Gaza double standards

United Nations Report

Israel’s Ongoing War on the U.N. Waged With Impunity

By Ian Williams

A U.N. vehicle destroyed in an Israeli strike on Beit Lahia, in the northern Gaza Strip, July 29, 2014. (MOHAMMED ABED/AFP/GETTY IMAGES)

One of Ban Ki-moon’s forgotten achievements just after taking office in 2007 was to secure compensation for the U.N. premises destroyed by Israeli weaponry in Gaza. He is unlikely to get anything this time, however—even though in at least one incident, in which it seems almost certain that Israeli mortar fire landed on the UNRWA school at Beit Hanoun, killing dozens of sheltering refugees, evokes memories and suspicions. Not only was it the fourth UNRWA school that Israel had fired on, it was just the latest in a long chain of incidents, going back to the 1948 assassination of U.N. envoy Count Folke Bernadotte, in which Israelis have targeted U.N. premises and personnel. (See September 1995 Washington Report, p. 83, and the September 2013 issue, p. 30.) Who now remembers Qana in 1996, when the IDF continued its shelling even after being called and told what it was doing? (See July 1996 Washington Report, pp. 6 and 21.) The innocent dead victims find themselves promoted to “human shields.”

The savagery of these attacks defies military logic. Like the Sarajevo marketplace massacre, it is just possible that the motive was undisciplined individual bigotry and that the higher military and political echelons winced at the undiplomatic crassness of their personnel. But in Bosnia it eventually proved too much, and the international community unleashed force against the perpetrators and their protectors.

Looking at the long chain of incidents, even with the vicious, racist and reactionary ministers in the Israeli cabinet, we have the same disturbing paradigm of impunity. The Israeli government will deny rather than condone these incidents of murderous barbarism, but it will blame the victims rather than take action against the perpetrators. In the IDF chain of command and control there is a clear culture of impunity. Even if Beit Hanoun was the product of one or two Israeli soldiers exercising their racist fantasies, they can be confident that their careers will continue untrammeled, and that they might even be heroes to the civilians lounging on deck chairs cheering the assault on Gaza.

While not quite cheering, much of the international community shares complicity in this culture of impunity. Where is the pressure on Israel to stop such incidents, to punish the guilty? At one time, it seemed that the International Criminal Court offered a means to do so. But Washington and its allies are effectively writing an exclusion clause into international law: Israel can do no wrong. We can rightly condemn Slobodan Milosevic or Bashar al-Assad for deeds in Bosnia or Syria, but not Binyamin Netanyahu.

It is wrong to blame the diplomats, who are, after all, men and women sent abroad to lie for the countries. The real Pontius Pilate emulators, washing their hands in the blood of others, are back in their respective capitals. Nowhere has that been seen more than in the last weeks of the Israeli attack on the Gaza ghetto.

To anyone who is not imbued with U.S. mainstream media, soaked as it is in Israeli hasbara and its official spokespeople intoning lying platitudes with straight faces, Israel’s disproportionate use of force in Gaza was already apparent even before its shelling of U.N. shelters. So where to begin?

We could start with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, whose effort to win statehood for Palestine is now revealed to be a pointless morale-boosting diversion since he refuses to take the only step that would have given it any significant meaning—accession to the International Criminal Court, which would make crimes committed on Palestinian territory subject to ICC proceedings.

The unity government of Hamas and Fatah—which is, of course, the real proximate cause of IDF operations and crimes in Gaza—de-emphasized the applicability of the treaty to a Palestine that had joined. But of course Abbas and the Palestinian Authority are hostages to Israeli security, waiting for the IDF to pick them up, or off, at will.

Then we can move to Secretary of State John Kerry for his indiscreet remarks on Fox—“Hell of a pinpoint operation”—in which his private candor about IDF operations contrasted so signally with his hypocritical mantras about supporting Israel’s right to self-defense.

Kerry’s office later explained that “his private comments were consistent with his publicly stated view…: Israel has the right to defend itself, including against recent tunnel attacks, but he has encouraged them to not only take steps to prevent civilian casualties, but to take steps to de-escalate and we’re working together to achieve a cease-fire.”

An objective observer might comment that “achieving a cease-fire” could be done most effectively by stopping financial, military and diplomatic support to the country that is refusing it, not to mention the personal motives of payback to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu for his repeated insults and nose-tweaking of both President Barack Obama and Kerry.

Human Rights Council Vote

The abdication of ethics continued in July, with the U.S.’ lonely negative vote on the U.N. Human Rights Council resolution calling for an investigation into what was happening in Gaza. But Washington was pretty much first among almost equals in its diplomatic amorality. No less than 17 countries went along to the point of abstention on the resolution. Korea and Japan and a fistful of French neo-colonies joined the EU in approving the sentiments of the resolution, but not daring to put their hands up for it.

The 29 countries supporting it were not all great paragons of human rights protection, but at least they went on record in support of “Ensuring respect for international law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem.”

Interesting was Dublin’s statement. Ireland, with a population angry about events in Gaza, hedged its bets in a typical manner. It “fully accepts that the Government of Israel has the right to defend its people, but this right does not negate the rights of others. Any use of military force in self-defense must be in accordance with international humanitarian law, and in particular must be both discriminate and proportionate. In view of the casualty figures, we do not believe that this has been the case.”

But it followed the EU line, which was somewhat tangled in its own right. In effect, the EU is hampered because, short of Israel nuking a European city, members like France and Germany cannot bring themselves to condemn the country, and thus prevent any joint EU criticism. But of course they cannot say, anymore than Kerry can, that Israel is above the law, so they made the excuse that the UNHRC resolution “fails to condemn explicitly the indiscriminate firing of rockets into Israeli civilian areas as well as to recognize Israel’s legitimate right to defend itself.”

This is thinner even than the average fig leaf, since the resolution that was passed declares unequivocally that it “Condemns all violence against civilians wherever it occurs, including the killing of two Israeli civilians as a result of rocket fire, and urges all parties concerned to respect their obligations under international humanitarian law and international human rights law.”

It is true that in this context, the mention of the two dead somewhat accentuates the hundreds dead on the other side, but it is difficult to reconcile the EU lie with the reality.

One hesitates to inflict formal U.N. prose on readers, but the preamble to the Human Rights Council resolution cites the international law that Israel is so patently flouting. It begins:

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

Recalling General Assembly resolution 60/251 of 15 March 2006 and Human Rights Council resolutions 5/1 and 5/2 of 18 June 2007,

Reaffirming the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people and the inadmissibility of the acquisition of land by the use of force, as enshrined in the Charter,

Affirming the applicability of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, in particular the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem,

Reaffirming that all High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention are under the obligation to respect and ensure respect for the obligations arising from the said Convention in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and

Reaffirming their obligations under articles 146, 147 and 148 with regard to penal sanctions, grave breaches and responsibilities of the High Contracting Parties,

Gravely concerned at the lack of implementation of the recommendations contained in the report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict of 2009, and convinced that lack of accountability for violations of international law reinforces a culture of impunity, leading to a recurrence of violations and seriously endangering the maintenance of international peace,

Noting that 9 July 2014 marked the tenth anniversary of the adoption of the advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice on the legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and that no progress has been made on its implementation, and affirming the urgent need to respect and ensure respect for international humanitarian law and international human rights law in this regard,

The resolution calls not only for a new “Goldstone” Commission to investigate what is happening, but calls up Switzerland, the responsible power, to convene a convention of parties to the Geneva Convention to consider Israel’s failure to apply its strictures to the occupied territories—thereby giving Europe and the U.S. the opportunity to show their pusillanimity yet again.

Many critics of the U.N. system rightly condemn the veto as an obstacle to progress, but taken overall, a veto is almost healthy, an honest statement of a position. An abstention is in its own insidious way even more pernicious, since the accompanying statements so often show that the governments concerned accept all of the facts, even the conclusions, but are too invertebrate to record a vote in the face of American and Israeli displeasure.

Our Fence sitting is Fatal for Syrians

Written By: Ian Williams

Published: September 24, 2014 Last modified: September 24, 2014

Relativity was Einstein’s great contribution to our understanding of the universe. Looking at the horrors of Syria, relativity helps us to understand what is happening, but does little to help us motivate a solution.We are being asked to support intervention because of the brutal beheadings of Western journalists and aid workers. I am going to be callous here. The West’s biggest ally, Saudi Arabia, has been  beheading its own people, and visitors, for some time, but has had the sense to refrain from decapitating foreigners. The United States’ record in botching executions  makes beheading seem relatively civilised, while China’s execution rate (a public pistol to the back of the skull) should make an invasion almost mandatory.
Maybe it is because journalists were involved our leaders feel impelled to action? However, the fatality rate for reporters in Pakistan and Mexico, even Russia, could involve an invasion. The death rate of journalists in Gaza is even higher, but not many calls to bomb Israel come from Westminster or Washington.
Of course, the sectarian nature of the Islamic regime straddling the Iraqi-Syrian border is repugnant, persecuting Yezidis and some of the most ancient Christian groups in the world, and various Shi’ite groups – not to mention drinkers and similar sinners. But then again, you would have to look hard to find a Christian church in Saudi Arabia. let alone find Shi’a represented in the higher echelons of any of the Sunni-governed Gulf States.
But enough relativity. The excuses our rulers make to incite support for action almost look reasonable when compared with the outrage from some opponents of “intervention”. Some “peace-loving” people have an inhuman tolerance for inhumanity when practiced by favoured groups. We owe a collective duty of care to people suffering, even if it is because of “a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing”. In fact, we no longer have that excuse. Technology ensures that we know as much as we care to know about the results of such quarrels. International law now accepts the principle that the “Responsibility to Protect” over-rides the idea of national sovereignty, but oddly many former proponents of proletarian internationalism are now convinced of the untouchable virtues of sovereignty.
The people of Syria have been suffering for years now, from a regime that bombs and gases them, from religious lunatics, and from some more secular predatory types that have been taking advantage of the chaos. There is an inescapable argument for intervention: to take food and protection to the millions driven from their homes, to stop the murderers and bring them to justice and to help the survivors rebuild. And in realpolitik to stop war and instability spreading. There is a legitimate argument about what form the intervention should take. Ideally it should be legitimised by the United Nations, but sadly geopolitics stands in the way. Those who are demonstrating against “US intervention” should have the integrity to demonstrate against Russia and China for giving the aid and comfort to Bashar al-Assad that has encouraged him to carry on killing his own citizens with impunity.
The idea that the rest of the world should unite with Assad to defeat the Islamic State begs many ethical questions. He has murdered far more Syrians, and now Iraqis, than the Islamists, even if he does it with machine guns and gas rather than knives and swords. There is a responsibility to rebuild as well as to rescue and protect.
The country best equipped to intervene militarily, the US, is the worst equipped ethically and methodologically to do it. Its interventions in the region have been disastrous and its reliance on technology at no matter what cost to the civilians being “rescued” suggest serious problems. In the desert, air intervention against Islamic units and convoys is feasible and even desirable. But in no way should they be let near any conurbations like Fallujah – or Gaza. Sadly , such relativity leaves us impaled on the fence. Authorising action by committee is a necessary exercise. Running things by committee is ineffective and dangerous. There are no perfect solutions. Now Recep Tayyip Erdogan is re-elected one cannot help wondering if the world should not entrust the job to the Turks – with international back-up. He might even get the Russians on board for it.

About Ian Williams

Ian Williams is Tribune's UN correspondent

Share This

Reductio ex absurdo!

The potential impact of the Hobby Lobby case

0 Comments

inShare

September 3, 2014 | By Ian Williams

Religious tolerance can only go so far

The Supreme Court seems to have been replaced by some religious conventicle. In the course of ignoring reality to fit theology, it has previously created some awesome precedents, but the Hobby Lobby case is a doozy.

For any American ostriches with their heads in the sand or non-US readers who thought it was just a strip from Ripley’s Believe it Or Not!, this is the recent ruling that says a corporation owned by religious believers has the right to opt out of providing otherwise mandatory contraceptive services to its employees under their healthcare plans if it offends the owners’ sensibilities.

It has always been surprising how many Americans imbue the Supreme Court with some objective detached legal wisdom, as it has always interpreted laws in a highly partisan way. In its glory days, at the time of the Dred Scott case, the Supreme Court invoked ‘state’s rights’ to protect the rights of citizens from slave states to retrieve their property, even in states that did not recognize that people could be property.

In the Hobby Lobby case, the Supreme Court follows the famous Citizens United case in endowing corporations with powers, souls and consciences. I can hardly count the ways this ruling offends common sense. The justices seem to have a very circumscribed view of religion, somewhat contiguous with the Vatican (before the current pope, at least). First, the same court ruled some years ago that using peyote in American Indian religious ceremonies was still illegal, and somehow I can’t see the learned justices even considering the documented use of big spliffs in Rastafarian liturgy.

So would a sincere religious belief in the virtues of slavery – as espoused by almost all churches in the South before 1860, and a few even since – allow companies to enslave the sons of Ham? (This is, of course, hypothetical – it is much cheaper to employ them on Federal minimum wage.)

I foresee an almost endless line of petitioners for religious exemptions: Christian Scientists who own companies will want exemptions from providing surgery in employee healthcare plans; Jehovah’s Witnesses will want to exclude blood transfusion services. Shakers and similar sects eschew procreation – will they be allowed to avoid providing pregnancy services and maternity leave for their fecund employees? The courts have previously frowned on Quakers and other pacifist sects objecting to paying taxes to support military spending – will those same sects now be allowed to refuse legal leave to military reservists if it offends their sensibilities?

There are also interesting business implications. To begin with, once the Green family incorporated its Hobby Lobby business, it became a separate person, surely? But if the personhood of the owners is coterminous with that of the company, what happens to limited liability? If the company goes bust, doesn’t it follow that if the owners and the company are one and the same thing that those owners should accept the moral hazard of the financial – or indeed criminal – charges against the company?

When a company breaks the law, it cannot be imprisoned, executed or otherwise returned to the path of righteousness. Its owners and managers can practice corporate mayhem and escape unscathed. If the Green family and Hobby Lobby are coterminous in conscience, should they not be coterminous in consequences? If the company does wrong, shouldn’t the full force of the law come down on the owners – who cannot draw any distinction between themselves and the company when it suits?

There is more than a moral hazard here. As Forbes enterprisingly discovered, most of its pension plan is invested in companies making precisely the same type of products it refuses to allow its health plans to buy. Should the Green family be sued for its failure to maximize returns by discouraging employees from using products that would enhance the company’s pension funds? Why not?