Thanks for the article. While it's good see some far better context on the Israel-Palestine conflict than in the mainstream media, I think the context was incomplete. Obviously you have a word count, but it is worth reiterating a few facts that many ppl do not seem to be aware of despite being the case for decades.
Using UN sources as the generally agreed globally recognised arbiter of international law:
1. Israel is an occupier that qualifies as settler-colonialism
3. The Palestinians including Hamas have a legal right to armed resistance extending to target Israel's security forces and infrastructure under UNGA Resolution 3314 (1974), UNGA Resolution 37/43 (1982) and supplementary amendments to the Fourth Geneva Convention under Protocol I (1977).
While you emphasise Israel's right to defend itself, the Palestinian right to armed resistance is more emphatic and specifically mentioned in UN resolutions from the 1980s (link in point 3) and treated as comparable to the right to armed resistance against South Africa's apartheid regime.
Of course, the right to armed resistance against an occupier does not extend to targeting civilians. Hamas's attacks were abhorrent, but the reporting around some key claims were unfounded. For example, there is zero evidence of baby beheadings and rape.
Israel has a long documented history of targeting civilians with impunity. Its long-standing policy of collective punishment including bulldozing homes, and bombing buildings and vehicles, by definition targets civilians. Israel's siege and repeated use of white phosphorous munitions - chemical weapons - (last used 11 Oct 2023 https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/12/israel-white-phosphorus-used-gaza-lebanon) are illegal precisely because they do not distinguish between combatants and civilians. There are many examples of Israel targeting civilians before Hamas existed as an armed force, and the casualty figures are so one-sided with so many women and children victims that it is difficult to conclude that Israel consistently does not take adequate steps to avoid civilian casualties. To be consistent, we must say that Israel's actions are abhorrent as well and constitute war crimes.
The root problem with South Africa during the apartheid era was not the ANC sometimes targeting civilians, it was apartheid. As someone who has been, rightly, so vocal in your defence of Ukraine, I hope you will be forthright in your commentary on the Israel-Palestine conflict despite the lack of support for Ukraine from the Global South. But perhaps it is examples like unwavering Western military, diplomatic and trade support of Israel that make some of these countries reluctant to support the West.
Many thanks for your distinctive analysis, not least as the realpolitk gives a sense of what passes for equilibrium reverting to de-escalation. Your specific take on each of the Gulf states' likelihood to focus around their own hegemony rather than collaborate in a humanitarian gesture is also telling.
On a related note, would you think that we would ever see such an active peacemaking contingent from those countries out with UN authority?
Thanks for the article. While it's good see some far better context on the Israel-Palestine conflict than in the mainstream media, I think the context was incomplete. Obviously you have a word count, but it is worth reiterating a few facts that many ppl do not seem to be aware of despite being the case for decades.
Using UN sources as the generally agreed globally recognised arbiter of international law:
1. Israel is an occupier that qualifies as settler-colonialism
https://operationalsupport.un.org/en/israels-illegal-occupation-of-palestinian-territory-tantamount-to-settler-colonialism-un-expert
2. Israel is implementing apartheid (according to UN, HRW, Amnesty Intl, B'Tselem - Israel's own human right agency)
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2022/03/israels-55-year-occupation-palestinian-territory-apartheid-un-human-rights
3. The Palestinians including Hamas have a legal right to armed resistance extending to target Israel's security forces and infrastructure under UNGA Resolution 3314 (1974), UNGA Resolution 37/43 (1982) and supplementary amendments to the Fourth Geneva Convention under Protocol I (1977).
https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-184801/
https://www.cjpme.org/fs_236
While you emphasise Israel's right to defend itself, the Palestinian right to armed resistance is more emphatic and specifically mentioned in UN resolutions from the 1980s (link in point 3) and treated as comparable to the right to armed resistance against South Africa's apartheid regime.
Of course, the right to armed resistance against an occupier does not extend to targeting civilians. Hamas's attacks were abhorrent, but the reporting around some key claims were unfounded. For example, there is zero evidence of baby beheadings and rape.
https://www.factcheck.org/2023/10/what-we-know-about-three-widespread-israel-hamas-war-claims/
Israel has a long documented history of targeting civilians with impunity. Its long-standing policy of collective punishment including bulldozing homes, and bombing buildings and vehicles, by definition targets civilians. Israel's siege and repeated use of white phosphorous munitions - chemical weapons - (last used 11 Oct 2023 https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/12/israel-white-phosphorus-used-gaza-lebanon) are illegal precisely because they do not distinguish between combatants and civilians. There are many examples of Israel targeting civilians before Hamas existed as an armed force, and the casualty figures are so one-sided with so many women and children victims that it is difficult to conclude that Israel consistently does not take adequate steps to avoid civilian casualties. To be consistent, we must say that Israel's actions are abhorrent as well and constitute war crimes.
The root problem with South Africa during the apartheid era was not the ANC sometimes targeting civilians, it was apartheid. As someone who has been, rightly, so vocal in your defence of Ukraine, I hope you will be forthright in your commentary on the Israel-Palestine conflict despite the lack of support for Ukraine from the Global South. But perhaps it is examples like unwavering Western military, diplomatic and trade support of Israel that make some of these countries reluctant to support the West.
Many thanks for your distinctive analysis, not least as the realpolitk gives a sense of what passes for equilibrium reverting to de-escalation. Your specific take on each of the Gulf states' likelihood to focus around their own hegemony rather than collaborate in a humanitarian gesture is also telling.
On a related note, would you think that we would ever see such an active peacemaking contingent from those countries out with UN authority?
Very unlikely. Their support will be limited to $$. Not sure Israel would ever tolerate that anyway.