One of the most dangerous facets of the conflict in Israel/Palestine is the reflexive tendency on the part of both actors in the conflict to immediately dismiss any and all thoughtful critique as threats to their very existence.
As an American Jew, this seems to me most tragically apparent in the case of Israel. Witness a Daily op−ed from earlier this month: A highly acclaimed film critical of the Israeli government's policies of occupation was vociferously condemned for its alleged "mission" to "evoke in its viewers contempt for the State of Israel." In that op−ed, published on Nov. 3, we witness the harbinger of what may prove to be an ominous trend on our campus: the constriction of intellectual space for critical debate on the question of Israel/Palestine.
On the one hand, constructive dialogue is obstructed by a determined mystification of the facts of the conflict, and on the other, it is hijacked by a proclivity for conflating criticism of the policies of the State of Israel with attacks on the character of the Israeli people or Jews more generally.
If we follow the lead of the film "Occupation 101," which screened at Tufts last month, and adopt as our framework the unequivocal standards of international law, we quickly realize who is indeed guilty of the "misrepresentations of the facts." According to Article 2 of the U.N. Charter, acquisition of territory by military conquest is illegal, and gaining sovereignty via military occupation is likewise illegal. Moreover, military occupation, generally, is not defined by the presence of a settler population but more logically in terms of control of borders, coastlines and airspace. Israel's own High Court of Justice has "held contrary to Israel's claim, stating that the creation and continuation of an occupation does not depend on the existence of an institution administering the lives of the local population, but only on the extent of its military control in the area," according to the Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem.
Therefore, contrary to the claims of the aforementioned op−ed author about the Gaza disengagement, the Gaza Strip, whose borders, coastlines and airspace all remain under Israeli military control, is still an occupied territory. As the occupying power, Israel is fully responsible for the civilian populations under its military control, who, according to Article 27 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, "are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect" and who "shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected."
In subjecting the Gaza Strip to an indefinite state of siege as well as launching repeated military incursions, Israel has violated its legal covenant to the civilian population, perpetuating, according to Richard Falk, the U.N. special rapporteur for human rights in the Palestinian territories, an act of collective punishment against a civilian population of over 1.5 million "for the actions of a few militants."
The Nov. 3 op−ed author would argue that this "humanitarian crisis," as the siege has been so labeled by just about every international organization from the United Nations and Amnesty International to Oxfam International and B'Tselem, is justified on the grounds of preventing rocket attacks against Israeli civilians. Rocket attacks are utterly illegal and immoral and must be condemned as such. However, the principle of proportionality forbids such drastic measures as military siege, according to Article 51 of the 1977 Protocol Additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions. By the same logic, Operation Cast Lead, the winter 2008−2009 Israeli military assault on the Gaza Strip that resulted in the killing of around 1,400 Palestinians — the majority being civilians, including almost 400 children, according to B'Tselem — and 13 Israelis, three of whom were civilians, was profoundly disproportionate.
Apart from procedural violations of international law — documented at length by the Goldstone Report — Operation Cast Lead qualifies as a "crime against the peace," one of the gravest breaches of law under the U.N. Charter. In June 2008, Israel and Hamas signed a six−month ceasefire agreement. For a period extending to Nov. 6 of that year, the number of rocket attacks decreased significantly. On that fateful day, an Israeli airstrike killing Hamas militants provoked return rocket fire, breaking the ceasefire, which Hamas went on the record attempting to renew in early December 2008. In lieu of renewing the ceasefire, Israel commenced its three−week winter offensive, which, according to Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, was planned prior to March 2008.
Furthermore, claims regarding the use of civilian infrastructure as bases for rocket attacks are largely unfounded, with the United Nations flatly rejecting this allegation with respect to its over 50 facilities targeted by the Israel Defense Forces. With regard to widespread claims about "human shields," reports by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch found that Israel, not Hamas, had made a systematic policy of consistent use of civilians — often children — as human shields in the occupied territories, a fact later confirmed by the May 4, 2010, conviction by a military court of two Israeli soldiers of carrying out that very act.
Since it was clearly premeditated and could easily have been rendered unnecessary by a diplomatic solution — as Israel's contravention of the Jan. 9, 2009, U.N. Security Council ceasefire resolution further illustrates — Operation Cast Lead was evidently an act of aggressive war illegal under Principle I (1970) of the U.N. Charter.
The mandate of international law with respect to the Separation Wall, like the settlements, is unequivocal: According to a 2004 International Court of Justice ruling, the "separation barrier," a wall that is in parts twice as high as the Berlin Wall and will stand nearly four times as long, once complete — a wall that cuts deep into Palestinian territory and annexes large swaths of land — is illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention and various U.N. Security Council and General Assembly resolutions and must be dismantled. Like the blockade of Gaza, Israel's "separation barrier" has nothing to do with security, for if that was its intention, it would have been constructed along the Green Line as opposed to deep into the West Bank.
The Separation Wall never has and never was intended to reduce violence, for it was not anywhere close to finished when a supposed 90 percent drop in violence occurred. According to the Shin Bet, Israeli state security, the reduction in violence by 2005 was a result of the fragile "truce in the territories" declared by Palestinian factions and, in particular, Hamas' moratorium on suicide bombings. Viewed through this lens, we see the purpose of the wall in stark relief: a land−grab that confiscates nearly 10 percent of the area of the West Bank, a significant blow to any future Palestinian state.
"Occupation 101" is hardly intended to defame the Israeli people or their nation. In fact, as a Jew, I highly recommend this film to all those likewise dedicated to Israel's security. This very legitimate goal of achieving security cannot be accomplished through an illegal military occupation that produces the desperate conditions under which a small number of people are prompted to engage in immoral acts of violence that threaten that very security.
As one of the most egregious violators of U.N. resolutions and international human rights accords, the Israeli government has exhibited utter contempt for the rule of law, an extralegal disposition — made possible by United States' veto power on the U.N. Security Council — that has understandably provoked the ire of people across the globe. Only by complying with international law and implementing a two−state solution according to the international consensus can the Israeli government end its pariah status, guaranteeing Jews and Palestinians alike lives of peace and security.
--
