What
Exactly Is An "Existential"
Threat, Mr. Olmert?
By Am Johal
31 July 2006
Countercurrents.org
Israeli
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, by declaring the attack on Lebanon as an
"existential" one, set forth a dangerous series of events
which will only serve to do long-term damage to Israel. It was an overstep
and overreaction which will have profound and deep consequences in the
years to come.
It will also bolster the
case of churches, labour unions and human rights organizations which
are calling for a divestment and sanctions campaign against Israel in
an attempt to force the state to change its policies related to the
occupation.
"Existential" threats
do not absolve Israel of the responsibility to comply with international
law. Carrying out these kinds of policies is clearly an 'existential'
threat to innocent civilians.
Israel has normalized its
behaviour patterns and has created a mainstream public which passively
supports these policies in the name of security. This disconnection
between citizens and state is one of the reasons Israel can justify
violations of human rights and international law to a domestic audience.
The Israeli public, by not speaking out against the state's policies,
are passively sanctioning the actions of the state's institutions including
the military.
There are myriad examples
of the misuses of state power. According to Reporters Without Borders,
"Israel has for years pursued a policy of assassinating its political
opponents. Because extrajudicial executions are universally condemned,
most governments who practice assassinations surround such actions in
secrecy and deny carrying out the killings they may have ordered. Although
the Israeli government prefers to talk about 'targeted killings' and
'preventive actions' (or 'pinpointed preventive actions') rather than
'extrajudicial executions', members of the Israeli government have confirmed
that such killings are a deliberate government policy carried out under
government orders.(?)."
Reporters Without Borders
has added that "the extrajudicial killings carried out by Israel
constitute 'wilful killings' which constitute a 'grave breach' of the
Fourth Geneva Convention (Article 147) to which Israel is a High Contracting
Party. The comprehensive list of war crimes set out in article 8 of
the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court includes grave
breaches of the Geneva Conventions." Additionally, through the
process of carrying out assassinations, Israel has also killed innocent
civilians.
Only a few months ago, Israeli
political leaders were openly talking about killing Ismail Haniyeh,
the democratically elected Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority,
in the mainstream Israeli press without any criticism by established
political leaders. Where else in the world is this normal public discourse?
Certainly, Hamas should also
be investigated for war crimes for its role in violence which crossed
the line of resistance activities and resulted in the loss of life of
innocent civilians since the nineties related to suicide bombings. In
short, people deserve the rule of law to be established even within
the context of a conflict environment.
Israeli political messaging
and public relations which justify such actions as the bombardment of
Lebanon is an act of violence. "Existential" threats do not
absolve Israel of the responsibility they must bear for their actions.
Israeli citizens who don't hold their government to account for such
violations of international law are inadvertently supporting collaboration
with illegitimate forms of violence which are clearly documented.
The European Union, by not
utilizing the human rights components of their trading relationship
with Israel, is passively endorsing Israeli policy. The US, by funding
and resourcing Israel's military, is partially responsible for the actions
of the state and the harm it does to innocent civilians.
Israel is a rogue, Frankenstein
state supported and maintained by the US and Europe. By supporting Israeli
policies for the purposes of achieving regional objectives, the US and
the European Union support the war crimes of its Israeli ally. It is
in the Western orbit, and as such, needs to be reined in by its supporters.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may be a destabilizing force in the Middle East,
but denying the horrible effects of the Israeli state is highly disengenuous.
The Israeli government has
also consistently followed the principles of collective punishment not
only during the present conflict, but throughout the occupation. Under
Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, it reads, "No protected
person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed.
Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of
terrorism are prohibited (...). Reprisals against protected persons
and their property are prohibited."
The principle of proportionality
in international law is complex. Determining excessive injury and damage
in relation to the 'military advantage anticipated' is something that
needs to be investigated by the UN.
Public statements from Louise
Arbour are good, but not good enough. The hypocrisy and complicity of
the UN since the signing of the Oslo Accords and its failure to respond
effectively to violations of human rights is a profoundly embarrassing
example of the ineffectiveness, arbitrariness and bias of the present
configuration of the international system.
International law also has
language distinguishing between legitimate targets and civilians who
are not participating in the battlefield. Dropping leaflets is not sufficient
warning to justify the use of force in civilian areas. This too must
be investigated as quickly as possible.
The failure to call and implement
a ceasefire for the purposes of giving Israel strategic and tactical
advantages in the current conflict was also emblematic of the racist
lens by which Western countries view international relations. They essentially
gave Israel the green light to continue bombardment in Lebanon knowing
full well that innocent civilians would inordinately pay the highest
price.
The use of official language,
how things are said, how they are interpreted, has the power to kill,
maim, destroy and illegitimately sanction immoral acts ? every day in
Israel is a grave act of distortion.
The International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights in article 6(1) states, "Every human
being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected
by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life."
Unfortunately, government
spokespeople and mainstream media create a language which justifies
actions of militaries and militia groups and assigns the principles
of proportionality for us. By broadcasting this view of the conflict,
they dehumanize the victims and render the principles of international
law illegitimate. War becomes a game. We all become barbarians.
It is important to note,
however, that the law of armed conflict does not override other aspects
of international law.
Israel has in the past and
is still currently utilizing interrogation techniques including the
use of sleep deprivation, prolonged tying, shackling to a chair in painful
positions, the use of beating, slapping and kicking during an interrogation,
forcing detainees in to a the 'qambaz' position, exposure to articial
light and by not allowing communication with family members.
The Palestinian Authority
and groups connected with it, have also utilized similar means and methods
to execute collaborators. The Public Committee Against Torture estimates
that dozens of Palestinians are mistreated every month by Israeli security
officials.
Socio-economic discrimination
and differential treatment of Arab citizens of Israel is also well-documented.
The chill which has entered
Israeli life has also now even immersed deeper in to domestic dissent.
The past few weeks have seen dozens of non-violent protestors arrested,
aggressively pushed and detained for simply questioning Israeli policy
in Lebanon. Security officials have attacked protestors without provocation.
Israel is the clearest example of a state where security matters precede
the importance of human rights.
The Israeli state is letting
its critics know that they will pay a high price for raising important
questions and attempting to exercise their basic, democratic rights.
Criminalizing legitimate dissent is a dangerous road for any state to
put in to practise.
It induces a kind of trauma
where people spend their whole lives getting even.
Am Johal is a freelance writer from Vancouver, Canada
who worked during 2004 in international advocacy with the Mossawa Center,
the Advocacy Center for Arab Citizens of Israel