The Arab-Israeli conflict is a modern phenomenon, which has its roots in the end of the 19th century. The conflict became an major international issue with the birth of the Israel state in 1948. The Arab-Israeli conflict has resulted in at least 5 major wars and a number of major conflicts. It has also been the source of two major Palestinian intifadas (uprisings).
Here is a map of where the conflict continues today - Gaza!
As we analyse the Vietnam War, we will be called on to make decisions about the ethics of war, or whether they exist at all. One thing for certain is that the question over ethical or just warfare is not relegated to events of the past. Today the Arab-Israeli conflict continues as Palestinians in Gaza continue to feel oppressed by the continued expansion of the Israeli state (especially in the West Bank). Israel claims that the governing body in Gaza, Hamas, are terrorists that use civilians as human shields to fight for their independence against the expansion of Israel... and today in 2014 the conflict still continues - over 50 years since the birth of the Israel state in 1948.
Here is a map of where the conflict continues today - Gaza!
As we analyse the Vietnam War, we will be called on to make decisions about the ethics of war, or whether they exist at all. One thing for certain is that the question over ethical or just warfare is not relegated to events of the past. Today the Arab-Israeli conflict continues as Palestinians in Gaza continue to feel oppressed by the continued expansion of the Israeli state (especially in the West Bank). Israel claims that the governing body in Gaza, Hamas, are terrorists that use civilians as human shields to fight for their independence against the expansion of Israel... and today in 2014 the conflict still continues - over 50 years since the birth of the Israel state in 1948.
The UN Secretary General has stated that over 1000 people have been killed in the conflict, mostly women and children. Now listen to commentators from both sides of the conflict and draw your own conclusions on the ethical grounds on which Israel is waging war in Gaza. Both sides are accusing each other of committing war crimes. Can you conclude that one side has a stronger argument? Or, considering past study of historical events and considering these contemporary episodes, is there such a thing as a 'war crime' in events such as these where chaos prevails and rational actors seemingly do irrational things? Post your comments and thoughts below.
What is your position on the present conflict? Ideas? Comments? Questions?
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I believe that both Gaza and Israel are looking to blame each other but they continue to come back to the plate with someone even more harmful. It's childish to think that over 1000 people were killed just in this one attack on a supposed UN safe haven, and these ambassadors can sit there and give backhanded apologies (especially the Israeli ambassador) for the innocent civilians caught up in the firing line. The Palestinian ambassador saying "The tunnels were an act of self defense, it can all be abolished tomorrow" makes clear that this bloodshed is caused by very temporary terms, and seems an immature reaction to trying to negotiate protection of both nations. The term war crime seems irrelevant when both sides, especially Israel, are bombing shelters, which are provided by the world powers, intended on keeping these people seeking refuge safe. Overall, it's evident that the media has represented Gaza in the footage shown, all three videos shown focusing on the effect that the Israeli attack has had on a UN safe haven, and I especially back up this perspective because as the British reporter said, "even if there had been rockets hidden in this school, is this a justification for a direct hit?", and the answer to that is no. The people that were seeking REFUGE in that safe haven surely wouldn't have known about the weapons, if there were any.
DeleteI definitely agree with your last point Caitlin... there is no real justification for ordering a direct hit on civilians even within a war zone. Unfortunately, current world leaders prioritise pragmatic gains over humanitarian rights and morality. Well done Caitlin!
DeleteMy thoughts are more or less on the way the term 'war crime' is used, as my position on the current conflict in the Gaza Strip is still quite undecided.
ReplyDeleteThe term war crime, I believe is necessary (for human rights purposes), but has very little meaning currently. This is because I believe the term war crime is used selectively and wartime criminals are therefore persecuted selectively. In the very long history of war crimes that have occurred within the last 100 years, very few people have been trialed/ persecuted for their crimes (the most prominent ones that have include various people from Germany, Japan, Bosnia, Libya, Sudan and Uganda) However, there are many wartime criminals who have gone unpunished or simply been 'condemned' for their actions and no punishment or trial has been carried out (e.g. USA, United Kingdom, France, China this list could go on forever) The term War Crime is more or less used as a tool to distinguish the 'good' and 'evil' in each war, and who the 'enemy' is. In conclusion, the use and application of the word war crime carries very little meaning, and will not have any until selective recognition and punishment ends, and all war criminals are brought to the stand.
You make an interesting point Lillie, debating the semantics around the definition of a war crime...The Statute of the International Criminal Court defines war crimes as, “serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict” and “serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in an armed conflict not of an international character”. Furthermore, it goes on to list some examples that constitute war crimes. These are but a few:
Delete(i) The conduct endangers protected persons or objects. Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions:
In the case of an international armed conflict, any of the following acts committed against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:
• wilful killing;
• torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;
• wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health;
• extensive destruction or 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;
• wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of a fair and regular trial;
• unlawful deportation or transfer;
• unlawful confinement;
• taking of hostages...
(ii) Other serious violations of international humanitarian law committed during an international armed conflict (continued):
• making the civilian population or individual civilians, not taking a direct part in hostilities, the object of attack;
• launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated ...
Clearly from the evidence presented above, these aspects have been breached. But the definition is not used to distinguish between good and bad, so much as right and wrong in accordance with international law. Having said that, you are accurate in stating that not all 'war crimes' are judicially heard and acted upon; the problem over disproportionate allocation of power in the world! you make a good observation Lillie.
To be honest, it is hard to decide who has the 'better argument'. I believe both sides have committed horrible actions in what seems to be a very complex and heated dispute. Judging from these news items and other sources of news, it is hard to distinguish who is actually telling the truth and who isn't - and I think that is the problem here. The Israelis and the Palestinians don't have the ability to trust each other at all, and hence gives reason to why the many 'ceasefires' called are not being adhered to and why previous attempts at negotiations were unsuccessful. It is a shame that so many innocent people are dying because two nations cannot solve their many deep rooted issues with each other.
ReplyDeleteTruth and trust, a very insightful observation! These terms are key to any resolution to this dispute Cassie, well done. Unfortunately, both sides are blinded by rage and distrust. However, what might be the course of the dispute if one of either sides decided to trust and tell the truth from here on in?
DeleteI agree with Cassie opinion that it is hard to tell who is telling the truth and who isn't however both are to blame for the situation and it is sad that so many people have had to die in order to solve this feud. I do believe there is such things as war crimes however there are some acts that goes beyond the idea of war crimes and i don't believe that this act was simply an act in war.
ReplyDeleteWhat are the 'some acts that go beyond the idea of a war crime'? can you give an example and a historical context?
DeleteIt is really hard to determine which side has a 'stronger argument' as both sides have done the exact same thing. They both have comitted actions which has harmed the innocent but still continue to blame the other side. Even after watching these new reports and reading articles, there is no way (as Cassie has mentioned) to distinguish who is telling the truth and who is not. These disputes between the Israelis and the Palestinians that are happening and the disputes that have happened are causing difficulties for both sides to 'speak the truth'. No side wants to take that first step in fear of the actions of the other side. This mutual distrust is also causing communication issues when negotiating which can furthermore cause dispute/wars.
ReplyDelete