Israel-Hamas:International Law Unravelled Amidst Global Perceptions

The Middle East has long been a region of significant influence for the United States, with Israel receiving substantial military aid, making it a key player in the region. However, the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict remains a complex issue that has defied resolution for decades. The root causes of this conflict are deeply embedded, and its resolution has been hindered by disagreements over the establishment of a Palestinian state and Israel's approach towards Palestinian territories.

One of the challenges in discussing this matter is the immediate accusation of anti-Semitism against those critical of Israel's policies. It is crucial to distinguish between legitimate criticism of a nation's policies and actions and the condemnation of an entire people or their right to exist. Criticism of Israel should not be conflated with support for neo-Nazi or right-wing anti-Semitic groups in Western countries.

Recent events have escalated into violence, particularly when Hamas launched a surprise attack with thousands of rockets fired at Israeli cities. This attack resulted in a range of tragic consequences, including loss of life and widespread fear. In examining these events, it is essential to assess whether such actions by Hamas have garnered more global attention and condemnation compared to Israel's past actions in the conflict.

In 2021, Israel conducted military operations that involved the firing of thousands of rockets into Palestinian territories, leading to significant civilian casualties. These actions, like the recent Hamas attacks, raised concerns about violations of international law, particularly in relation to the protection of civilians during armed conflicts.

When assessing the scale and impact of these actions, it is crucial to recognise that both sides have been responsible for violations of international law. These violations include indiscriminate attacks on civilians, disproportionate use of force, and the targeting of civilian infrastructure. International humanitarian law, as outlined in the Geneva Conventions, is clear in its provisions for the protection of civilians during armed conflicts. Violations of these provisions are not exclusive to one party in the Israel-Palestine conflict.

While it is essential to hold all parties accountable for their actions, the world's attention often seems to be disproportionately focused on certain events. The recent Hamas rocket attacks have indeed garnered significant global attention, with condemnation from various quarters. However, it is worth examining whether these actions are perceived as more egregious than previous Israeli military operations.

The perception of severity often depends on factors such as the scale of the attack, the number of casualties, and the broader geopolitical context. The recent Hamas rocket attacks, while causing distressing loss of life and property damage, may be seen as particularly alarming due to the suddenness and scale of the attack.

However, it is essential to acknowledge that Israel's military operations, especially those involving airstrikes in densely populated Palestinian areas, have also caused extensive suffering and loss of life.

When scrutinising the events within the Israel-Hamas conflict through the lens of international law, it becomes unequivocally clear that both sides have, at various points, transgressed fundamental principles deeply enshrined in the fabric of international humanitarian law. Two such pivotal principles are proportionality and distinction, which are instrumental in mitigating the impact of armed conflicts on innocent civilians. These principles underscore the imperative to balance military objectives with the potential harm to non-combatants and civilian infrastructure.

Proportionality, as stipulated in international law, necessitates that the expected collateral damage to civilians and civilian objects must not be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage. In essence, it underscores the imperative for parties involved to carefully weigh the potential harm to civilians against the military sought. This principle serves as a critical safeguard to minimise the tragic consequences of conflict on civilian populations.

Distinction is another cornerstone of international humanitarian law that demands a clear demarcation between combatants and non-combatants. It underscores the obligation to spare civilians and civilian infrastructure from deliberate harm during armed conflicts. Parties must take all feasible precautions to prevent civilian casualties and damage to civilian objects.

Despite the clarity of these principles within international law, the Israel-Hamas conflict has seen instances where both sides have fallen short in their adherence. The use of indiscriminate attacks that put civilians at risk and the targeting of civilian infrastructure have regrettably been recurrent themes, leading to the loss of innocent lives and widespread suffering.

From a diplomatic perspective, these violations of international law present significant challenges to the pursuit of peaceful resolutions. Such transgressions can undermine the trust necessary for constructive dialogue and negotiations. International diplomatic efforts aimed at mediating the conflict must address these violations to ensure a credible path toward a lasting peace agreement.

Furthermore, these violations can trigger international condemnation and scrutiny. The international community often plays a pivotal role in exerting pressure on conflicting parties to abide by international law and engage in meaningful negotiations. Diplomacy should thus leverage these violations as leverage points for encouraging parties to come to the table with a genuine commitment to ending hostilities and resolving the underlying issues.

The question of whether Hamas's recent actions have garnered more global attention than previous Israeli operations is complex. It may be influenced by various factors, including media coverage, geopolitical interests, and the broader dynamics of the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Global Perceptions— The influence of media in shaping global perceptions of the Israel-Hamas conflict is undeniably significant. Media outlets play a central role in framing and presenting these events to the world, influencing public opinion in the process. The portrayal of these actions in the media holds the power to sway perceptions, necessitating a nuanced exploration of this influential role.

Media bias represents a pivotal aspect in this context. Both traditional and digital media outlets often grapple with challenges in delivering impartial reporting in such a complex and sensitive conflict. By scrutinising instances where media coverage has exhibited bias, whether deliberate or unintentional, we can gain insight into how narratives are constructed and how they are received by the audience.

Furthermore, considering the role of media in diplomacy and the rise of social media as a primary source of news dissemination adds layers of complexity to this influence. Analysing how media coverage impacts diplomatic efforts, potentially hindering or facilitating solutions, and exploring how social media platforms amplify particular narratives and opinions further deepen our understanding of this intricate relationship.

However, the sway of media in moulding global perspectives of the Israel-Hamas conflict is undeniable. Its potential for bias, its power to influence opinions through specific instances, and its role in diplomacy and social media all underscore the need for responsible and balanced reporting on this deeply sensitive and complex issue.

In the pursuit of justice and accountability in the Israel-Hamas conflict, it is essential to consider the powerful tools of economic sanctions and legal mechanisms at the disposal of the international community. These tools can serve as both deterrents and instruments for change, emphasising the significance of upholding international law.

Economic sanctions, when carefully calibrated and implemented, can be a potent means of influencing the behaviour of parties involved in the conflict. The international community has employed sanctions in various geopolitical contexts to pressure violators of international law. By imposing restrictions on trade, finance, and other economic activities, sanctions can create economic hardships that encourage compliance with international norms.

The prospect of economic sanctions serves as a compelling incentive for parties in the Israel-Hamas conflict to reconsider their actions and pursue diplomatic resolutions. Furthermore, the strategic targeting of sanctions can help minimise adverse impacts on innocent civilians, aligning with the principles of proportionality and distinction within international humanitarian law.

Beyond economic pressure, legal mechanisms offer a pathway to holding individuals and entities accountable for violations of international law. The International Criminal Court (ICC) stands as a prominent institution capable of investigating and prosecuting individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. Parties involved in the conflict could find themselves subject to ICC investigations if credible evidence of violations emerges.

Embracing legal mechanisms underscores the international community's commitment to justice and the rule of law. The possibility of facing legal consequences for grave violations of international law could deter future transgressions and encourage a more constructive approach to resolving the conflict.

While economic sanctions and legal mechanisms offer the potential for accountability, they should be wielded judiciously. Striking a balance between justice and diplomacy is crucial to ensure that punitive measures do not inadvertently obstruct the path to peaceful negotiations. The goal should ultimately be the resolution of the conflict, with accountability measures serving as a means to that end rather than an end in themselves.

Therefore, in exploring the potential of economic sanctions and legal mechanisms to hold violators of international law accountable adds a provocative dimension to the discussion of the Israel-Hamas conflict. It underscores the importance of adhering to international norms and raises questions about the role of the international community in ensuring justice while promoting lasting peace in a region fraught with complexities and historical tensions.

Overall, the Israel-Hamas conflict is a highly intricate issue that requires a comprehensive and nuanced approach. As we navigate the intricacies of this longstanding dispute, it is clear that both sides have, at various points, violated crucial principles of international humanitarian law, especially those concerning proportionality and distinction. Rectifying these transgressions is not just a legal obligation; it's a diplomatic imperative to build trust and facilitate meaningful negotiations.

As we contemplate, it is hard to underestimate the media's role in shaping global perceptions of this conflict. Responsible reporting is paramount to prevent further division and misinformation. The use of economic sanctions and legal mechanisms offers a potential avenue for holding those who violate international law accountable. However, their implementation must be carefully managed to ensure they support, rather than hinder, the path to peace. Ultimately, the international community must unwaveringly commit to addressing the root causes of the conflict, promoting diplomacy, and upholding the principles of international law. This, this steadfast dedication is crucial to breaking the cycle of violence and suffering that has persisted in the Middle East for far too long.

Prem Singh Gill is an Adjunct Lecturer at the Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University and Thammasat University