Israeli-Palestinian conflict exposes hypocrisy of the West

In a world often clouded by biased narratives and propaganda, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict stands as a stark testament to the complex interplay of history, rights, and justice. 

There are two possible ways to characterise the most recent conflict. It is either a non-international armed conflict between an armed group, Hamas, and a State, Israel, or it is an international armed conflict, owing to the situation of occupation that has prevailed in the Palestinian territories since the Six-Day War of 1967.

No matter how the conflict is described, it is difficult to see how declaring a “total siege” of the Gaza Strip could be consistent with international humanitarian law.

The “siege” is not a notion that is expressed, in extenso, in international humanitarian law. The term “siege” refers to restricting the movement of people and goods in a specific area with the aim of forcing enemy forces to stop fighting.

While a siege, as such, is not prohibited, its effects inevitably lead to violations of international humanitarian law. Similarly, restricting or preventing the movement of people means that humanitarian personnel cannot carry out their relief work in the besieged zone.

More broadly, though, Article 2(4) frames this prohibition in broad terms prohibiting the use of force in states’ ‘international relations’, without express reference to the category of the state.

Even the most openly annexationist factions of Israel’s political class do not claim that Gaza is part of Israel’s territory and, therefore, the relationship between the two is an international one. 

As a result, the prohibition on the use of force is engaged and, in the absence of authorisation by the UN Security Council, the only possibility for lawful use of force is if Israel is exercising its right to self-defence, according to Article 51 of the UN Charter.

However, the right to self-defence that Israel has invoked under this Article entitles a state to repel an attack that comes from another state. So, the action necessary to repel the attack must be based on its intensity and scope. And it must be proportional.

There is jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice that suggests that self-defence cannot apply in a context of military occupation and in this case, Israel is occupying another state.

Colonial occupiers have long claimed a “right” to defend themselves from the resistance of native communities, including by committing mass murder. The history of African colonisation is littered with the corpses and mass graves of those who dared to resist the militarily superior Europeans.

This conflict has further exposed the hypocrisy of the West on issues of human rights. One would have expected to see sanctions against those involved in the abuse of human rights and International Law in the course of this conflict as has been the practice in conflicts of a similar nature. 

However, recently, the UK abstained from taking a vote and the US vetoed a UN Security Council resolution that would have called for “humanitarian pauses” to deliver lifesaving aid to millions in Gaza, arguing that Israel had a right to self-defence.

While the solution to a conflict of this kind is political, the fact remains that any armed conflict is covered by international humanitarian law and although this law is sometimes thought to lack effectiveness, we must not lose sight of the fact that its application, however minimal, ensures civilian lives are spared.

Mr Robert Okotis an International Human Rights and Non-profit Law Attorney.