As the war in Gaza continues, divisions are intensifying in many countries around the nature of support that should be given to the combatants by the government. International humanitarian law and the principle of the rule of law are morally acceptable guidelines for action by states that desire to support the combatants.
Hussein Ibish, a senior resident scholar at the Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington, a weekly columnist for The National (UAE) and Now Media, and a monthly contributing writer for The International New York Times in an interview with Matt Galloway on CBC The Current defines Hamas in this way.
This is a religiously millenarian group, that it is apocalyptic and that it believes that it's doing the will of God. And so all of this is divinely mandated and there's a kind of religious imperative here. So I think there is also an irrational belief on the part of Hamas that in the end, if they are sufficiently fervent that there will be some kind of divine aid as well. (Monday October 16, 2023 Full Transcript, 2023) (Galloway, 2023)
The attack on Israel by Hamas on October 7, 2023 and the capture of hostages is evidence that the Hamas combatants are not observant of International Humanitarian Law and religious zealotry is not consistent with observance of the Rule of Law.
Israel, as a nation that adheres to the Rule of Law, and has one of the most sophisticated and capable military and intelligence organizations in the world is obligated by these abilities to observe the principles of Discrimination and Proportionality in the conduct of hostilities against Hamas.
“Jus in Bello” is Latin for Justice in War. Michelle Maiese has published an article identifying the two central principles of jus in bello, discrimination and proportionality, that establish rules of just and fair conduct during warfare. The principle of discrimination concerns who are legitimate targets in war, while the principle of proportionality concerns how much force is morally appropriate.
The doctrine of double effect suggests that civilian casualties are justifiable so long as their deaths are not intended and merely accidental.[13] Targeting a munitions factory, for example, aims to destroy military capabilities and not to kill munitions workers. This is a way of "reconciling the absolute prohibition against attacking noncombatants with the legitimate conduct of military activity."[14] Any harm to noncombatants must be a secondary result, indirect and unintentional.[15]
Some just war theorists have added the further stipulation that the foreseeable threat posed to civilian lives be reduced as far as possible and every effort taken to avoid killing them.[16] Most agree that the deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target. Thus, munitions workers, or others employed in industries associated with the war effort, are legitimate targets while at work in the factory. But they are not liable to attack when in their homes. (Maiese, n.d.)
The principle of proportionality deals with what kind of force is morally permissible in warfare.
It suggests that the injury caused should be proportional to the objective desired, and that the extent and violence of warfare must be tempered to minimize destruction and casualties.[21]
Central to proportionality is the notion that parties should oppose force with similar force, and "thwart the assailant's purpose using the minimum force necessary to do so."[23] One may not kill the opponent if it is possible to achieve the desired end by only injuring him. In addition, "the evil produced by the war must not be greater than the good done or the evil averted by it."[24] Costs must not outweigh benefits.
Just as the jus ad bellum principle of right intention suggests that wars must be fought for limited objectives, the notion of limited war suggests that there must be restraint with regard to the quantity and quality of weaponry used during warfare.[25] First, weapons that do not discriminate between combatants and non-combatants cannot be used. The use of asphyxiating or poisonous gases, the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, and the destruction of objects that are indispensable to the civilian population are prohibited.[26] In addition, weapons that cause long-term environmental damage are prohibited.[27] This includes destruction or contamination of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, and drinking water. (Maiese, n.d.)
The Economist reports that the Gaza Strip could see 58,000 excess deaths over the next six months if fighting continues.
Since Israel’s ground offensive began in October last year, medical facilities have been a key battlefield. Tens of thousands of Gazans have sought shelter in hospital compounds, many of which have been attacked by Israeli forces who say that Hamas operatives are sheltering there. According to the who, 85% of the nearly 800 health workers and hospital patients killed in conflicts around the world in the past year died in the occupied Palestinian territories, most of them in the ten-mile-wide Gaza strip. Some 60% of the 1,500 attacks on health-care facilities in all conflict zones occurred there, too. (The Wrecking of Gaza's Health System Goes Beyond Its Hospitals, 2024)
CP 24 reports that Canada's future funding for UN relief organization in Gaza Strip still in limbo.
Foreign Affairs Minister Melanie Joly is in the Middle East to discuss the Israel-Gaza conflict with her counterparts in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Israel.
Joly's office said Wednesday it could not speak to the Hussen plan.
Canada's discussions come after the European Union opted late last week to proceed with a partial delivery of its UNRWA funding.
In a statement, the European Commission said it had reached an agreement with the agency that includes allowing the EU to audit it and “review the control systems to prevent the possible involvement of its staff and assets in terrorist activities.”
The EU said it would initially disperse 60 per cent of its funding - about US$54 million - and hold back another US$32 million pending the implementation of the terms of the agreement.
Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide told Reuters in an interview Wednesday he thought the countries that had pulled their funding were going to restore it soon.
Eide said he felt most countries were having second thoughts about punishing all Palestinians in Gaza as a result of the allegations against a small number of them.
Norway, the agency's fifth biggest donor, did not cancel its funding and was among several countries, including Portugal and Spain, that increased their donations after the Israeli allegations emerged. (Canada's Future Funding for UN Relief Organization in Gaza Strip Still in Limbo, 2017)
An article in the Guardian, Friday, March 1, 2024, is summarized in the post Update on Evidence against UNRWA. The policy of neutrality within UNRWA certainly makes it highly improbable that the terrorist activity of Hamas can be supported in any way.
Canada’s Minister of Foreign, Affairs Mélanie Joly, is reported as being increasingly concerned about the role of Canada in supplying arms to Israel in the wake of the recent Interim Ruling by the International Court of Justice on the accusation by South Africa of genocide by Israel in the war against Hamas in Gaza.
John Ivison, writes in an opinion piece in the National Post that Canada has stopped issuing export permits for selling military equipment to Israel.
There has been intense pressure on the government from civil society groups to join the Netherlands, Belgium, Japan, Italy and Spain in suspending all shipments of export-controlled items to Israel. Belgium cited the International Court of Justice’s interim ruling in January which found that it was “plausible” that there was genocide in Gaza, although the court did not confirm it and did not order Israel to stop fighting. The ruling has apparently spooked other governments, including Canada’s.
Heather McPherson, the NDP’s foreign affairs critic, has called for a ban on all Canadian military exports to Israel, citing the Arms Trade Treaty (to which Canada is a party) that forbids the export of military goods and technology where there is risk of human rights abuses. “Canada…may be complicit in serious crimes because of ongoing arms sales,” she said.
Joly may be starting to feel the heat from her own lawyers. Earlier this month, Nicaragua said that it will take Canada, the U.K., Germany and the Netherlands (which only recently stopped supplying arms) to the International Court of Justice over the Gaza war, claiming that the four countries have violated the Genocide Convention by supplying ammunition and technology to Israel.
The foreign affairs minister has repeatedly expressed her own concerns about Israel’s conduct in Gaza, particularly with regard to the impending assault on Rafah near the Egyptian border. She said the Israeli government’s demand that the population move again is “unacceptable, because they have nowhere to go.”
Speaking to reporters last week, she called for a “sustainable ceasefire” and a hostage deal. (Ivison, 2024)
Increased caution and investigation are prudent for governments that are trying to be observant to International Humanitarian Law and increase the professional delivery of aid to the starving people of Gaza.
References
Canada's future funding for UN relief organization in Gaza Strip still in limbo. (2017, November 9). CP24. Retrieved March 8, 2024, from https://www.cp24.com/news/canada-s-future-funding-for-un-relief-organization-in-gaza-strip-still-in-limbo-1
Galloway, M. (2023, October 16). Monday October 16, 2023 Full Transcript. CBC. Retrieved March 8, 2024, from https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/monday-october-16-2023-full-transcript-1.6998168
Ivison, J. (2024, February 22). John Ivison: Liberals don’t deny blocking military exports to Israel. National Post. Retrieved March 8, 2024, from https://nationalpost.com/opinion/canada-wavers-on-military-exports-to-israel
Maiese, M. (n.d.). Jus in Bello. Beyond Intractability. Retrieved March 8, 2024, from https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/jus-in-bello
The wrecking of Gaza's health system goes beyond its hospitals. (2024, February 22). The Economist. Retrieved March 8, 2024, from https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2024/02/22/the-wrecking-of-gazas-health-system-goes-beyond-its-hospitals
No comments:
Post a Comment