Can
U.S. Citizens End Israel’s Legal Impunity?
Each
time international law has attempted to censure Israel for its recent
violations of human rights, the United States has stepped in to stop the
process. If anyone is in a position to do something about this, it's the U.S.
public.
The
great wish of the early Zionist leader Theodor Herzl was that Israel would be
treated like “any other state.” Were that the case, there might be more
rational and productive discourse regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,
which is particularly critical in light of Israel launching yet another
devastating attack against civilian-populated areas of nearby Arab lands.
What
we are witnessing from the Obama administration, however is the unfair
phenomenon of exempting Israel from criticism.There
are certainly those who do unfairly single out Israel, the world’s only
predominantly Jewish state, for criticism. There is a tendency by some to
minimize Israel’s legitimate security concerns and place inordinate attention
on the Israeli government’s transgressions, relative to other governments that
abuse human rights. There are also those who, in light of the five-year siege
of the Gaza Strip and the enormous suffering of the Palestinian people, try to
rationalize terrorism and other crimes by Hamas, the reactionary Islamist group
currently in control there.
What we are witnessing from the Obama
administration, however—as Hamas rains rockets into Israel and Israel rains
bombs, missiles, and mortars into the crowded and besieged Gaza Strip—is the
similarly unfair phenomenon of exempting Israel from criticism. While most of
the international community has criticized both Hamas and Israel for their attacks on
areas populated by civilians, the Obama administration has restricted its
condemnation to the Palestinian side.
U.S.
ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice—widely considered to be the
president’s first choice to succeed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of
State—correctly noted that there is “no justification for the violence that
Hamas and other terrorist organizations are employing against the people of
Israel.” However, she had absolutely no criticism of Israel’s far more
devastating attacks against the people of the Gaza Strip, simply saying that
"Israel, like any nation, has the right to defend itself against such
vicious attacks.”
Late
last week, both the U.S.Senate and House passed, by unanimous voice votes,
resolutions defending Israel's ongoing war on the Gaza Strip.The
real issue, however, is not Israel’s right to self-defense but its attacks on
crowded residential neighborhoods, which as of Tuesday had killed more than 70
civilians (as compared with three Israeli civilians killed by Hamas rockets).
The Obama administration’s position is ironic given that, while both sides
share the blame for the tragedy, it appears that it is Israel which has been
primarily responsible for breaking the recent fragile ceasefires, through acts
such as its assassination of a leading Hamas official and attacks that killed a
number of boys playing soccer.
In the face of growing calls from
throughout the world for both sides to de-escalate the violence, the White
House said on Saturday that it wouldleave it to Israel to decide whether it is appropriate to
launch a ground invasion. Similarly, in response to the outcry at the growing
number of civilian casualties from the Israeli bombardment of civilian areas of
the Gaza Strip, Obama's Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes insisted,
“The Israelis are going to make decisions about their own military tactics and
operations.”
Late last week, both the U.S. Senate and House passed,
by unanimous voice votes, resolutions defending Israel's ongoing war on the
Gaza Strip. Unlike some of the statements from the Obama administration
supporting the Israel's attacks, these resolutions failed to call on both sides
to exercise restraint or to express any regret at the resulting casualties.
History repeats
This position is not a new one among U.S.
elected officials. Back in February 2009, following the devastating three-week
war between Israeli and Hamas forces—named “Operation Cast Lead” by the
Israelis—in which three Israeli civilians and more than 800 Palestinian
civilians were killed, Amnesty International called for an international arms
embargo on both Israel and Hamas to prevent the kind of tragic attacks on
civilians in which both sides are currently engaging. President Barack Obama,
who had just taken office, categorically rejected Amnesty's proposal, and
instead increased U.S. military aid to Israel to record levels.
Israel was no doubt emboldened in
launching its current offensive as a result of the strong support it received
from the United States during that time. For example, the U.S. House of
Representatives—in a direct challenge to the credibility of Amnesty
International, Human Rights Watch, the International Red Cross, and other
reputable humanitarian organizations—passed a resolution in
January of 2009 declaring that the Israeli armed forces bore no responsibility
for the large numbers of civilian casualties from their assault on the Gaza
Strip.
The
resolution put forward a disturbing interpretation of international
humanitarian law: that, by allegedly breaking the cease-fire, Hamas was
responsible for all subsequent deaths, and that the presence of Hamas officials
or militia members in mosques, hospitals, or residential areas made those
locations legitimate targets.
Human rights reports
condemned
Unusual interpretations of international
law have long played a role in the special treatment Israel receives from the
United States. In the fall of 2009, when a blue-ribbon panel of prominent
international jurists—veterans of human rights investigations in Sudan, Rwanda,
and the former Yugoslavia—led a meticulously detailed U.N.-sponsored
investigation that confirmed previous human rights reports by documenting
possible war crimes on both sides, Congress passed another lopsided bipartisan resolution condemning the investigation for
failing to absolve Israel of any responsibility. The Obama administration
succeeded in blocking the United Nations from acting on the report’s
recommendations that both sides be investigated for possible war crimes.
The
human rights investigations from 2009 and earlier examined Israeli claims that
Hamas’ alleged use of “human shields” was responsible for the large number of
civilian casualties. While these probes criticized Hamas for at times having
men and materiel too close to civilian-populated areas, they were unable to
find even one incident of Hamas deliberately holding civilians against their
will in an effort to deter Israeli attacks.
The
administration’s criticism of Hamas rocket attacks would have more credibility
if they didn’t also oppose nonviolent means of challenging the siege of Gaza. The Obama administration and
Congressional leaders, however, insisted that they knew more about what
happened inside the Gaza Strip than these on-the-ground investigations by
expert human rights monitors and respected international jurists. As a renewed
round of attacks is unleashed upon this small and heavily populated Palestinian
enclave, they are now making similar claims to justify the ongoing Israeli
attacks on civilian population centers.
As
Amnesty and other human rights groups have observed, however, even if Hamas
were using human shields, it would still not justify Israel killing Palestinian
civilians.
The
United States has not been hesitant to criticize Russia in its attacks on
Chechnya and Georgia, or Syria in its more recent attacks against its own
people. Yet both Congress and the administration seem willing to bend over backwards
to rationalize for Israel when it attacks civilians.
The
administration’s criticism of Hamas rocket attacks would also have more
credibility if they didn’t also oppose nonviolent means of challenging the
siege of Gaza and the occupation and colonization of West Bank lands, such as
boycotts and divestment against companies supporting the occupation, UN
recognition of Palestinian statehood, humanitarian aid flotillas to Gaza, and
targeted sanctions against Israeli violations of international humanitarian law
Fair application of universal principles
While the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
certainly has unique aspects, it is critical for those supportive of peace and
human rights to underscoreuniversal principles,
such as those enshrined in international humanitarian law.
While
it is important to recognize the special sensitivity some people have toward
Israel, this should not deter those who care about human rights from speaking
out.The fact that Israel is perceived as an important strategic ally
of the United States does not mean we should ignore its violations of
well-established legal norms any more than those committed by a perceived
adversary like Hamas. Those of us in the peace movement should challenge
elected officials who currently support unconditional U.S. military aid to the
Israeli government and rationalize its attacks on civilians just as vigorously
as we did those who in earlier years supported unconditional U.S. military aid
to El Salvador, Indonesia, and other repressive Cold War allies of the United
States.
And
while it is important to recognize the special sensitivity some people have
regarding the subject of Israel, this should not deter those who care about
human rights from speaking out. Indeed, even putting aside the important moral and
legal critiques of Israel’s current offensive against the Gaza Strip and the
ongoing siege of the crowded enclave, such policies ultimately harm Israel by
encouraging extremism among Palestinians struggling for the right of national
self-determination.
It is
also important to recognize that, while both sides have committed great wrongs
against the other’s people, there exists a gross asymmetry in power. Israel—the
occupying power, which possesses by far the strongest military in the region,
one of the world’s higher standards of living, and the backing of the world’s
one remaining superpower—has a huge advantage over the impoverished Gaza Strip,
with its weak and isolated Hamas government struggling under a five-year air,
land, and sea blockade, and without an air force, navy, or standing army.
Fortunately,
thousands of Israelis have taken to the streets in protest of their
government’s attacks on the Gaza Strip. Israeli peace and human rights
activists have called on the Obama administration to end its support for
Netanyahu’s militarism. As citizens of the country that has provided Israel
with the military, financial, and diplomatic support that has made the renewed
killing possible, those of us in the United States have a special obligation to
challenge the administration and Congress to end its unconscionable support for
the ongoing destruction.
As we
would such policies toward any other state.
Stephen Zunes wrote this
article for YES! Magazine, a national, nonprofit media
organization that fuses powerful ideas with practical actions.
Stephen Zunes is a professor of politics and chair
of Middle Eastern studies at the University of San Francisco and serves as a
contributing editor of Tikkun. His most recent book, co-authored with Jacob
Mundy, is Western Sahara: War, Nationalism, and Conflict Irresolution(Syracuse
University Press, 2010.)
Donations
can be sent to the Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 325 E. 25th St., Baltimore, MD
21218. Ph: 410-366-1637; Email: mobuszewski [at] verizon.net. Go to http://baltimorenonviolencecenter.blogspot.com/
"The
master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought
the battles. The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while
the subject class has had nothing to gain and everything to lose--especially
their lives." Eugene Victor Debs
No comments:
Post a Comment