Even in the battle against Hamas there are rules

After more than a week of bombings causing more than 500 Palestinian deaths, the Israeli army started a ground operation in the Gaza strip on Saturday night. Like all other NGO’s active in Gaza, Broederlijk Delen deeply regrets this escalation of violence. We do not believe that exposing Palestinian citizens to extreme violence can guarantee the safety of Israeli citizens. In addition, we fear that the fighting parties will trifle with international humanitarian law or war law. Given the high population density and shortages of food and medical materials due to Israel’s draconian fencing policy, an unseen humanitarian catastrophe is coming on.

When the ground operation started, the spokesperson of the Israeli army said that “whoever uses citizens, elder people, women and children as human shields, is responsible for all damage caused to the civilian population. Whoever hides a terrorist or weapons in his house, is considered to be a terrorist.” With the Israeli army’s previous military operations and battle methods in mind, such statements lead to severe concerns. Since the beginning of the Second Intifada at the end of 2000, for example, the Israeli army killed a huge amount of Palestinian citizens that were not participating in the hostilities. Also last week’s air raids took an unacceptable toll.

According to international humanitarian law, the responsibility for protecting the civilian population is shared by both fighting parties, regardless of the adversary’s weapons or tactics. The use of human shields – a tactic Palestinian fighters applied in the past – is a war crime. Nevertheless, these illegal practices do not release Israel of its obligation to spare the Palestinian citizens. Even if Hamas fighters hide themselves or their weapons resolutely amongst citizens, Israel is obliged to respect the principle of proportionality. One war crime does not justify another one.

The principle of proportionality states that when attacking a legitimate target, the physical and material damage to civilians cannot be excessively high in comparison with the direct military advantage of the attack. If Israeli bombings kill Palestinian citizens, it is not sufficient that the target was a weapon depot or a Hamas fighter. Only when the loss of innocent people’s lives is in accordance with the direct military benefits of the attack, the assault is legal. The high amount of civilian deaths and information on certain specific operations taken into account, suspicions rise that Israel regularly violates the principle of proportionality in Gaza. Last Saturday, for instance, 15 Palestinians were killed and over 25 injured in a bombing on a mosque in Beit Laha.

According to the Israeli army, whoever hides a terrorist or weapons in his house is a terrorist. Implicitly, this means that such persons are legitimate targets. This position is opposed to the legal rule that citizens can only be attacked if they are directly or actively taking part in the hostilities. Even the Israeli Supreme Court recognised this about two years ago. In the case of the so called ‘targeted killings’, the Court stated that supplying ‘terrorists’ with general logistic support or food cannot justify a direct attack. After all, it is impossible to find out whether the citizen in question was forced or not.

When performing military operations in Gaza, all fighting parties are obliged to take safety measures for protecting the civilian population. If possible, they should send out the necessary warnings before each attack. Media reports state that Israel has various times urged Palestinian citizens through pamphlets and by telephone to evacuate certain dangerous areas. Chances are that everybody remaining in these zones will after a while be considered as outlawed. This is a violation of war law. Previous Israeli operations in the Palestinian Territories and Lebanon have proved that this risk is real.

Obviously, Hamas and all other Palestinian armed groups are just as well bound to the rules of international humanitarian law. Their resolute missile and mortar attacks on Israeli citizens are war crimes. The Palestinian armed groups also remain responsible for the well-being of Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier who has been kept prisoner since June 2006. War law does not prohibit these groups from performing defensive military operations in built-up areas. It does state, however, that they should avoid as much as possible to place military targets in or near densely populated areas.

Israel has the right and obligation to protect its citizens. In the actual discussions on self-defence, however, the clarity of war law threatens to disappear in the background. The Palestinian civilians too should be protected at all times. It is improper for Israel to expose 1.5 million people to extreme and disproportional violence in order to safeguard its own civilians.

This leads us to the political dimension of the conflict. How can Israel and allies such as the US believe that death and destruction might result in safety? As the American economist Sara Roy writes “it is one issue to take away an individual’s land, house and income, ignore his demands and emotions. But it is another issue to kill his child. It is said that Israel aims at military targets, but explain that difference to the people who burry their children.” How can there be prospects for reconciliation and sustainable peace in Israel and Palestine if Israel declares the total Gaza strip a ‘hostile entity’, and, in doing this, shatters any hope for peace? If Israel wants to create safety, it will have to respect international law and common sense. It should provide the Palestinians with the prospects of sustainable and fair peace and put a stop to its attacks on the Gaza strip and its colonisation policy at the western bank of the Jordan river. Respecting the law is the best way to safety.