In the past week, the respected watchdog organisation Human Rights Watch issued two reports criticising Hamas and Israel for violating the rules of war.
While such accusations are not new, they remind us of a critical missing element in the decades-old attempts to negotiate a resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict: By what rules are both sides judged and held accountable?
The two new reports reflect a common tendency by all in the Middle East to use indiscriminate force and justify it by arguing on the grounds of self-defence. The rationalisations mean little in the end, because the violence will continue unabated, driven as it is by the existential fears of Arabs and Israelis who feel they are cornered, targeted, vulnerable and on their own. The question of whether law or moral principles can somehow limit repeated inhuman behaviour remains relevant, however, because it may contain the seeds of a mechanism to adjudicate and ultimately resolve this conflict.
The latest Human Rights Watch (HRW) report, on August 13, said that Israeli soldiers killed 11 unarmed Palestinian civilians who were carrying white flags during the Gaza war in January. HRW said the civilians, who included five women and four children, were “in plain view and posed no apparent security threat” to the Israeli soldiers who shot them in seven separate incidents. It urged an official investigation, noting that at least three witnesses confirmed the details in each shooting.
HRW also said earlier this month that Hamas and other Palestinian resistance groups violated the rules of war by firing thousands of rockets at Israeli civilians, which it described as “unlawful and unjustifiable” behaviour. It said Hamas rockets placed about 800,000 Israeli civilians at risk and killed two Israeli girls, and that rockets launched from densely populated locations placed Gaza civilians at risk of return fire by Israel.
So, we have more accusations and some credible evidence from HRW that both sides committed war crimes in a conflict in which some 1,300 Palestinians and 13 Israelis were killed.
The situation in the 2006 war between Israel and Hizbollah in Lebanon is similar.
What is the value of this sort of external assessment that holds Arabs and Israelis accountable to a single standard of behaviour during war? Does it help reduce such violence, or is it only another reason for people to argue endlessly?
I suspect this sort of accountability to a single standard of law will loom increasingly important in peace-making efforts if we ever enjoy credible, courageous leaders in Israel and Palestine, coupled with a fair and persistent external mediator. That will happen one day, and when it does, all sides will need a reference point against which they can measure their conduct, in order to shift from aggressive militarism to more accommodating coexistence.
But is this possible? One of the biggest obstacles to a breakthrough for an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement has been the Israeli tendency to demand exemption from the rule of law, global conventions, and UN resolutions that all other human beings on earth are supposed to live by.
Whether the issue is discrimination and racism at home to its own Palestinian citizens, or stealing and colonising Palestinian land, or attacking other countries in the region, or subjecting Gaza to an inhuman siege, Israel consistently argues that its “security” requirements override any other consideration. It demands that Palestinians, Arabs, and now Iranians formally and absolutely guarantee Israel’s security before Israel makes any gesture that acknowledges their rights.
This “Israel first” approach has not worked because it is universally perceived as being unfair and unreasonable. It has proved a colossal failure many times since serious negotiations started with the Camp David talks between Egypt and Israel 30 years ago. You would think that reasonable people who sincerely seek to negotiate permanent peace would explore a more productive approach - and this is where HRW and others like it play such an important role.
They remind us that we do have at our disposal a set of clear rules for waging military conflict, administering occupation, or treating one’s own nationals or refugees and displaced persons. They also make the important point that both sides in a conflict must be judged and held accountable by the same rules, laws or moral values. Equal treatment is the key to a breakthrough in Arab-Israeli peacemaking, whether in assessing conduct in war or crafting a permanent peace agreement that acknowledges the historical traumas of both sides.
We in the Arab world should push actively for this kind of evenhanded approach, not only for what it generates in our confrontation with Israel but also for promoting the rule of law and decent behaviour in our countries. Our criminality is just as bad as their criminality. Law only enjoys validity and power if it is applied to all equally.
Front Page Features