The violence seen at the start of this week in Gaza which saw the death of more than 50 Palestinians and the wounding of more than 2,600 is sadly, nothing new; the number of deaths since the year 2000 total more than 10,000 (9,600 Palestinians and 1,200 Israelis).

The protests yesterday, which included Palestinians throwing rocks at Israeli soldiers was once again met with lethal fire – a move which has been condemned by both the UN and some members of the international community (but not the United States of America).  In response to the international outrage the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu defended Israel’s actions in an interview with CBS saying that Israel was only left with “bad choices”.  He went on to say that he didn’t know of a single country that would do things differently and that the responsibility rests with Hamas, stating that “If Hamas had not pushed them there, nothing would have happened”.  It may be of importance to note that the manifestations of May 14th was the culmination of a 6-Week protest by the Palestinian people against the illegal occupation of Palestine by Israel.  Perhaps nothing would have happened had not Israel illegally annexed the land in the first place…  or would returning the land to the Palestinians also be a ‘bad choice’?

Irrespective of the reasons for the protest itself, and even considering that some of the people killed had been throwing rocks at the Israeli military, the response from Israel: armed soldiers killing unarmed civilians, might be considered disproportionate to the circumstance.  Proportionality of response is an area which is covered in a number of internationally accepted conventions and treaties: amongst which are:

Article 51 of the Draft Articles on State Responsibility (page 134) clearly indicates that “Countermeasures must be commensurate with the injury suffered, taking into account the gravity of the internationally wrongful act and the rights in question.”

Rule 14 of International Humanitarian Law  and Article 51(5)b of  the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions both of which state that launching an “attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated” is considered indiscriminate and prohibited.

The judgement of what is ‘commensurate’ and ‘proportional’ however is not always clear, and is often subjective: with much being made of the difference between whether or not the judgement should be based upon a ‘tit-for-tat’ method of evaluation or an ‘ends justify the means’ method.

Nevertheless, in this particular case, there is a clear indication of the unjustness of the response of Israel which can be found in the Declaration on the Protection of Women and Children in Emergency and Armed Conflict which was adopted by the United Nations in 1974 and which specifically precludes the attacking of civilians and which requires all states to officially recognise the shooting of civilians and the destruction of dwellings (amongst other things) as criminal acts.

Perhaps this explains to some degree why Israel maintains that those targeted were terrorists – since were they not, then Israel would be engaged in criminal acts.  Throughout this situation, Israel and others continue to blame Hamas and accuse it of being a terrorist organisation.  Hamas is the democratically elected government of the Gaza Strip; if therefore Hamas may still be considered a terrorist organisation, then so too (presumably) can any other democratically elected government.  In which case, should we consider that the governments of both the UK and the United States of America are terrorist organisations following their multiple instances of kidnapping around the world including that of Abdel Hakim Bekhaj?  Or perhaps even Israel itself for the continued illegal occupation of the Palestinian Territories?

Following the violence of May 14th, many representatives of the international community have publicly condemned the actions taken by Israel, however one must surely ask whether or not this type of response is sufficient.  The UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has stated that he is “profoundly alarmed” by the escalating violence, the EU called for “restraint” on both sides, and in the United Kingdom, a spokesperson for Theresa May said that the Prime Minister was “deeply troubled” by Israel’s use of live rounds.  What has generally been missing however from these public pronouncements, is that this was a war crime and that those responsible should be held to account. With the notable of exception of Turkey removing its ambassadors from both Israel and the United States of America, no diplomatic nor economic steps have been taken against Israel for these actions.

What is the point of having international laws, when the penalty for breaching them is no more than a sternly worded public announcement?  At what point is the international community going to say to any body that breaches the regulations “you are no longer welcome among us”?  Why do bodies such as the UN and governments all over the world continue to treat and trade with Israel under such conditions.

If it behoves any state to denounce the killing of civilians as a criminal act, then any state that does not do so is complicit in that self-same criminal act.  There is little point in signing an international treaty such as the Geneva Convention if you are not prepared to take action to ensure that people comply: you cannot have a standard without holding all participating states to that standard – all of the time.

A graffiti that I believe sums up the situation very well is this – painted on the wall now separating Israel from Palestine:

“If we wash our hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless, we side with the powerful – we don’t remain neutral.”

Any state that does nothing to intercede is as guilty as those engaged in the criminal act.

For how long do we wish to remain guilty?