Who Makes the Rules, Who Plays by Them: Politicization of Warfare . Today's example of Israeli Forces Raid Attack on Jenin Camp in Palestine
The UN recently published its annual report on children and armed conflict, which lists the state and non-state parties that are responsible for grave violations against children in 19 situations around the world. However, the report did not include Israeli forces and Palestinian armed groups, despite verifying 3,133 grave violations in 2022 and warning that they should be listed in 2023 without meaningful improvement[1]. This omission has been criticized by human rights organizations as a sign of double standards and political pressure, as other parties that committed fewer or similar violations were listed, such as the Russian Federation, Haiti, Niger, M23, ISGS and Myanmar Armed Forces[2]. The UN report is supposed to be based on objective criteria and verified information, not on political considerations or selective accountability. By failing to list all parties that violate children’s rights, the UN undermines its own credibility and the protection of children in armed conflict.
On 3rd of July 2023, Israeli forces launched a large-scale and brutal assault on Jenin refugee camp, a crowded and impoverished area where civilians live. The attack killed at least nine Palestinians and wounded many more. The Israeli army said it was aiming at a "terror squad" of the Islamic Jihad group, but it also caused extensive damage to houses, roads, schools and medical facilities in the camp. The raid was part of a series of escalating violence in the West Bank, where Israeli forces have used drones, missiles and helicopters to attack Palestinian fighters and civilians. (BBC News What's happening in Jenin in 60 seconds )
Expressing "concern" and urging "restraint" by both sides, without explicitly condemning the attack is just not enough and in other word is just another failure in protecting civilians and children in conflict.
Cracks in the rules of war are widespread open, and visible to everyone. IHL have stepped out of expert circles and have fully entered the public domain, which has meant, however, an increased risk of politicized interpretations and implementation of its rules.
An International Review of the International Red Cross clearly analyses how States have, on occasion, denied the applicability of IHL to certain situations even though the facts on the ground clearly indicated that an armed conflict was taking place. In other instances, States have attempted to broaden the scope of application of IHL to include situations that could not, based on the facts, be classified as armed conflicts. Also, apart from controversies over the issue of how to qualify a situation of violence in legal terms, there have also been what can only be called opportunistic misinterpretations of certain time-tested, specific legal rules. The tendency by some actors to point to alleged violations by others, without showing any willingness to acknowledge ongoing violations of their own, has also been detrimental to the proper application of the law.
What yet should be the focus of the debate is that the politicization of IHL defeats the very purpose of this body of rules: civilians, children and certain categories of individuals must be spared the effects of violence as far as possible regardless of the side to which they happen to belong and regardless of the justification given for armed conflict in the first place.
How to break the deadly cycle of violence and war? Who makes the rules and who plays by the rules?
Law is anyhow one among many tools used to regulate human behaviour and no branch of law, whether international or domestic, can – on its own – be expected to completely regulate a phenomenon as complex as violence. Political, economic, societal, cultural, and other factors that influence human conduct, at all levels, must also be considered when contemplating comprehensive solutions to any form of violence.
In fact, the failure of international community stands as well in not addressing the perception of war, and why there is no longer a distinction between civilians and combatants, whether you are a child, an elderly or disabled, as if everyone for some reasons is perceived in support, in being affiliated or associated with the active warring party.
So, again, who makes the rules and who plays by them?
Comentarios