Life is Precious!
Dr Harry Hagopian, KSL - KOG
Terje
Roed-Larsen, UN Envoy at Jenin Refugee Camp, 16 April 2002
Institutional
Introductions?
In the past week, the world witnessed harrowing
scenes of death and destruction at the Palestinian refugee camp of Jenin.
Hence, the 15-nation body of the UN Security Council voted unanimously on 19
April 2002 to set up an international commission of enquiry that would ‘clarify
the facts’ regarding what truly happened at the camp during the latest Israeli
incursions into the West Bank. UNSC Resolution 1405 expressed concern at ‘the
dire humanitarian situation’ of Palestinian civilians and emphasised the
‘urgency of access of medical and humanitarian organisations to the Palestinian
civilian population’. Although Israel agreed to such a fact-finding commission
for Jenin only, UN spokesperson Fred Eckhard expressed the hope that the
enquiry would extend to all areas of the West Bank.
Earlier in the week, Labour Member of
Parliament Ann Clwyd had also undertaken a fact-finding trip to Israel and
Palestine in her capacity as member of the House of Commons Select Committee on
International Development. Speaking on BBC television, she expressed her indignation
at the Israeli practices and asked the European Union to abrogate its
preferential trade agreement with Israel. And yesterday, Palestinian chief
negotiator Saeb Erekat suggested that Israel had converted the Palestinian
‘Area A’ autonomous territories into ‘Area B’ landmasses under strict Israeli
military control. He requested that the UN invoke Chapter 7 of its Charter [on
Action with respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of
Aggression] by placing international observers on the ground. Responding to
those statements, Mark Sofer, Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman, described the
UN allegations of wilful destruction in Jenin as mud slinging and denied that
Israel had been responsible for a tragedy of such magnitude in the refugee
camp. He added that the outcome of the enquiry would exonerate Israel, and
accused the media of hyping the story up.
On 21 April 2002, Chris Patten, EU External Affairs
Commissioner, appeared on ‘Breakfast with Frost’ and criticised the Israeli onslaught
against Palestinian towns. He argued that PM Ariel Sharon had done Israel and
the international world a huge disservice in its fight against terrorism. He
censured the Israeli military campaign that had undermined the infrastructure
of the Palestinian Authority, and questioned the logic of destroying for no
plausible reason Palestinian Ministries such as those of Education, Land
Registration and Finance. However, he added that the EU could not be expected
to foot the bill [again] for the re-construction of the Palestinian edifice
until Israel stopped its incursions and only following an independent
assessment of the situation.
Humanitarian
Introductions?
Political statements and positions aside,
what does international humanitarian law have to say on this matter? Is there evidence that Israel has
breached both the Geneva Conventions and international law? As some people have
suggested, could PM Ariel Sharon and other Israeli commanders face possible prosecution
in The Hague for alleged war crimes?
Antonela Notari, spokeswoman for the
International Committee of the Red Cross in Geneva, stated in an article in the
Guardian on 17 April 2002 that ‘it is the responsibility of those fighting a
war to look after the well being of civilians’. She added that ‘Israel has
failed on this count on a massive scale in the West Bank as a whole. Nineteen
days of curfew and siege have deprived one million Palestinians of access to
medical care, food and drinking water. Israeli tanks trundled over water mains,
and ploughed through electricity and telephone wires, depriving most
neighbourhoods of basic services’. She added that ‘the bodies had been left to
rot in homes and streets for days, and the wounded to bleed to death, because
the Israeli army banned ambulances from entering the battle zones’. She added
that there were also wide-spread accounts that the army regularly seized male
civilians of all ages from their homes and used them as human shields by
coercing them to walk ahead of soldiers as they searched Palestinian homes in
camps and towns.
According to Kathleen Cavanaugh, professor
of international humanitarian law at the National University of Ireland, Israel
did not give civilians the chance to evacuate their homes ahead of heavy
bombardment by tanks and helicopter gunships. In her opinion, occupying forces
have a clear obligation to protect the lives of civilians and do nothing to
endanger their lives. Failing to allow an evacuation violates international
law, as does putting them at risk.
In fact, there are already many testimonies
and claims by Palestinian refugees that the Israeli army had buried some of the
dead under a pile of twisted metal and re-inforced concrete. An Amnesty
International team, headed by experts in forensic pathology, will now examine
those allegations in addition to other claims that the Israeli army did not
give adequate time for civilians to evacuate their houses before they were
shelled and in some cases flattened down. However, one must add that
international law remains somewhat vague on the destruction of homes in combat
zones.
On 19 April 2002, the Financial Times
published an article by Barbara Stocking, director of the British charity Oxfam
that runs a number of developmental programmes in the Middle East. Stocking affirmed
that some of the Israeli actions in the Palestinian territories ‘have
undermined international humanitarian law, setting dangerous precedents for the
protection of millions of civilians in other conflicts’ such as in Sudan. She
focused specifically on ‘the deliberate damage to water supplies’ that left
tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians in the West Bank without running
water. She made a distinction between combatants and civilians, although she
also argued that the laws governing war require armies to afford some
protection to combatants by treating them humanely and giving them a fair
trial.
Legal
Introductions?
In his cyber-editorial dated 20 April 2002,
Barnaby Mason, BBC Diplomatic Correspondent, affirmed that the Fourth Geneva
Convention is the foremost instrument that should address the excesses that
have been perpetrated in Jenin. Indeed, the Geneva Conventions of 1949 are
considered as the cornerstones of international humanitarian law. They are the
only globally accepted instruments for the protection of civilians in warfare,
and its signatories today include the majority of UN members. Those legal
instruments were the global response to the horrors of the Second World War,
just as the Refugee Convention of 1951 was the response to the unprecedented
flow of refugees that ensued.
More recently,
the International War Crimes Tribunals have come into existence, and they were
established specifically to investigate atrocities that occurred in the Balkans
and in Rwanda. A parallel legal development is the International Criminal Court
that has also been ratified but only comes into force on 1 July 2002. Although
it cannot adjudicate retrospectively, and despite persistent American
expostulations regarding its genesis and remit, its ratification has meant that
it will have the power to investigate acts of genocide, crimes against humanity
and war crimes.
Painful Introductions?
In the final analysis, I surmise that the Israeli
military campaign will not be classed a war crime. Nor will the findings of the
UN enquiry translate into any enforceable legal action. In one sense, this is
due to the fact that the indiscriminate killings in Jenin do not easily fulfil
all the criteria of international humanitarian law. Perhaps that is itself
symptomatic of the fragility of the international community where political and
legal considerations often diverge - even after 11 September 2001. But the
psychopathology of the Palestinian masses has been punched by the cruelty of
some of the Israeli practices, and what some independent observers have seen,
heard or smelt cannot simply be expunged away.
I suggest that one likely legal avenue to investigate
the Israeli military offensive could lie with the Israeli Supreme Court. This
judicial organ is a robust and quite independent institution in Israel, and has
in the past muddied many waters with judgements that were at times
controversial and not always sympathetic to the Israeli political
establishment. But given the severe polarisation within Israeli society, as
much as the present Israeli political configuration, I think that such a step
would be deemed unlikely and impractical - let alone forthcoming!
Looking back with sadness at tragedies such as those
in Jenin or elsewhere in the West Bank, I think it behoves well for the
protagonists in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to recall one of FW
Nietzsche’s statements. ‘Was mich nicht
umbringt, macht mich stärker’ translates roughly as ‘That which does not
kill me, makes me stronger’. For me, this is one of the painful ironies of two
fierce nationalisms at war, where atrocities perpetrated by one party against
the other only strengthen the determination of both parties for battle. Would
it not be better if this conflict were resolved peaceably in accordance with the
oft-stated principles of international legality that secure equal rights for
both parties?
I
just think what we are seeing here is a terrible human tragedy!
William Burns, US Assistant Secretary of
State, 20 April 2002
©
harry-bvH @ 22 April 2002