Col DPK Pillay
THE ongoing conflict in Gaza vividly illustrates a tragic display of humanitarian law violations perpetrated by both Hamas and Israel, exposing the inadequacies of international humanitarian law in restraining atrocities and steering the conflict towards continuous destruction.
As Carl von Clausewitz presciently warned, “The fact that slaughter is a horrifying spectacle must make us take war more seriously,” emphasising the severity of conflicts. Despite the tireless efforts of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the custodian of international humanitarian law (IHL), to establish boundaries in warfare, these regulations have struggled to alleviate civilian suffering effectively.
In the rubble-strewn streets of Gaza, the international humanitarian law framework comes under scrutiny as it grapples with its dilemma of inadequately curbing violence and suffering, inadvertently perpetuating devastation while failing to achieve its primary goal of fostering lasting peace. The foundational pillars of IHL, the United Nations and other multilateral agencies, have exhibited a lack of efficacy in halting bloodshed, mirroring a sense of impotence in the face of ongoing violence.
The densely populated urban landscapes of Gaza and the West Bank, combined with the power asymmetry between the Israeli military and Palestinian armed groups, complicate efforts to minimise civilian casualties. The humanitarian paradox lies in the inherent tension between upholding moral ideals and grappling with military realities. The breach of ethical norms by Hamas during a music festival, which targeted civilians and violated the laws of war, sent shockwaves globally. In response, Israel’s actions, though equally forceful, underscore the deepseated brutality of modern warfare.
Formidable challenge
Despite Israel’s professed commitment to adhere to IHL, its military operations often draw censure for undue force and inadequate measures to safeguard civilians. A recurring theme in this conflict is the exploitation of civilian areas by militant groups to launch attacks on Israel. Hamas habitually embeds fighters and weaponry within densely populated civilian or protected zones, posing a formidable challenge for the Israeli military to target combatants without risking civilian lives. This tactic not only endangers innocent civilians but also complicates the application of humanitarian principles in the conflict zone.
Distinction blurred
Another critical obstacle is the susceptibility of humanitarian rhetoric to manipulation for geopolitical gain, blurring the distinction between just and unjust wars. The strategic use of humanitarian discourse to legitimise military interventions has been a notable facet of post-Cold War international relations, evident in doctrines like democracy promotion and the responsibility to protect. However, these doctrines have faced criticism for potentially serving as justifications for geopolitical agendas.
The tumultuous events of the 1971 Bangladesh crisis serve as a poignant example where India’s pivotal role in the hosting the refugees of East Pakistan faced condemnation and resistance from Western powers. Despite the humanitarian crisis necessitating action to curb genocide and address the influx of refugees, the United States, several European countries and China sided with Pakistan. This episode underscores the selectivity in interventionist justice and the sway of geopolitical interests in such determinations.
Safeguarding against the legitimation of terrorism through appeasing terror groups is imperative. The conflict in Gaza epitomies a significant challenge in conflict resolution – the peril of unwittingly sanctioning violent actions through appeasement. Tackling this challenge demands a reassessment of strategies to forestall the legitimisation of terror tactics, while fostering effective pathways towards reconciliation and sustainable peace through dialogue and negotiation.
Understanding the intersection of humanitarian law and conflict resolution is crucial, requiring a balanced approach that addresses both short-term humanitarian needs and long-term peace-building efforts to achieve sustainable peace in the region. In assessing the complex dynamics of the conflict in Gaza, it is essential to consider the historical grievances and power imbalances that underpin the hostilities.
Humanity in war
The paramount goal should be “peace among states, not humanity within their wars.” as noted jurist Moyn says. It is essential to prioritise peace and conflict resolution over prolonging conflicts through superficial veneers of humanity. With the complexity of modern conflicts, a comprehensive approach that addresses the underlying causes and fosters enduring peace is essential.
