Without going into detail about each specific military action, it is crucial to take a step back and attempt to clarify some fundamental principles of humanitarian law, as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict raises many questions.
Since the launch of Operation “Al-Aqsa Flood” by the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, the armed wing of Hamas, and the energetic response of the Israeli army, called Operation Iron Swords, thousands of Palestinians and Israelis lost their lives or were injured. This escalation of the conflict has sparked intense and polarized debate internationally, with divergent public opinions and political discourse attempting to justify or condemn the actions of both sides.
The media play a crucial role in this context, especially since the media issues of wars have taken on increasing importance in our time, accentuated by the need for immediate information and the massive use of social networks. These elements, already present in the context of the conflict in Ukraine, are also found in the context of the situation in Gaza, complicating the obtaining of an overall vision of the war and its issues.
The current situation highlights journalists reporting rumors, studio experts presenting their opinions and analysis on these rumors, and social media polarizing the debate for or against one of these parties. A concrete example is the analysis of the bombing of the Al-Ahli hospital in Gaza City, where the difficulty of establishing the number of victims adds to the complexity of determining who was responsible for the strike. This ease with which a tentative conclusion can be transformed into the truth regarding military action creates a circle of accusations, making calls for respect for international law difficult.
Without going into detail about each specific military action, it is crucial to take a step back and attempt to clarify some fundamental principles of humanitarian law, as the conflict raises many questions.
International Humanitarian Law
At the heart of these considerations, International Humanitarian Law (IHL) presents itself as a set of rules aimed at limiting the devastating effects of armed conflicts. Regardless of the legitimization of the conflict or the reasons given, IHL aims to protect human dignity even in times of war, establishing limits to alleviate the suffering of those caught in conflicts.
- The separation between “Ius ad Bellum” and “Ius in Bello”
The separation between Ius ad Bellum " And " Ius in Bello » constitutes a pillar of IHL. Regardless of the conditions that authorize the use of armed force (Ius ad Bellum), such as the right of self-determination claimed by the Palestinians or the right to self-defense invoked by Israel, the parties have the obligation to respect the “ Ius in Bello“. These are the rules governing the behavior of parties to a conflict, including the protection of civilians, medical assets, and the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks.[1]
- The fundamental principles of international humanitarian law.
IHL is based on a foundation constituted by several conventions, including the four Geneva Conventions and their additional protocols.[2], as well as customary law[3]. These stated standards seek to reconcile humanitarian imperatives with military requirements, putting forward fundamental principles such as the principle of humanity. At the heart of these principles is the need to clearly differentiate between persons participating in hostilities (combatantꞏes) and those who do not participate (civilians), with the aim of protecting them against any form of indiscriminate targeting.
Another central principle of IHL is the prohibition of unnecessary evils, aimed at limiting the use of excessive force or cruel methods that are not necessary to achieve a legitimate military objective. The overall goal is to reduce unnecessary suffering inflicted on people affected by conflict. Finally, IHL insists on protection of people outside combat or under the power of the enemy, aimed at ensuring humane treatment of persons not directly participating in hostilities, including prisoners of war and captured civilians. These principles of IHL help to establish binding standards, essential for preserving human dignity even in situations of armed conflict. There hostage-taking and deliberate killing of civilians by a party to the conflict are, in fact, clearly prohibited by IHL. These actions are considered serious violations of international humanitarian law.
- Conduct of hostilities
There are other principles that focus on the conduct of hostilities, such as the principle of proportionality in attack and precaution in attack. These principles aim to minimize as much as possible harm to civilian populations in times of war by limiting the military methods and means used by the belligerents. However, as clearly explained by Marco Sassoli,[4] determining the legality of an attack is a complex task. The complexity lies not so much in the law itself, but rather in the difficulty of establishing the facts surrounding the attack. Targeting civilians or civilian objects constitutes a violation of the law. What makes an attack legal does not depend on the results of the attack, but rather on an anticipated assessment by the attacking party. In other words, the complexity lies in establishing the facts related to a specific attack, including the nature of the targets, the measures taken to avoid excessive civilian casualties, the military necessity of the target, its use by the other part.
In addition, it is essential to emphasize, like Frédéric Casier[5], the devastating consequences of explosive weapons with a large impact radius, particularly in urban areas. The use of these weapons can result in significant civilian harm due to their inherent inaccuracy and the proximity of military objectives to civilian infrastructure. The collateral effects of heavy explosive weapons on vital civilian infrastructure, such as water, electricity, and crucial power networks, can seriously disrupt services essential to the survival of civilians.[6]
In this context, in addition to constantly reminding people of the obligation to respect the law, it is essential to raise awareness among citizens to go beyond the propaganda coming from both sides. It is crucial to encourage them to ask the media to familiarize themselves with IHL, rather than jumping to conclusions about a specific attack. Furthermore, it is essential to ask the parties involved for more transparency in order to establish the facts objectively. This transparency is necessary to bring criminals to justice and ensure accountability for the acts committed.
- Access to humanitarian relief
The Geneva Conventions and customary law [7]explicitly affirm the obligation of the parties to the conflict to allow humanitarian organizations access to areas affected by hostilities. This obligation aims to facilitate the effective provision of medical assistance, food, water, and other essential needs to people affected by the conflict. Despite this, the issue of access to humanitarian aid in Gaza has raised many concerns. This reluctance, despite repeated calls from UN agencies and international organizations, highlights a polarization that compromises the very nature of humanitarian aid. The situation in Gaza has created divisions and political deadlocks that hamper the ability of humanitarian agencies to provide rapid and effective assistance. This highlights the imperative need to rethink a political space that overcomes divisions, avoids double standards and enables neutral, impartial and independent humanitarian action.[8]
Conclusion
The current situation between Israel and Hamas has caused considerable human losses and sparked a polarized global debate. The media and social networks played a crucial role, sometimes amplifying unverified information. In this context, it is essential to recall the principles of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) which aim to limit suffering in times of war, vital to protecting human dignity, even in armed conflicts. Public awareness of IHL and demand for transparency are crucial to ensure accountability and ensure effective humanitarian assistance. The Declaration of the High Representative, on behalf of the European Union, on humanitarian truces in Gaza,[9] such as United Nations Security Council Resolution 2712(2023)[10] are moving in the right direction by calling for the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages and the guarantee of immediate humanitarian access. However, the delay in demand and implementation on the ground comes at a high cost in terms of human lives. On the eve of important European meetings, it is imperative that civil society associations mobilize to demand more decisive action from the European Union on the humanitarian front. It is crucial that this mobilization transcends political divisions and emphasizes collective responsibility for the protection of vulnerable populations. International and foreign humanitarian associations, due to their impartiality and neutrality, face major challenges in this complex context. The perception of their positioning in favor of one party over the other can make it difficult to provide aid to the population in need.
In this context, it becomes imperative that other actors in civil society, such as peace associations, universities and engaged citizens, take the initiative to carry out this debate. This can be done in parallel, but also distinct from that focused on peace issues. These groups can help raise public awareness, highlight International Humanitarian Law (IHL), highlight pressing humanitarian needs and encourage an effective response from the European Union. It is essential to create a new space highlighting the importance of respect for IHL which goes beyond the search for responsibilities. This task will fall to historians and the courts but, currently, the emphasis must be placed on awareness-raising and immediate humanitarian action to alleviate the suffering of the civilian population affected by the conflict.
Mattia Tosato.
[1] For more information Kolb, R. (1997), Origin of the twin terms jus ad bellum/jus in bello: https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/article/other/57jnuu.htm and Tosato, M. (2022), L'imparzialità alla prova dei social e la ragione per separare ius in bello ed ius ad bellum: https://www.amistades.info/post/imparzialita-alla-prova-social-ragione -separare-ius-in-bello-ius-ad-bellum
[2] Geneva Conventions of 1949, Additional Protocols and their Commentaries: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/fr/ihl-treaties
[3] The ICRC study on customary international humanitarian law (IHL): https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/fr/customary-ihl
[4] Sassoli (2023), Israel – Hamas 2023 Symposium – Assessing The Conduct Of Hostilities In Gaza – Difficulties And Possible Solutions: https://lieber.westpoint.edu/assessing-conduct-hostilities-gaza-difficulties-possible-solutions/
[5] Casier (2020), Explosive weapons with a large impact radius in densely populated areas A hope of finally alleviating the unacceptable suffering of civilians?: https://www.croix-rouge.be/content/uploads/sites/6/2020/04/Les-armes-explosives-a-large-rayon-d%E2%80%99impact-dans-les-zones-densement-peuplees_FREDERIC-CASIER_2020.pdf?_ga=2.213684764.901578926.1609771872-1041240814.1603129924
[6] See also Political Declaration on Strengthening the Protection of Civilians from the Humanitarian Consequences arising from the use of Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas: https://www.dfa.ie/media/dfa/ourrolepolicies/peaceandsecurity/ewipa/EWIPA-Political-Declaration-Final-Rev-25052022.pdf
[7] Rule 55, ICRC study on customary international humanitarian law (IHL): https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule55
[8]To go further: Sharpe (2023), Humanitarian access to Gaza: https://www.ejiltalk.org/humanitarian-access-to-gaza/
[9] Statement by the High Representative, on behalf of the European Union, on humanitarian truces in Gaza, 12 November 2023: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/fr/press/press-releases/2023/11/12/statement-by-the-high-representative-on-behalf-of-the-european-union-on-humanitarian-pauses-in-gaza/
[10] S/RES/2712 (2023)
