From the Editors
The New York Times says Jadaliyya "Brings New Life to Arab Studies." Read about it by clicking here.
Lawfare and Armed Conflict: Comparing Israeli and US Targeted Killing Policies and Challenges against Them
In this public lecture, I engage the concept of lawfare (an amalgamation of “law” and “warfare”) to compare Israeli and US twenty-first century armed conflicts. Specifically, I focus on both states’ targeted killing policies and the legal rationales that have been advanced to try to project their lawfulness, and legal challenges to these policies in order to tell a larger story about the relationship between contemporary practices of law and war. In order to tell this story, I expand the lawfare concept to include “state lawfare” to describe how officials—in this case Israelis and Americans—have interpreted the state’s rights to combat enemies and wage war in ways that depart and deviate from international interpretations of international humanitarian law (IHL). Lawfare is responsive to state lawfare, and here I elaborate on how their relationship manifests as contestations over what is legal in war.
I begin with a brief history of Israeli state lawfare vis-à-vis the occupied West Bank and Gaza, and the implications of (local) legal challenges. This history provides the context for understanding changes in Israeli state lawfare that preceded the start of the second intifada in 2000 but powerfully inform the claimed right to wage full-scale war against Palestinians, and how Israel’s interpretative innovations influenced the US in the “war on terror.” I then trace Israeli and US state lawfare efforts to “legalize” targeted killing by claiming the right to execute enemies and suspects at times and in places when they are not engaged in battle or directly participating in hostilities. Although there are significant differences between their twenty-first century armed conflicts, there is a shared desire to present their behaviors as lawful. The final part of my talk traces legal challenges (i.e., lawfare) to Israeli and US targeted killing policies and their outcomes. These challenges have been mounted in the Israeli and the US legal systems, and in several foreign countries. I conclude with some thoughts about the significance of mounting legal challenges, even when those challenges do not prevail in courts.
If you prefer, email your comments to email@example.com.
Hot on Facebook
Jadalicious / جدلشس
"The most ironic aspect of the Hebrew University’s call for an oral history conference is that the campus stands on expropriated land... Given oral history’s tradition of advocacy for the displaced, these facts should give scholars contemplating participation in the oral history conference pause for thought."click | email | tweet
Latest EntriesView All Entries »
- The Shoebox Is on the Other Foot: Turkey's Year of Retaliation
- Maghreb Media Roundup (December 21)
- سجن النساء يجتاز اختبار بكدال ويتجاوزه
- Latin America’s Lesson for the United States: Prosecute the Torturers
- Hassan Khan: Taraban
- Soma, Ermenek, Yirca: Can Anti-Coal Activists Defend Coal Miners and Olive Farmers?
- Historical Realities of Concept Pop: Debating Art in Egypt
- New Texts Out Now: Isabelle Werenfels, Beyond Authoritarian Upgrading: The Re-Emergence of Sufi Orders in Maghrebi Politics
- Syria Media Roundup (December 16)
- Arabian Peninsula Media Roundup (December 16)
- Turkey Media Roundup (December 16)
- Egypt Media Roundup (December 15)
- Aloha Aina: Notes From The Struggle in Hawai’i
- The Politics of "Unveiling Saudi Women": Between Postcolonial Fantasies and the Surveillance State
- The Islamic State: The Fear of Decline?
- ملف من الأرشيف: نظيرة زين الدين
- Countercurrent: Bahrain Watch: A STATUS/الوضع Conversation between Reda al-Fardan and Mona Kareem
- Mohamed Abla Painting Award
- Last Week on Jadaliyya (December 8-14)
- Open Letter to Mr. Rem Koolhaas