Can the laws of war itself become a weapon? You see it happening in the apparently unstoppably escalating war between Hamas and Israel. And that is no wonder: there is no conflict that is more morally and ideologically charged than the asymmetrical drama that is taking place there.
Two weeks after the Hamas massacre, which Israel remembers with all its might trying to keep it alive, public opinion is shifting due to the harsh Israeli reprisals in Gaza and the desire for revenge that it expresses. The human suffering is appalling.
Here too, Israeli supremacy leads to calls for ‘balance’ in reporting, ironically coming from the progressive-critical corner where otherwise standard complaints are made about false balance in the media. International law plays a key role in this, fueled by disturbing images of bloodied Palestinian children, whose (unverified) death toll is recorded daily.
The laws of war prohibit targeted attacks on civilians and reckless infliction of damage or injury. Ironically enough, that right came about, also good to mention, from the realization that ‘collateral damage’, as it is cynically called, often cannot be prevented. Civilians should not be targets, but not all damage to civilians is culpable. Every armed force must make a trade-off between due carethe care that is also mandatory for civilians of the opponent, and the military objective included force protectionthe protection of its own troops.
That is not a simple calculation. And not new either. Theories about the justification of war can be traced back to Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) (jus ad bellum) and the morally responsible way to conduct it (jus in bello). Such as the notion of the ‘double effect’, a ‘good’ action with foreseen bad consequences. What matters is whether they are proportionate to the military objective and not excessive; that is the idea of ’proportionality’.
Militarized Gaza contains hundreds of legitimate military targets and Hamas has no regard for the laws of war. That does not absolve Israel from the obligation to comply. Forced evacuation of civilians can be legitimate, but under conditions (such as the right of return).
What does that promise in the near future? The rain of bombs, the closing of Gaza and the rabid language from Jerusalem to fear the worst. For the time being, the feared ground offensive has not occurred and the pressure on Netanyahu is growing. Are there ways out? In doing so, Israel would not only spare Palestinian and own lives, but also deprive jihadists of what they crave: flaring up Israel-hatred and who knows, a regional conflict aimed at the end of the ‘Zionist entity’.
Sjoerd de Jong writes a column here every Thursday.