PNN – In an article referring to the extent of the Zionist regime’s crimes in Gaza despite the establishment of international laws and human rights conventions, Foreign Affairs magazine considered this conflict to be the end of the fall and failure of the laws of war and offered suggestions to deal with the current situation.
According to the report of Pakistan News Network, in an article, Foreign Affairs magazine considered Hamas’s attack on Israel and its retaliatory response as a massive disaster and a failure for international laws. This publication stated that Israel’s air and ground attacks in this area have killed more than 30,000 people so far, reminding that two-thirds of them were women and children.
According to this influential American publication, Israel’s attack has displaced nearly two million people (more than 85%) of the population of Gaza. It exposed more than one million people to famine and destroyed nearly 150,000 civilian buildings in this region. And although there are no hospitals left in northern Gaza today, the Israeli regime continues its attacks in this area and claims that Hamas uses civilian structures as shields.
Foreign Affairs has then acknowledged that Israel continues to target civilian places such as schools and hospitals, which is prohibited under international law, citing the same claims.
According to the article in this publication, these unfortunate developments are happening while the international human rights framework has clearly specified that civilians should be protected from the disasters of war. In other words, the nature of humanitarian laws is that civilians should be supported against any attack in war situations. But in the war between Israel and Hamas, we see the failure of this international law, and the Jewish government has not only launched an all-out war against civilians, but has also limited the flow of humanitarian aid.
According to the author of this article, the war in Gaza is the result of the failure of the law of war, but it is not the only example of such wars. The author then discusses other examples of crimes against humanity, including the long series of wars after the 9/11 attacks, known as the “War on Terror” led by Washington.
The foundation of human rights
This publication has mentioned that after the terrible days of the Second World War, the United States and its allies established the final framework of the Geneva Conventions in 1949 and called for the protection of civilian lives during conflicts. Therefore, it is necessary that at this critical moment, when despite the international laws and human rights treaties, the lives of civilians have been endangered once again, America, which itself weakened these laws after the September 11 attacks, must once again strengthen and renew.
license to kill
The author explains in another part of this article: Before the adoption of all the frameworks of the human rights convention, the definitions and understandings of the laws of war were somewhat harsher than now, and the hands of soldiers were left free in some crimes. However, according to the laws of war, it is still possible for the soldiers of a country to be killed in armed conflicts, and in exchange for that, the soldiers involved are given some kind of immunity from committing acts that could be considered a crime in other circumstances; including murder, rape, theft, assault, wounding, destruction of property, etc.
Interpretation and justification of crime
During World War II, more than 30 million civilians were killed, and it was undoubtedly this catastrophic war that ultimately led to the adoption of the final framework of the Geneva Conventions in 1949.
According to the Geneva Conventions and contrary to the basic laws of war, some forms of violence in war are prohibited and the warring parties must distinguish between civilians and combatants and civilian and military places.
At the same time, this publication reminds that although most of the countries of the world have accepted and signed the Geneva Conventions, these laws have been formed in different ways according to the desired classifications of each country at certain times. A new sequence of human disasters has occurred including the US attack on Afghanistan and Iraq after the September 11 attacks.
Killing under the pretext of self-defense
In explaining this, the author considered the September 11 attacks and America’s response to it as one of the cases in which Washington justified attacking a foreign country and targeting civilians by justifying its own defense. The author describes how, after the 9/11 attacks, the United States ushered in a new era of warfare in which international humanitarian law once again reached its breaking point.
Foreign Affairs reminds: Before 2001, legitimate defense according to international law was applied only when a country defended itself against the aggression of another country. Until then, few countries used non-state actors as a justification for their criminal acts. But after September 11, the examples of “self-defense” changed and the US attacked Afghanistan with the justification of self-defense against al-Qaeda. After that and within a year, Australia, Canada, France, Germany, New Zealand, Poland, and England also claimed self-defense against al-Qaeda, and it wasn’t long before these countries started making claims against other non-governmental groups. In fact, the United States and its allies relied on what they called the “unwanted doctrine” in order to counter groups such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS, and justified the attack against government actors in countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yemen under the title of self-defense.
Ambiguous and unclear boundaries
Aiming to address the changing reality of warfare in civilian areas, the United States and other countries have adopted new policies that once again put civilians at risk. At the heart of this change of practice was a dual nature that questioned the foundation of international humanitarian law. In this way, if civilian places were used for military purposes, it was possible to target them.
Referring to these cases, this publication has acknowledged that the military logic of Israel’s all-out attack on Gaza is partly the result of these growing changes that both the American and Israeli sides have been playing a role in for years.
This media then pointed to the dense population of Gaza and noted: There is almost no structure and building in Gaza that is not considered to have a dual nature from Israel’s point of view and has not been attacked. Therefore, Israel’s decision to consider civilian sites with a dual nature has resulted in nothing but destruction for the people of this region, and Tel Aviv has violated the principles it was supposed to consider to protect civilian lives.
Restrictions
In another part, the author of this article argues that the experiences of World War II, which eventually led to the establishment of the Geneva Convention, have now been forgotten and trying to use it to protect civilians is pointless.
This publication reminds that after the incident of September 11, Washington used its power to weaken the laws and restrictions on the use of force and presented an aggressive interpretation of the right of self-defense. In such a way that this country was able to gain more flexibility for its army and ultimately put more civilians’ lives at risk.
Therefore, the author has suggested that in order to deal with the existing contradictions, America should expand its cooperation with the International Criminal Court. This publication reminds that in 2020, the President of the United States, Donald Trump, sanctioned the judges and lawyers of the International Criminal Court who were investigating the commission of war crimes by the American soldiers in Afghanistan.
From the writer’s point of view, the best way to fix the current situation is to improve relations with the court and repeal the American Service Members Protection Act; The law passed in 2002 allows the President of the United States to take military action against The Hague Tribunal to protect Americans and prohibits government agencies from assisting the Tribunal.
Foreign Affairs has also emphasized the necessity of imposing strict restrictions on the dual nature of civilian targets and places and explained: The Ministry of Defense’s Law of War instructions should be reviewed. In addition, foreign aid to allies should be based on the principles and rules of respect for international law, and Israel should not be exempt from these principles.
In the end, the author emphasized that America should make sure that Israel’s war against Hamas is based on international laws, so that we can see a reduction in human tragedies and civilian suffering.