Opinion | Columnists

Israel’s ‘self-defence’ argument against Hamas holds no water

Western morality proscribes the use of force unless all nonviolent means of conflict settlement have been exhausted

  • By Jerome Slater
  • Published: 20:00 January 10, 2013
  • Gulf News

As part of a November ceasefire agreement with Hamas, Israel has partially lifted its blockade of the Gaza Strip, at least allowing construction materials into the region pummelled by Israeli airstrikes. It’s a single, forward step that ends a five-year ban on such materials. But without progress in settling the overall conflict, Palestinian rocket or suicide attacks and heavy Israeli responses will almost surely resume.

If the past is any guide, even those who would criticise such Israeli attacks as “disproportionate” would hasten to add: “Of course, Israel has the right to defend itself.”

Israel, however, is not defending its homeland against unprovoked attack. Rather it is “defending” a nonexistent right to continue its occupation (direct or indirect) and repression of the Palestinians – and that is what provokes Palestinian attacks from Gaza.

The eight days of Israeli bombing and air strikes on Gaza last November were essentially a continuation — though on a much smaller scale — of “Operation Cast Lead,” the three-week Israeli attacks that began in late December 2008. Then as now, Israel and its supporters justified Cast Lead as a legitimate use of force in self-defence to end Hamas’s attacks on Israel’s civilian population.

After Cast Lead, a number of major human rights investigations — including the Goldstone Commission, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch — concluded that Israel’s indiscriminate and disproportional attacks against the Gazan population, economy, and societal infrastructures constituted war crimes. At the same time, none of these groups sought to refute Israel’s claim that it acted in self-defence.

Essentially, Israel and its supporters argue that even though Israel ended its occupation of Gaza in 2005, Palestinian attacks on Israeli population centres have continued, and thus justify Israel’s right to defend itself.

Their argument is wrong on several counts. First, even though Israel withdrew its Jewish colonies from Gaza in 2005, it continued its indirect occupation of Gaza — especially through its land and naval embargo that followed the violent takeover of Gaza by Hamas in 2007.

Israel continues to wield great power over Gaza’s economy, water, electricity, telecommunications, and transportation networks. Among other measures, it has refused to allow Gaza a functioning airport, seaport, or commercial crossing on its border with Egypt, radically cutting Gazan trade and commerce with the outside world.

The stated reason is for security purposes, but the result is widespread hardship on ordinary Gazans, including heavily restricted movement of people and goods in and out of Gaza; inadequate imports of water used for drinking and irrigation; farmers prevented from tending to and harvesting their fields and crops in border areas, and inordinate harassment of Gazan fishing boats.

Additionally, Israel has continued to assassinate Palestinian fighters and periodically attack Gaza’s governmental and police institutions, electrical generating system, roads, bridges, farms, and olive orchards – and many of its bombs and shells have fallen on schools, ambulances, and hospitals, whether intentionally or not.

It cannot be seriously maintained that Palestinian attacks on Israel — even though morally wrong — are “unprovoked” or have nothing to do with this history.

A second reason that the self-defence argument fails is that even if Israel had genuinely ended its occupation and repression of Gaza, it has not ended its direct occupation over occupied East Jerusalem and much of the West Bank. Instead, it has expanded the number of Jewish colonies and land-grabs in those areas.

Gaza is not a separate country or people from the West Bank, and the 1993 Israeli-Palestinian Oslo agreement specifically states that Gaza and the West Bank are “a single territorial unit.” Consequently, the Gazan people retain their right of resistance to occupation and repression.

To believe otherwise is like believing that, if the British had withdrawn from New Jersey in the 1770s but continued to occupy the other 12 colonies, New Jersey residents would no longer have had the right to take up arms to support American independence.

To be sure, the right of resistance does not include the right to employ terrorism. At the same time, it is certainly relevant that the Palestinians have no hope of gaining their freedom by defeating the Israeli armed forces. Nor is nonviolent protest and resistance likely to succeed, for Israel has either repeatedly ignored it or suppressed it, often meeting demonstrators (including Israelis) with beatings, rubber bullets, and sometimes real bullets.

The final flaw in the Israeli self-defence argument is that western morality proscribes the use of force unless all nonviolent means of conflict settlement have been exhausted.

Israel, however, has repeatedly refused to negotiate long-term truces with Hamas, and it has even broken past agreements. While Hamas still refuses to recognise Israel’s right to exist, since 2009 there has been substantial evidence that it is ready to go beyond ceasefires and join with the more moderate Palestinian National Authority in the West Bank in supporting a two-state political settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Although Hamas’s position has been ambiguous and sometimes contradictory, this does not justify Israel’s refusal even to negotiate with Hamas to explore the peace possibilities.

As long as the Israeli occupation, repression, and intransigence continue, Israel has no legitimate or persuasive claim that it is defending its homeland against unprovoked Palestinian attacks. To stop those attacks and make last year’s ceasefire permanent, it needs to fully lift its blockade and bring Hamas into the negotiation process.

Christian Science Monitor.

Jerome Slater is professor emeritus of international politics, US foreign policy, and international security at the State University of New York at Buffalo. A longer version of this piece ran in the journal International Security.

Gulf News
Quick Links

  1. Business

  2. Sport

  3. The latest Entertainment news

  4. The latest Lifestyle stories

  5. Blogs

  6. Opinion

In Opinion

  1. Meet Our Writers

  2. Columnists

  3. Editorials

  4. Off the Cuff

  5. Your say

  6. Speak Your Mind

Latest Columns

  1. Obama working hard on a legacy issue

  2. Al Assir sows seeds of discontent in Lebanon

  3. History will be far more kind to him

  4. Cameron’s coalition is a radical bazaar

  5. The climate change challenge

  6. Obama’s touch more murk than Midas