Operation Protective Edge and Legal Remedies

New Article Submission

Thank you for your interest in Jadaliyya. We welcome all submissions. The most significant requirement is for Jadaliyya submissions to be analytically compelling and offer a perspective or argument that has not been covered at length either on Jadaliyya or elsewhere. Because of the volume of submissions, well-written pieces are prioritized. Length is flexible, 1000 to 2500 words is the average range. However, we will accept longer pieces. Once submitted, several members of the editorial committee will review your piece and one of them will inform you of the decision.
Author Details
Article Details
Select Countries
Select Keywords
Select Topics
Only RTF, Word, and Pages documents accepted.

Recommended image size: 762x800 px

Location of each image should be indicated in the text of the article via a square bracket caption that includes: (1) a description of the image; (2) the photographer/designer and source of the image. Please note we only use images you as the author have the right to use, which usually means those of your own creation or those published under Creative Commons. Alternatively, you need specific permission from the copyright holder.
Please read the Release Form and provide an electronic signature [your full name] below to confirm that you accept its terms
Required
Hyperlink words in your article if they refer to links on the internet. We encourage more, rather than less, links (try to avoid footnotes—embed them as hyperlinks if possible)

Article added successfully.

Pages Menu BETA
Oct 20, 2014 Palestine-Israel
Operation Protective Edge and Legal Remedies

Operation Protective Edge and Legal Remedies

By : Jadaliyya Reports

[The following report was authored by Noura Erakat [1], Bianca Isais [2], and Salmah Rizvi [3]. It was published by the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs (IFI) at American University of Beirut on 9 October 2014.]

Operation Protective Edge and Legal Remedies

Introduction

On 26 August 2014, Israel and Palestinian resistance groups entered into a long-term ceasefire agreement. The terms of the agreement look almost identical to those established in November 2012, including a lack of implementation mechanisms. Indeed, if the parties fail to make these terms more precise and binding, it will be no more than a holding position before Israel’s next assault on the Gaza Strip.

Its most significant omission is a commitment to lift Israel’s eight-year debilitating siege. Instead, the agreement simply obligates Israel to “ease” the siege and “open” Gaza’s crossings. These are incredibly vague and subjective directives that do not guarantee the rehabilitation of Gaza or freedom for the Palestinians living there. What does opening Gaza’s crossings mean, for example? Who will oversee that they are in fact open? In 2005, the Israeli High Court mandated that the passageways along the Annexation Wall be opened regularly to allow humanitarian passage (i.e., family, education, health, livelihood) and yet Palestinians are still waiting for that to happen.

This is more troubling in light of the fact that the siege itself is illegal. The siege is a form of collective punishment against the Palestinian population of the Gaza Strip and is prohibited under Article 33 of the Geneva Convention. Moreover, it constitutes an illegal act of war against an occupied population, which Israel has the obligation to protect. As the occupying power, Israel has a duty and an obligation to protect the well-being of the civilians living under its occupation. Israel must lift the siege as a matter of law yet, after fifty-two days of pummeling the besieged Strip, its agreement to ease the siege is presented as a concession.

Similarly, Israel has framed its assaults on the Gaza Strip as force used in self-defense. As an occupying power, however, Israel does not have the right to self-defense under international law against territory it occupies. [4] Invoking this right would give Gaza the appearance of independence when in fact it lacks the powers to govern itself and remains within Israel’s jurisdictional control. By usurping Palestinians’ police powers and simultaneously declaring war upon the Gaza Strip, Israel makes the population doubly vulnerable. Significantly, it also confuses two bodies of law, the law regulating ongoing hostilities (jus in bello) and the law over starting a war (jus ad bellum), in an effort to evade accountability.

This trend is particularly disturbing in light of Israel’s violations of humanitarian law committed during the course of hostilities. During its most recent aerial and ground offensive against the Gaza Strip, Israeli forces killed 2,104 Palestinians, including 495 children; forcibly displaced 350,000 people and rendered 100,000 homeless; destroyed or severely damaged 16,800 homes; destroyed Gaza’s sole power plant; damaged 277 schools; damaged 17 hospitals; incapacitated 10 hospitals; destroyed 73 mosques and damaged another 197; and damaged two churches and a Christian cemetery, among a long list of similarly destroyed civilian infrastructure. Additionally, during the course of the fourth ceasefire humanitarian workers discovered thousands of explosive remnants of war (i.e. unexploded bombs and shells). Palestinian resistance groups have killed 64 Israeli soldiers and four civilians.

The extent of the death and destruction is substantial; it is also not unprecedented as evidenced by the register of harm endured by the Palestinian people of Gaza during Operation Cast Lead in 2008/09 and then again during Operation Pillar of Defense in November 2012. The fact that Israel can evade its responsibilities as an occupying power and commit egregious violations of humanitarian law, as a matter of routine, demonstrates the consequences of systematic impunity afforded to it over several decades.

Indeed, through a combination of legal acrobatics, outright political pressure, and boycott of legal bodies, Israel has created a legal black hole over its treatment of Palestinians and, more broadly, the question of Palestine.

While legal remedies are not a panacea for the Palestinian condition, they can be a useful tactic in a broader strategy aimed at achieving national liberation. Human rights advocates and civil society organizations have attempted to use domestic and international legal venues to hold Israel accountable for its humanitarian and human rights violations. However, political intervention has stymied these efforts and diminished the efficacy of legal advocacy.

This briefing paper provides a non-exhaustive survey of the legal fora in which Palestinians have sought, or can seek, legal redress. These include international courts, in particular the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the International Criminal Court (ICC), and special tribunals; national courts under universal jurisdiction as well as the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) in US federal courts; and human rights bodies and mechanisms like the Human Rights Council, and human rights treaty bodies. The research will show that power and politics have impeded Palestinians’ access to successful judicial redress. While there may still be value to pursuing these claims within legal fora, they must be complemented by effective extra-legal strategies aimed at cultivating political will among states as well as grassroots non-state actors. 

For purposes of this paper, accountability is defined as a state’s commitment to respect, uphold and adhere to international customary norms as well as legislated laws explicitly endorsed by states, in particular, humanitarian and human rights law. This includes a third-party state’s duty to comport with recommendations issued by multilateral legal bodies aimed at shaping the behavior of a non-complying state. While recognizing that a state-centric system is incapable of adequately protecting and ensuring the well-being of persons and peoples, this briefing paper assesses how accountability can be approximated within these distorting and imperfect bounds.

[Click here to read the full working paper (pdf)]

_________

[1] Noura Erakat is an Assistant Professor at George Mason University and a Co-Founder/Editor of Jadaliyya e-zine. Most recently, she was a Freedman Teaching Fellow at Temple Law School and has taught International Human Rights Law and the Middle East at Georgetown University since 2009. She served as Legal Counsel for a Congressional Subcommittee in the House of Representatives, chaired by Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich. 

[2] Bianca C. Isaias is a third-year J.D. student at NYU School of Law. She was a 2014 Ella Baker Intern with the Center for Constitutional Rights, where she worked on their International Human Rights docket. She was a 2013 International Law and Human Rights fellow with NYU’s Center for Human Rights and Global Justice.. 

[3] Salmah Rizvi is a 2L at NYU School of Law on a Paul & Daisy Soros Fellowship for New Americans. She is a member of NYU’s prestigious Moot Court Board and Co-Chair for the Women of Color Collective. Prior to law school, Salmah worked at the U.S. Departments of State and Defense as a lead linguist and analyst. 

[4] Erakat, Noura, It’s not wrong, it’s illegal: Situating the Gaza Blockade between International Law and the UN Response, 11 UCLA J. IsLAmIC & NeAr e.L. 37 (2011-2012). 
Tags

  • ALSO BY THIS AUTHOR

    • Lies, Deceit, and Criminality: Israel & the United States Attack Iran (Part II)

      Lies, Deceit, and Criminality: Israel & the United States Attack Iran (Part II)

      Join us for Part II of our series on the US-Israeli attack on Iran as we discuss the US' recent bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities as well as their national and regional implications.

    • Long Form Podcast Episode 9: Islamophobia, the West, and Genocide with Hatem Bazian

      Long Form Podcast Episode 9: Islamophobia, the West, and Genocide with Hatem Bazian

      Hatem Bazian addresses the historical trajectory of Islamophobia and its significance in understanding geopolitical transformation in the post-Cold War world. As Western ideologues shifted from their focus on the Soviet Union after the Cold War, and increasingly adopted the Clash of Civilizations paradigm to undergird their maintenance of global hegemony, Islam and Muslims replaced communism as the chief bogeyman. Bazian explains how and why this came about, and the centrality Palestine played in its development and operation, both in the West and for Israel. He also addresses US government disciplining of universities and particularly student activists.

    • Long Form Podcast Episode 8: Resigning the State Department Over Gaza With Hala Rharrit

      Long Form Podcast Episode 8: Resigning the State Department Over Gaza With Hala Rharrit

      In this episode of Long Form, Hala Rharrit discusses the factors that led her to resign from the US State Department, the mechanisms by which institutional corruption and ideological commitments of officials and representatives ensure US support for Israel, and how US decision-makers consistently violate international law and US laws/legislation. Rharrit also addresses the Trump administration’s claim that South Africa is perpetrating genocide against the country’s Afrikaaner population, and how this intersects with the US-Israeli campaign of retribution against South Africa for hauling Israel before the ICJ on charges of genocide.
Feb 16, 2011 Lebanon
Jadaliyya Reports By :
Jadaliyya Reports

Past is Present: Settler Colonialism Matters!

On 5-6 March 2011, the Palestine Society at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London will hold its seventh annual conference, "Past is Present: Settler Colonialism in Palestine." This year`s conference aims to understand Zionism as a settler colonial project which has, for more than a century, subjected Palestine and Palestinians to a structural and violent form of destruction, dispossession, land appropriation and erasure in the pursuit of a new Jewish Israeli society. By organizing this conference, we hope to reclaim and revive the settler colonial paradigm and to outline its potential to inform and guide political strategy and mobilization.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is often described as unique and exceptional with little resemblance to other historical or ongoing colonial conflicts. Yet, for Zionism, like other settler colonial projects such as the British colonization of Ireland or European settlement of North America, South Africa or Australia, the imperative is to control the land and its resources -- and to displace the original inhabitants. Indeed, as conference keynote speaker Patrick Wolfe, one of the foremost scholars on settler colonialism and professor at La Trobe University in Victoria, Australia, argues, "the logic of this project, a sustained institutional tendency to eliminate the Indigenous population, informs a range of historical practices that might otherwise appear distinct--invasion is a structure not an event."[i]

Therefore, the classification of the Zionist movement as a settler colonial project, and the Israeli state as its manifestation, is not merely intended as a statement on the historical origins of Israel, nor as a rhetorical or polemical device. Rather, the aim is to highlight Zionism`s structural continuities and the ideology which informs Israeli policies and practices in Palestine and toward Palestinians everywhere. Thus, the Nakba -- whether viewed as a spontaneous, violent episode in war, or the implementation of a preconceived master plan -- should be understood as both the precondition for the creation of Israel and the logical outcome of Zionist settlement in Palestine.

Moreover, it is this same logic that sustains the continuation of the Nakba today. As remarked by Benny Morris, “had he [David Ben Gurion] carried out full expulsion--rather than partial--he would have stabilised the State of Israel for generations.”[ii] Yet, plagued by an “instability”--defined by the very existence of the Palestinian nation--Israel continues its daily state practices in its quest to fulfill Zionism’s logic to maximize the amount of land under its control with the minimum number of Palestinians on it. These practices take a painful array of manifestations: aerial and maritime bombardment, massacre and invasion, house demolitions, land theft, identity card confiscation, racist laws and loyalty tests, the wall, the siege on Gaza, cultural appropriation, and the dependence on willing (or unwilling) native collaboration and security arrangements, all with the continued support and backing of imperial power. 

Despite these enduring practices however, the settler colonial paradigm has largely fallen into disuse. As a paradigm, it once served as a primary ideological and political framework for all Palestinian political factions and trends, and informed the intellectual work of committed academics and revolutionary scholars, both Palestinians and Jews.

The conference thus asks where and why the settler colonial paradigm was lost, both in scholarship on Palestine and in politics; how do current analyses and theoretical trends that have arisen in its place address present and historical realities? While acknowledging the creativity of these new interpretations, we must nonetheless ask: when exactly did Palestinian natives find themselves in a "post-colonial" condition? When did the ongoing struggle over land become a "post-conflict" situation? When did Israel become a "post-Zionist" society? And when did the fortification of Palestinian ghettos and reservations become "state-building"?

In outlining settler colonialism as a central paradigm from which to understand Palestine, this conference re-invigorates it as a tool by which to analyze the present situation. In doing so, it contests solutions which accommodate Zionism, and more significantly, builds settler colonialism as a political analysis that can embolden and inform a strategy of active, mutual, and principled Palestinian alignment with the Arab struggle for self-determination, and indigenous struggles in the US, Latin America, Oceania, and elsewhere.

Such an alignment would expand the tools available to Palestinians and their solidarity movement, and reconnect the struggle to its own history of anti-colonial internationalism. At its core, this internationalism asserts that the Palestinian struggle against Zionist settler colonialism can only be won when it is embedded within, and empowered by, the broader Arab movement for emancipation and the indigenous, anti-racist and anti-colonial movement--from Arizona to Auckland.

SOAS Palestine Society invites everyone to join us at what promises to be a significant intervention in Palestine activism and scholarship.

For over 30 years, SOAS Palestine Society has heightened awareness and understanding of the Palestinian people, their rights, culture, and struggle for self-determination, amongst students, faculty, staff, and the broader public. SOAS Palestine society aims to continuously push the frontiers of discourse in an effort to make provocative arguments and to stimulate debate and organizing for justice in Palestine through relevant conferences, and events ranging from the intellectual and political impact of Edward Said`s life and work (2004), international law and the Palestine question (2005), the economy of Palestine and its occupation (2006), the one state (2007), 60 Years of Nakba, 60 Years of Resistance (2009), and most recently, the Left in Palestine (2010).

For more information on the SOAS Palestine Society 7th annual conference, Past is Present: Settler Colonialism in Palestine: www.soaspalsoc.org

SOAS Palestine Society Organizing Collective is a group of committed students that has undertaken to organize annual academic conferences on Palestine since 2003.

 

[i] Patrick Wolfe, Settler Colonialism and the Transformation of Anthropology: The Politics and Poetics of an Ethnographic Event, Cassell, London, p. 163

[ii] Interview with Benny Morris, Survival of the Fittest, Haaretz, 9. January 2004, http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/php/art.php?aid=5412