Blog#184- 12/23/23
INTERNATIONAL LAW IS MEANINGLESS
By Richard Davis
The two major wars being fought in the world make it clear that no matter what kind of rules governing warfare are in place, there is no way to enforce them. Russia, Ukraine, Israel and Hamas are running roughshod over civilian populations, defying basic humanitarian principles while the rest of the world can only use words to slow them down.
It is worth looking at some of the pieces of the Geneva Convention as noted by the United Nations. These are prohibited: willful killing; torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments; willfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health; extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly; compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile power; willfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial; unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement; taking of hostages; intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities; intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives; intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict; intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated.
It is clear that all sides in both conflicts have violated almost all of the prohibitions in the Geneva Convention as well as other documents that prohibit certain wartime activities. The Israel-Hamas conflict feels closer to home for me and watching it unfold in the media minute by minute is sickening.
When the war first started I felt that Israel had a justified reason for trying to wipe out Hamas. The initial Hamas attack was a horrendous act of violence. But as the war has progressed it has become clear that those in control in Israel are motivated more by revenge than by actually carrying out a war against Hamas and freeing the hostages.
A large number of Israelis are holding protest vigils in their country to criticize the government and military for not working harder to free the hostages. The rest of the world is moving away from support for Israel because it is clear that their response is not proportional to the situation.
To date, more than 20,000 Palestinians have been killed and it is estimated that about 50,000 have been injured. Israel lost 1200 people on October 7 and 139 Israeli soldiers have been killed and 6184 Israelis have been injured. The total number of remaining hostages is 129 and 110 have been released.
Much of Gaza is in ruins and innocent people are dying because they live in a country that chose to have a terrorist organization control their government. I still believe that Israel needs to destroy Hamas, but they need to develop new tactics that do not include killing innocent people.
If Israel continues its current war plan they will eventually lose support and funding from much of the rest of the world. They need to take a long pause even if it allows Hamas to regroup. The Palestinian people need a chance to get their lives back and both sides need to find a way to sit down and talk.
As things stand now, both sides are using weapons of mass destruction to make their case. Israel has a lot more firepower and they, as well as Hamas, need to be made accountable to the international community today, not tomorrow, because every minute that passes means that more Israelis and Palestinians will die.
Concomitant
Also worth asking if the noble principles outlined in the International Declaration of Human Rights have become threatened to the point of disappearance
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
Let's start with Article 1
“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”
That first sentence seems aspirational to me. The amount of money your parents have seems to be the dividing line.
The second sentence I agree with, but we can see that some people are clearly not acting in a spirit of brotherhood. But they SHOULD. Just as it takes fewer muscles to smile than frown, it is easier to get along than to battle.
From my POV, Article 1 is threatened. The inequalities set up at birth (and the lack of dignity and rights later on in life) impact enough people to make it difficult for brotherhood and keeps us from currently attaining Article 1. Someone always has more, and someone always is trying to keep someone else down.
Buddy System
The entire document is aspirational. It states clearly in the second paragraph of the preamble “… barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind…”
Since, as far as I know, there is no physiological basis for conscience, it follows that the whole structure of benevolent society is based on good faith. And there are so many ways to undermine that. Also, it only takes a few people and compliant collusion to obliterate the workings of “the commons”
Until the major mass of humanity exerts our leverage and affirms -“not today, not on our watch” the goals of human rights will be elusive. We will be, at best, fighting to keep our heads above water in dangerous swirling rapids.
Clap harder
I should have said ‘remains’ aspirational decades later. Of course when this was written it was all hopeful. : )
Article 2:
“Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.”
We aren’t doing very well, are we? We LOVE making distinctions based on the country someone came from – you are from country XYZ? Then you have stay away/live in a detainee camp/be oppressed/have your stuff taken/etc. Heck, distinctions based on where people are from is a major aspect of our current US and world political party platforms.