second, such arguments ignore the fact that the intension of Hamas and PIJ is to inflict the maximum number of Israeli casualties.
PIJ and Hamas rocket fire is also designed to disrupt Israel’s economy and to hurt the viability of Israel’s southern towns and neighbourhoods. Schools were obliged to close and 30 per cent of Israel’s residents in the south temporarily left their homes and stayed elsewhere. Hamas threatened to attack Tel Aviv during the Eurovision Song Contest and PIJ threatened to hit Israel’s nuclear facility in Dimona. Don't forget that in 2014, Hamas targeted Ben-Gurion Airport, leaving passengers stranded for several days (I was one of them) and several airliners temporarily ceased flying to Israel. Therefore, a proportionate or restrained response to such a threat cannot be calculated by comparing civilian deaths, regardless about how tragic each one truly is.
When one thinks about what is proportionate or disproportionate, one needs to think in terms of military strategy, rather than simply highlighting the body count. We can illustrate this through analogy inspired by some of the stipulations contained within the Geneva Convention.
Let us imagine, for example, that in order to win a battle an army needs to destroy a railroad belonging to the nation of another army or militant group. It would make sense that destroying the rail track at key points would be a proportionate tactic. But what if this rail juncture could be repaired within hours, minutes even? It would therefore follow that not only would rail lines have to be destroyed but so would the train terminal and station. One may object and argue that this is not necessarily proportionate force because the civilian infrastructure of another country would be affected. However, one could counter that it would indeed be proportionate because alternative actions would be ineffective, even more so if this particular attack was considered vital for the success of the operation and the security of the citizens the attacking army is tasked to ultimately protect.
But what if the rail track and train station in question runs through a densely populated town or village full of non-combatants? This is when the question of proportionate force becomes tricky. In order to assess whether bombing rail targets in such a scenario additional factors need to be considered such as the choice of which munitions should be used to destroy targets while limiting civilian damage, warnings to non-combatants, the quality of intelligence, and, just as importantly, calculations over the consequences of not attacking the targets, especially if the opposing force were seeking to use rail infrastructure to launch their own attacks.
Now back to Israel-Gaza. Re-read the above few paragraphs and instead of railway, think of tunnels or rocket launching sites and the types of places where rockets are stored (mosques, the Turkish state-run Anadolu Agency, if not in schools and hospitals then areas very close to them). Now ask yourself, are the Israeli operations proportionate? Regardless of your answer, it should be understood that the question of proportionality in war, especially asymmetrical warfare is highly complex and goes beyond body counts and casualty numbers.
Following Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent election victory, his comments alluding to the annexation of Israeli West Bank settlements are more pressing now than ever. The possibility that Israeli law will be extended to the settlements, home to 400,000 Israelis but deemed illegal by almost all interpretations of international law, is very real.
As is typical in Israeli politics after an election, in the following days or even weeks Netanyahu will engage in a mammoth coalition building exercise. Netanyahu will play a four-dimensional jigsaw puzzle where the pieces argue back. His aim will be to cobble together smaller parties such as the religious Shas and United Torah Judaism and the radical right-wing United Right into Netanyahu’s Likud led coalition government.
In order to see through this process effectively, Netanyahu will no doubt offer cabinet and ministerial posts to leading cadres of these smaller parties. However, they will also seek assurances from Netanyahu that their policy goals will be if not implemented then at least put on the agenda.
This is why Netanyahu’s irresponsible announcement about settlements will not go away. Netanyahu’s words were music to the ears of ideologically inclined members of Netanyahu’s own Likud as well as the United Right whose 5 Knesset seats make them the guarantor of Netanyahu’s coalition. In return for joining Netanyahu’s government and supporting his attempt to make himself immune to indictments over corruption pertaining to no less than three different cases by legislating the so-called French Law which would prevent a sitting prime minister form being prosecuted, such parties might seek to press Netanyahu on his settlement pledge, or at least push him to make it part of his policy agenda.
Add to the equation the Trump factor, the issue of settlement annexation is no mere election bluster. It is on the table.
Indeed, the unpredictability of the Trump administration and the possibility that the White House may actually support such a move is very real. Within just two years the administration reversed decades old US policy by recognising Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and recognising the occupied Golan Heights as Israeli territory.
It is worth briefly reminding ourselves what is at stake if Israel were to extend Israeli law to the West Bank settlements.
In Europe, North America and the West, the perception of Israel as an international pariah would move from the fringe of the debate about Israel’s future to the mainstream. The BDS movement would gain unprecedented support. There will not be a campus on Earth (except maybe Ariel University) where students will not seek divestment. Parliaments across the globe will be lobbied to reconsider political and economic ties with Israel. Many will even be successful.
Attempts to exclude Israel from international civil society would gain momentum and accusations that Israel is an apartheid state would gain legitimacy as notable statespersons, public intellectuals and politicians will also adopt the same rhetoric and corporations would think twice about doing business in Israel. The Jewish diaspora will be split and many Jews outside of Israel will not only feel alienated from Israel, but they also will publicly campaign against the Israeli government in unprecedented numbers. Anti-Semitism across the world will skyrocket.
Even US support for Israel will be hurt as the emerging left-right split over support for Israel will turn into a gaping wound. Israel’s ties with the Arab world including Egypt, Jordan and the Gulf, which Israel has to done well to forge strong strategic understandings, will be undermined. It might even represent one step too far for these countries even though they share a joint fear of Iranian influence.
Just as troubling, if not more so, the threat to the viability of the Palestinian state would lead to a third Palestinian intifada in the West Bank and another conflict against Hamas in Gaza. This would overturn the security that has won Netanyahu much political success.
Netanyahu knows how to win an election, but in order to win this one he has put the future of the state of Israel in a precarious position, a dereliction of the state that he is tasked to promote and protect. Watch this space, the settlement annexation issue is not going away.
In a relatively recent post I commented that Iran and UNRWA were the two foreign policy positions that US President Donald J. Trump managed to get right. However, I have come to change my opinion slightly. When it comes to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees President Trump only gets half a point.
President Trump was absolutely right to label UNRWA a deeply flawed operation highlighting the damage it does to Palestinian school children by indoctrinating them about the so-called right of return and the way it counts the numbers of Palestinian refugees. He was also well within his rights, and even correct, to cut off US$364 million worth of US aid to the defective UN agency. However, Trump only gets half a point because the move was completely devoid of leadership (a subject I will return to in a future post). Having correctly identified UNRWA’s flaws, Trump did not lead an international campaign for others to follow America’s lead. Trump did not offer a new direction about how to either reform UNRWA or finance alternative operations more conducive to peace. He might as well have used the words of South Park’s Eric Cartman: “screw you guys, I’m going home!” But this turns me to the real issue I want to address which is the opportunity that European countries are missing to change and reform UNRWA.
Following the loss of US finance, Germany, the UK, and the supranational European Union are now UNRWA’s top donors. Instead of using this opportunity to open a debate about the future of UNRWA, or at the very minimum make funding conditional on reform, European countries and the EU simply stated their intensions to increase their donations. It was as if Europe (and Canada) was making a knee jerk reaction to do the opposite of Trump, ignoring the fact that on this position Trump was right because UNRWA is indeed a mismanaged and over financed body whose functions serve as an obstacle to peace.
Europe’s decision to increase funding is a crucial mistake for several reasons. First, Europe has missed yet another opportunity to show leadership on the international stage. With the US funding cut, Europe –the EU and individual European states – now have greater influence over UNRWA which is now highly dependent on European support. This has the potential to translate into significant leverage over the future direction and current activities of UNRWA. Alas, by declaring that Europe will increase UNRWA funding squanders the opportunity.
Second, Europe is ignoring UNRWA’s continued outrages. Over the years there have been cases of Hamas or other militant groups storing rockets or weapons at UNRWA schools and the hosting of informal summer camps on UNRWA property where violence and extremism was taught. There have been cases of incitement (in person and online) and there are question marks about UNRWA’s transparency when it comes to funding and financial oversight. To make matters worse Hamas has overwhelming representation in UNRWA’s unions. And I haven’t even touched on the subject of UNRWA school alumni who have gone on to involve themselves in terrorism. Surely, it’s a no brainer that at an absolute minimum the EU, Germany and the UK should demand verifiable guarantees that European taxpayers’ money will not ever be used for nefarious purposes.
Third, and perhaps most importantly, Europe’s continued funding of UNRWA contradicts the very tenets of the two-state solution, the policy of not only the EU as a member of the Quartet, the international body that also comprises of the US, UN and Russia, but also the official positions of European nation-states themselves, Britain and Germany the two largest nation-state donors of UNRWA. However, UNRWA openly advocates and campaigns for the implementation of the so-called Palestinian right of return, including the descendants of the 700,000 original refugees now entering their fifth generation. In other words, UNRWA works towards the influx of millions of Palestinians into Israel which would lead to the extermination of the Jewish state through an overwhelming demographic imbalance.
This defeat of Israel through the Palestinian right or return is a position that mirrors that of Hamas. Just since March 2018, Hamas has organised weekly violent and provocative “return” marches by the Israel-Gaza border. Far from peaceful, these demonstrations, which are often met by lethal force by the Israel Defence Force, seek to sabotage and infiltrate the border in order to kill Israeli citizens. Meanwhile militants lob enflamed kites into Israel in the hope that they start wildfires and kill people. This violence is then given a voice of respectability through UNRWA, a UN body no less, whose spokespersons condemn Israeli actions while emphasising the Palestinian so-called right of return and indoctrinate children to never let go of this so-called “right” thus perpetuating the conflict.
The fact that Europe continues to unconditionally support UNRWA despite its advocacy for the so-called right of return which is anti-peace, sympathetic to Hamas and contrary to the two-state solution is, quite frankly, unacceptable. European nations, especially Germany and Britain, should at the very minimum demand conditions before they agree to any additional UNRWA funding. The conditions should include:
These conditions should be the very minimum if Europe insists that it continue to fund UNRWA. It should be demanded that the organisation become a body that is conducive to peace rather than the perpetuation of violence.
A few days ago, I was approached by a journalist who wanted me to comment on recent violence in Israel, specifically the killing of 60 Palestinians along Israel’s border with the Gaza Strip on Monday 14 May. This was latest in a series of protests organised by the Strip’s Hamas rulers which intensified after the US officially opened its embassy in Jerusalem. The journalist was especially interested how this relates to international law and the question of proportionality. I decided not to comment because I did not want my views on this complicated and intricate subject to be reduced to a half sentence. Nevertheless, I have an opinion which I would like to share.
I get very suspicious when “experts” or politicians refer to international law without mentioning specific articles or conventions. Even when they are specific, sometimes the treaties and articles they refer to do not make a clear-cut case against Israeli actions in this instance.
For example, the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights stipulates, among many other things, that individuals have the right to life and not be arbitrarily killed (Article 6). I mention this because in one article I read the “expert” refers to this treaty. However, leaving aside the possible counter that the deaths of the protesters in Gaza on Monday may not have been arbitrary, the context of Article 6 is also not necessarily relevant to the recent events because the broader context of the article is the death penalty within a society rather than loss of life during battle or conflict.
Another treaty which is often referred to when discussing alleged Israeli violations of international law is the Fourth Geneva Convention. But much of this document is about the responsibilities of an occupying power. This is more relevant to Israeli settlement policy than recent events in the Gaza Strip. To make it relevant to the Gaza protests, one has to first posit that Israel is the occupying power of Gaza, which is debateable and even doubtful since its withdrawal in 2005. If, for the sake of argument, we grant that Israel is the occupying power, it is still unclear under which article Israel is supposedly in violation in relation to Monday’s events. It would appear Article 147 which considers “wilful killing” a breach of the treaty. This is one of the documents that Amnesty International was assumedly referring to when it condemned the Israeli use of excessive force and “wilful killing”. However, Article 147 is not about protests, demonstrations or attempts to breach border security, but rather the detention and trial of prisoners of war or those accused of criminal offences in wartime.
The other treaty Amnesty International could have been referring to was the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The Rome Statute describes what constitutes a crime against humanity, which, among other important things, includes an action which is “part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack” including the use of “murder” and “extermination” to name but a few of the horrific acts described in the treaty (article 7). In addition, Article 8 of the same statute is concerned with war crimes and states that “wilful killing” constitutes such an offence, and, in a follow on passage, namely Article 2b, this includes “Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities” as well as “Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life… which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated”.
Aha, there we have it! Now let’s take a look and see if Israel is in breach of this piece of international law.
60 Palestinians were killed during the most recent protests on 14 May. If, having examined the facts, it emerges that these protesters were entirely peaceful and sought to stage a non-violent protest by the border, under the terms of the Rome Statute, Israel would have committed a violation of international law.
However, one may counter, didn’t Israel drop leaflets warning protesters not to approach the border area? Wasn’t this corroborated by news reports which can verify this was the case? And there was also the precedent of previous incidents by the border. In other words, surely the Palestinian protesters knew that they were risking their lives by approaching the border? Sure, but it still remains the case that if the intension of the protesters was fully peaceful, Israel’s actions would to be both disproportionate and in breach of the Rome Statute.
But what if Israel’s claims that some Palestinians, including many of those who were fatally shot, were indeed trying to sabotage the fence prove to be true? In such a case, when the potential sovereignty of a state is at risk, it is reasonable to expect that force will be used. Nevertheless, 60 deaths still appears excessive, especially if other measures could have been used. Israel still has some serious answering to do and may still be in breach of the Rome Statute.
However, Israel not only claims that Hamas militants were trying to breach the fence, but Hamas operatives were also making an attempt to enter Israel to attack Israeli civilians. If this turns out to be the case, Israel, I think, would undoubtable be in its right to use lethal force. Those attempting to breach the border would also now be deemed combatants - a Hamas leader recently stated that the majority of those killed were members of Hamas. In this context, it would be difficult to state that Israel was acting disproportionately to the threat, and making the case that Israel violated the Rome Statute would be a stretch.
Whether or not Israel is in violation of international law does not absolve Hamas for its use of civilian protesters as human shields. This is a factor that must be considered regardless of whether Hamas was trying to breach the border to murder Israelis or just using protesters for PR purposes. They were still fully aware that civilians were being put in harm’s way. The use of human shield is a violation of Article 8 of the Rome Statute as well as Article 23 of the Third Geneva Convention and article 28 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Let us also not forget that children were brought to a protest where violence and death are the norm and that there were cases of gruesome Hamas incitement to violence ahead of the demonstrations.
As you can tell from this entry, international law and the Israel-Gaza conflict is neither simple nor clear-cut. When you hear people talk about violations of international law, know that the reality may be a lot more complicated and unclear.
In a 2010 essay in The Atlantic, the late great Christopher Hitchens offered an explanation for the prevalence of anti-Semitism. He argued that it was the Jewish rejection of the false prophets Jesus and Muhammed.
The traditional story goes that not only had the Sanhedrin rejected the teachings of Jesus, but they insisted, one could say lobbied, that the Roman governor of Judea crucify him. This act of deicide would become the justification for centuries of persecution, expulsions, murder and genocide by Christians against the Jews.
Centuries later, in the far corners Arabia a new religion was espoused by Mohammed who claimed to be the final messenger of God. Not only did very few Jews join Mohammed’s new faith, but the respected Jewish tribes in and around the oasis city of Medina shunned the exiled Meccan merchant. Mohammed and his followers would later take revenge and slaughter Arabia’s Jews. As the new religion expanded into Asia, North Africa and even Europe, the Jewish communities of these lands were given an inferior status. They were tolerated as ‘people of the book’. In a process which intensified after the 1948 Palestine War, the Jews of the Middle East were largely expelled.
But Jesus and Mohammed were not the only prophets who were perceived to be rejected by the Jews. We should not rule out the perception that through action and deed Jews rejected the enlightenment era political economist Karl Marx. Now Marx was of course himself was a baptised Jew. Not only were many of his followers Jewish but so were generations of Marxist philosophers, politicians, sociologists and political scientists. You’re probably listing some of them in your head right now. You might also be formulating a challenge based on the idea that much of the anti-Semitism of the radical right, both then and now, often depicts the Jew and Communist as one and the same. Sure, I’ll grant you these points, but remember I am talking about the perception of rejection rather than actual.
There is a thread in anti-Semitic discourse, repeated increasingly by some in the far Left, that associates Jews with Zionism, which is made powerful through Jewish control of international finance. Much of this this narrative emanates from Soviet propaganda which adopted traditional anti-Semitic motifs that associated Jews with being international in outlook, unpatriotic in worldview and purveyors of bourgeois capitalism. Public state-sponsored attacks were often directed against “rootless” or “homeless cosmopolitans,” a euphemism for Jews if ever there was one. The story of anti-Semitism in Communist Russia is well known - the persecution of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee, the fabricated Doctor’s Plot, the unofficial quotas in government positions. In these cases, the idea of the Jew being cosmopolitan, unpatriotic and bourgeois were central.
However, Soviet anti-Semitic propaganda also took the guise of anti-Zionism. Again, borrowing from classic anti-Semitism, it linked the international and unpatriotic cosmopolitan Jew to Israel and global financial conspiracy. In 1967, after the failure of Russia’s Arab clients to defeat Israel, the Young Communist League, stated that Israel was backed by "an invisible but huge and mighty empire of financiers and industrialists.” In other words, Jews. This was just one typical example of Soviet propaganda which was disseminated after 1967 near and far and regurgitated over again. Indeed, this is the very image that was conjured by street artist Mear One whose mural was defended by the leader of the British Labour Party Jeremy Corbyn a couple of years ago.
As Michael Segalov explains, the imagery of the mural borrows from the Russian Czarist forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a malicious and fictitious tract purporting a conspiratorial cabal of powerful Jews to plan and scheme world domination. In the mural, the image of the crooked nosed and bearded Jew counting money is telling, as are other images associated with conspiracy theories such as the Illuminati. Taken together with the depictions of the Jewish Rothschild’s financier, the message in the iconography is unmistakeable. Jewish capital/international Zionism/the Jewish Lobby lurks behind the shadows, pulling the levers of international policy for its own benefit or for Israel. Had the mural been painted in, say, 2007, prominent Jewish Neo-Conservatives such as Leo Straus, Richard Perle or Paul Wolfowitz might have been added to the scene.
These images are the legacy of Soviet anti-Semitism. And as we have seen, they have been picked up by some in the radical Left (and by Islamist movements). They depict the Jew as the hidden hand behind the evils of global capitalism and colonialism. In other words, the Jews are a secretive force fighting the realization of historical materialism. By action and deed they are the ultimate enemies of Marxism.
Jeremy Corbyn, who described the visceral anti-Semitic Hezbollah and Hamas as his friends, wasted the opportunity to stamp out anti-Semitic currents within his party in 2016. Back then alarm bells starting ringing after his allies such as Ken Livingstone, Naz Shah and Jackie Walker made shocking anti-Jewish statements. Instead to tackling the problem head on, Corbyn enlisted lawyer and civil-right activists Shami Chakrabarti to investigate the matter. But as is well known, Chakrabarti whitewashed the inquiry. Soon after she was suspiciously awarded with a Labour peerage and took a seat in the House of Lords. Meanwhile, Jackie Walker, who said that Jews were financiers of the sugar and slave trade, went on to create a one-person stage show about her apparent victimisation and received standing ovations by a hard Left audience.
There were scores of anti-Semitic incidents which took place in 2017 and 2018 in the Labour Party. These including Labour council candidates asking what good have Jews done for the world and demands that the existence of the Holocaust be allowed to be questioned. When the anti-Semitism debate resurfaced after Luciana Berger MP asked for answers for Corbyn’s endorsement of the aforementioned mural, she received a tirade of attacks.
It was very telling that Corbyn’s supporters said that the claims of anti-Semitism are nonsense and part of a nefarious plot against Corbyn. In other words, it’s all just another Jewish conspiracy. In their cult-like following of their leader, the “Corbynistas” will no doubt continue to believe that this is just one big conspiracy against their saviour. Another case of the Jewish scorn for a prophet.
All Afrin AKP Aksener Albayrak America Amnesty Antisemitism Anti-semitism Anti-Zionism Argentina Arms Assad Autocracy Ayatollah Bogazici University Brand Branding Brexit Britain Brunson Charisma Chile CHP Christianity Constitution Corbyn Demirtas Democracy Diplomacy Diversity Douglas Murray Economy Election Elections Empire Erbakan Erbil Erdogan EU Europe Evevit F35 Finance Foreign Policy Foreign Policy Center Gaza Geneva Convention Germany Gulen Hamas Hard Power HDP House Of Commons IAEA Identity IMF Immigration Ince International Law Iran Iraq Islam Islamic Republic Islamism Israel Istanbul Italy Iyi JCPOA Jerusalem Joint Strike Fighter Kalicdaroglu Kemal Dervis Khashoggi Khomeini KRG Kurdistan Kurds Lawfare Left Liberal Magnitsky Marx MBS Meretz MHP Middle East Migrant Mogherini Mossad Multiculturalism NATO Neo-colonialism Neo Ottomanism Neo-Ottomanism Netanyahu Nuclear Obama Oil Ottoman Oxford P5+1 Palestine Peru PKK Politics Populism Putin PYD Qatar Queen Referendum Refugees Religion Robert College Rojava Rome Statute Russia S400 Sanctions Saudi Arabia Slogan Smart Power Soft Power South Park Soviet Union Strategy Sudan Syria Tamam Tehran Terrorism Transactionalism Trump Turkey Turkish UK United Kingdom United States UNRWA US Venezuela War On Terror Washington Weber Welfare West World Bank World Cup YPG Zionism