How International Law has Failed the Innocent Palestinians

The Israel- Palestine conflict has been a conflict with parallel violence and massive armed warfare which has subsequently centred itself as the bloodiest conflict in the recent decade. The conflict has been seen in a new light ever since the Ukraine-Russia conflict has dominated the media with many calling out the casual racism regarding the victims of the situation, or the straightforward hypocrisy in which there is no second look at the conflict and the number of deaths of civilians in the Gaza strip. However, the biggest issue raised by several academicians is the ineffectiveness of the strict international laws, governing the lives of civilians caught in conflict in protecting the latter, given the high civilian death count over the timeline of the conflict. According to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, “there were 5,600 Palestinian civilian deaths while over 115,000 were injured”(Mccarthy 1) and the numbers continue to rise even at present. The question at present is, why has International law, signed by countries and televised worldwide, failed to protect the rights of innocent civilians and why has Israel managed to label every attack as an act of self-defence even when there is an unprecedented number of civilian deaths with the latter?. If the UNHRC stands for human rights as its name stands for, the elephant in the room is the fact that no strict action has been taken against Israel for unnecessary bombing in Gaza, which has been struggling with health, food and educational collapse and such is still defended under International law where accountability for innocent civilians is unheard of. 

The distinction as guaranteed by International Humanitarian Law(IHL), often used as a defence, is the fact that every civilian death is deemed necessary and instrumental to every military campaign. The distinction is considered in terms of proportionality of “civilian deaths or injuries from an attack on a legitimate military target, the harm caused cannot be excessive (disproportionate) to the concrete and direct anticipated military advantage to be obtained by the attack”(Morrison 1). Thus, every military strike is considered to be of such strategic thought that civilian death is an exception or is minimal, with the highest priority being the civilian death toll and not the attack’s target itself, according to rule 15 of the IHL. However, this distinction is not only unrealistically ideal, it cannot be used as a defence which has killed over 5600 civilians and counting, with the majority affected being children and families. If there was a focus on warning civilians of incoming airstrikes, there may be some consideration of the point the IHL mentions, but such does not happen with clear data being available. In fact, the UN Human Rights chief stated that the growing number of children deaths is a cause of concern and Israel has violated the rules provided by IHL, which term the deaths of children(currently standing at 37 in 2022) massively disproportionate to any security operation committed by the Israeli forces, by a press release. If there is strong proof of a disproportionate amount of civilian deaths which are subsequently labelled as war crimes in any other context, International Law has failed to strictly apprehend Israel for its actions and has failed to protect innocent civilians in the Gaza strip, resulting in constant fighting and the consequent collapse of systems in Gaza along with a rising death toll. The reason for the non-prosecution of Israel comes from two massive powers behind the country, The U.S.A. hypocritically, spearheading support for the country even with Human Rights Watch accusing Israel of horrendous war crimes which could amount to genocide in any other context, including the over-represented Ukraine- Russian conflict. The U.S.A., which has strong veto voting power in the UN security council and has blocked action on Israel several times, which gives Israel a green flag in continuing its attacks in “self-defence”. The latter also gives Israel ways to find loopholes in International law, which it is bound to by consent. The biggest loophole is the fact that the country’s attacks may be defensible in Law because such actions cannot be counted as treachery under Article 37 of Protocol 1, in the Geneva conventions which states “that killing, injuring, or capturing an adversary by resort to perfidy, and defines perfidy as "[a]cts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence”.(Kendall 1075). This is a loophole by the fact that Israel’s means of targeting Hamas leaders will never amount to treachery or betrayal but by direct attacks, hence avoiding a direct unlawful activity. This will also provide them with a cushion for unprecedented or avoidable civilian deaths since the rules point out to killing leaders through acts of treachery only. Another major issue is the fact that a large chunk of International Law is governed by consent, and such can be revoked by any country at any point. The International Criminal Court had decided to look into the allegations of war crimes by both sides, especially with the claims of alleged war crimes by both parties. This would have been a monumental moment for accountability but the same proved to be ineffective, with the raid of the Al Aqsa mosque by Israeli forces resulting in a rising amount of attacks in the Gaza strip, after a few years of alleged ceasefire. The International Criminal Court had decided to investigate the issue of the conflict and had received support and acceptance from the sovereign state of Palestine only. Israel which is not a member of the ICC refused the jurisdiction of the ICC on its state and refuted the membership of Palestine. There was no cooperation from the former and thus, the investigations are probably stalled or worse, shelved. The dwindling amount of jurisdiction the ICC could have over Israel serves as the final betrayal for the victims suffering in the Gaza strip and nothing has been done as yet to avoid any more civilian deaths. The actions of Israel find themselves violative of not only the IHL rules but with the treaties of the 1956 New Delhi draft rules, the CSCE code of conduct, and Article 2(3) of the IX Hague Convention. If there are so many violations which guarantee that a huge number of deaths cannot be unprecedented in the most thoughtful military operations, International Law seriously fails in accountability and most importantly, in valuing human life. The actions by Israel go against their very own Manual of rules of warfare which prioritises minimal civilian damage and loss.

The rules and various treaties televised worldwide and attended by the most powerful leaders mean nothing if there is no acknowledgement of the lack of effective implementation and even the lack of effective jurisdiction over some countries. The Israel-Palestine conflict has been present since 1948 and the death toll is rising every day. It is the utmost priority for the UN security council to declare the strongest action to start a ceasefire and uphold accountability, the latter of which is noted by its fellow wing majoring in Human Rights. If not, this provides a dangerous precedent for countries to avoid prioritising minimal civilian damage and in present times, such actions are already very widespread in Yemen, Libya, Sudan and Syria with an unprecedented number of bombings being thrown on densely populated areas in the name of quashing terrorism. It is important to know that none of these operations has ever been successful as war and terrorism have been ongoing in these areas till the present. The civilians however suffer every consequence which quashes the very basis by which International Law and the United Nations were created, for the sake of preventing war and valuing human life.

Works Cited:

1) Kendall, J. Nicholas. "Israeli Counter-Terrorism: Targeted Killings under International 

Law." North Carolina Law Review, vol. 80, no. 3, March 2002, pp. 1069-1088. HeinOnline.

2) Fisher, Max. “Why 70% of the People Killed in Israel-Gaza Violence Are Innocent 

Palestinian Civilians.” Vox, 30 July 2014, https://www.vox.com/2014/7/30/5937119/palestinian-civilian-casualties-gaza-israel. Accessed 16 Aug. 2022. 

3) Morrison, Beth. “The Lawful Killing of Civilians under International Humanitarian Law”, 

E-International Relations, 7th May 2022, https://www.e-ir.info/2022/05/27/the-lawful-killing-of-civilians-under-international-humanitarian-law/

4) Mccarthy, Niall. “The Human Cost of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict”. Statista,12th May 

2021, https://www.statista.com/chart/16516/israeli-palestinian-casualties-by-in-gaza-and-the-west-bank/

5) Correspondent, BBC. “Israel 'Will Not Co-Operate' with ICC War Crimes Investigation.” 

BBC, 9 Apr. 2021, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-56687437. Accessed 16 July 2022. 

6) Usher, Barbara Plett. “Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Gives Biden Foreign Policy Headache.” 

BBC, 15 May 2021, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57119881. Accessed 16 Aug. 2022. 

7) ICRC, Customary IHL Database, 

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule15_sectionb,16th August 2022.

8) “Bachelet Alarmed by Number of Palestinian Children Killed in Latest Escalation, Urges 

Accountability.” Office of The High Commissioner of Human Rights, 11 Aug. 2022, https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2022/08/bachelet-alarmed-number-palestinian-children-killed-latest-escalation-urges. Accessed 16 Aug. 2022.