Novara FM: Can International Law Protect Gaza? w/ Rob Knox
Feb 15, 2024
auto_awesome
Legal scholar Rob Knox joins to discuss the logic and limitations of international law in protecting Gaza. Topics include the legality of war, the language of humanitarianism, the historical ties of international law to capitalism and colonialism, and the limitations of using courts for justice.
The Israeli state constructs legal justifications for its military actions in Gaza, relying on concepts such as dual-use targets and human shields, despite evidence of civilian casualties.
International law, while attempting to regulate warfare, often prioritizes the interests of states and fails to address the broader historical and social context of conflicts involving colonialism and occupation.
The ambiguity and subjectivity of legal arguments surrounding war crimes make it difficult to assert and prove them, hindering the pursuit of justice and obscuring the moral and political dimensions of conflicts.
Deep dives
The Ambiguity of Israeli Military Actions in Gaza
The Israeli state's use of military force in Gaza raises questions about how it justifies its actions under international law. The Israeli state constructs arguments around military necessity and the presence of Hamas, which it claims uses civilian populations as human shields. It presents unconvincing justifications for minimizing civilian casualties but continues to engage in attacks on civilians. This pattern repeats itself, often displacing people into new areas that are subsequently bombed again. Recent mobilization and pressure on political actors have led to some criticism of Israeli actions, but the legal arguments adopted by the Israeli state also legitimize its violence. The Israeli state's legal justifications rely on concepts such as dual-use targets and human shields, allowing it to target locations where civilians are present. This ambiguity in the framing of Hamas and the use of justification tactics raises questions about the legality and ethics of Israeli military actions in Gaza.
The Limitations and Complexities of International Law
International law, as a decentralized legal system, governs relationships between sovereign states and relies on treaties and custom. Its development is intertwined with capitalism, imperialism, and practices of racialization. While international law attempts to regulate warfare and limit the use of force, it often prioritizes the interests and continued existence of states. Legal justifications for military actions can be complex and contested, such as arguments of self-defense and proportionality. However, relying solely on legal frameworks may not adequately capture the social, political, and moral complexities of conflicts, particularly those involving colonialism, occupation, and resistance. Legal arguments can perpetuate unequal power dynamics and fail to address the broader historical and social context in which conflicts arise.
The Challenges of Defining and Proving War Crimes
The legal framework surrounding war crimes is often insufficient in addressing the realities of conflicts, such as the situation in Gaza. The interpretation of concepts like military necessity and proportionality can lead to legal justifications of violence against civilians. The ambiguities and subjectivities of these legal arguments make it difficult to assert and prove war crimes. State actors often use legal justifications to obfuscate their actions and shape their narratives in conflict zones. The Israeli state, for example, employs legal tactics to cast its targets as dual-use objects and to shift responsibility onto non-state actors. The complexities of legal language and the burden of proof can hinder the pursuit of justice and obscures the broader moral and political dimensions of conflicts.
The Ambivalent Treatment of Hamas and the Challenges of Negotiating
The Israeli state strategically presents Hamas as both a non-state actor and a military force to suit its aims. By denying Hamas statehood while treating it as a belligerent party, the Israeli state seeks to legitimize its use of force and delegitimize Hamas as a negotiation partner. The tactic of portraying Hamas as both everywhere and nowhere creates a blurred distinction between civilian and military targets. This is reinforced through the human shield argument, blaming Hamas for civilian casualties due to its alleged use of civilians as shields. The Israeli state's approach hampers meaningful negotiations and reinforces an asymmetrical power dynamic where the Israeli state seeks to eradicate Hamas while expecting them to negotiate under threat.
Importance of Ambiguity in Israeli State's Actions
The podcast episode discusses how the ambiguity surrounding the Israeli state's actions in Palestine serves its interests. By maintaining a liminal and ambivalent state, the Israeli government can shape interpretations of its actions and evade accusations of occupation. It has employed strategies, such as the pullout from Gaza, to create an impression of not being an occupying power. This deliberate ambiguity allows the Israeli state to manipulate legal arguments and pursue its agenda in the region.
The Problematic Language of Humanitarianism
The podcast explores the problematic nature of using humanitarian language in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The speaker emphasizes that framing the situation as a humanitarian crisis can depoliticize the issue and neglect the underlying political realities. The Israeli state often highlights the humanitarian aid it provides as a way to deflect attention from its broader actions and policies. In this regard, invoking the language of humanitarianism can obscure the power dynamics at play and reduce the agency of the Palestinians. Instead, the speaker suggests critically examining the motives and consequences of humanitarian discourse.
As Israel extends its bombardment of Gaza into Rafah – a supposed safe zone where 1.7 million Palestinians are seeking refuge – the limits of the “laws” of war seem horribly apparent. Following South Africa’s case against Israel at the ICJ last month, legal scholar Rob Knox joins Eleanor Penny to offer an urgent account of […]
Get the Snipd podcast app
Unlock the knowledge in podcasts with the podcast player of the future.
AI-powered podcast player
Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features
Discover highlights
Listen to the best highlights from the podcasts you love and dive into the full episode
Save any moment
Hear something you like? Tap your headphones to save it with AI-generated key takeaways
Share & Export
Send highlights to Twitter, WhatsApp or export them to Notion, Readwise & more
AI-powered podcast player
Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features
Discover highlights
Listen to the best highlights from the podcasts you love and dive into the full episode
