This is a guest post by Michelle Sieff, Assistant Director of the American Jewish Committee’s Africa Institute.
The South African Palestinian Solidarity Committee (PSC) - which includes several self-described “prominent” South Africans, among them former Intelligence Services Minister Ronnie Kasrils, Professor Steven Friedman of the University of Johannesburg, Patrick Craven of the Cosatu trade union federation, and Eddie Makue, the General Secretary of the South African Council of Churches - has strongly denounced Israel’s attack on Hamas targets in Gaza. The group has called on the South African government to sever diplomatic relations with Israel and impose sanctions as well.
The point about sanctions is critical, given that the PSC is an active proponent of franchising the term “apartheid” when it comes to Israel. The slander that Israel practises apartheid forms the basis for everything they do.
The Gaza statement demonizes Israel with all the predictable arguments. “The attacks constitute violations of international law, with Israel imposing collective punishment on a civilian population and violating numerous rights of a people living under occupation,” it says. Patrick Craven claims Israel’s campaign was “criminal” and asserts that civilians were “bearing the brunt of the shootings and bombings.”
Ronnie Kasrils, who can always be relied on when it comes to hyperbole, argued that the attacks were proof of “Israel’s genocidal intentions.” Israeli security forces, he said, are “babykillers.” Kasrils, remember, insists that Israel is worse than apartheid South Africa.
These criticisms invoke concepts and arguments from international law, a rhetorical strategy which adds a veneer of sophistication. But as we debate Israel actions in the coming weeks, as well as the Hamas response, we need to be careful when it comes to the core doctrines and purposes of the system of international law that has emerged since World War 2.
After all, the UN Charter - the founding document of international law - permits states, in Article 51, to use force in self-defense. Under Article 51, Israel is justified in responding to Hamas’ sustained rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel.
In its implicit claim that Israel is perpetrating “war crimes” by disproportionately killing civilians, the Palestinian Solidarity Committee is ignoring the mainstream media, described by Ben in his blog post, which reports that the bulk of the dead so far are members of Hamas’ security forces.
But the most egregious disregard for the facts comes from Ronnie Kasrils, who accuses Israel of “genocidal intentions.” Israel? Isn’t Hamas the political entity which calls for the destruction of Israel in its charter? It is Hamas which has “genocidal intentions,” not Israel.
It might be useful to remember that the entire architecture of international law - the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Genocide Convention, and so forth - was a product of consciences shocked by the Nazis’ attempt to exterminate the Jews. How ironic, then, that Ronnie Kasrils, who invariably speaks “as a Jew,” ignores the fact that Hamas loudly and proudly calls for a modern genocide against the Jews.
I found this comment left by a commenter “roidubouloi” on Marty Peretz’s TNR blog to be very useful in understanding the application of international law:
“There is indeed a doctrine of “proportionality” in the law of war (leaving aside for the moment all arguments about the moral and legal status of such international law). However, the concept as invoked by the media and by unfriendly or mendacious leaders is not at all that the casualties inflicted by the side responding must approximate those inflicted by the side attacking, or vice versa. The meaning of the doctrine is that (1) the force used and casualties inflicted must not be disproportionate (implicitly “grossly disproportionate”) to what is necessary to accomplish the military objective at the least cost to oneself and (2) the cost necessary to achieve the military objective not be grossly disproportionate to its military value. Thus, for example, you cannot destroy an entire town to eliminate one building that contains enemy combatants if you can relatively cheaply simply destroy that building. Nor can you destroy an entire town merely to eliminate a building containing six combatants even where you have no other means of doing so (unless for some strange reason the six combatants are of surpassing military importance).
Nothing about the doctrine of proportionality, properly understood, bears on Israel’s response to Hamas rockets. Israel has an absolute right, enshrined in the UN Charter, to defend itself against such attacks without need of any Security Council authorization, and defending means, not “proportionate” retaliation, but the actions necessary to eliminate the attacks. Indeed, absolutely contra the notions of such as Sarkozy, retaliation purely for its own sake, to inflict damage solely as punishment, would be prohibited as non-defensive. Only actions rationally intended to eliminate the attacks would be legitimate self-defense. On the other hand, in defending against such attacks, one is entitled to use such force as is necessary to end them. Thus, if the Israeli actions, rationally intended to end the willingness and/or ability of Hamas to continue its rocket attacks, are not sufficient to end them, the force being used is not only not disproportionate, it is insufficient.
It is a terribly painful position for Israel to be in, knowing that force sufficient to end Hamas’ attacks will be subject to vicious international criticism. But that is probably still better than using insufficient force and enduring much the same criticism without achieving the outcome. Doing what is necessary, at least cost to itself, in a completely unambiguous effort not to achieve some particular political outcome but to stop the attacks would at least have the advantage of being sanctioned by law, even if many hostile nations would choose publicly to deny it. They know that no nation is under an obligation to allow itself to be attacked and no nation with the means to defend itself would allow itself to be attacked in this manner.. The US inflicts far more civilian casualties in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan for less reason. There is language with which this can be pointed out without casting the US as merely an even greater villain. In war, there are civilian casualties. They should be minimized but are not the basis for compromising the achievement legitimate military objectives, not now, not ever. There is not and has never been any such law of war.”
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_spine/archive/2008/12/27/very-disproportionate-indeed.aspx#comments