The horrific events of the past year in the Middle East, their epicentre in the Gaza Strip and rippling outwards to Israel, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and now Iran oblige us to reassess who in future most deserves to be remembered and honoured. It cannot be a soldier. These are not noble wars that are being fought. Instead, it should be the Unknown Civilian.
He or she – more often than not a woman or child – lies buried under the rubble of Gaza or Beirut, the victim of an algorithm feeding today’s AI-driven, military targeting systems which disproportionately affect civilians trying to escape the carnage. Ironically however, unlike the Unknown Soldier, she died in her own home in a war not of her own choice.
In place of a red poppy, let’s wear a white lily in her memory.
That unthinking algorithm never heard of the Geneva Conventions nor the principles in international humanitarian law of proportionality or discrimination designed to protect civilian life in times of warfare. Worse, though, is the fact that the human beings behind the killing machines evidently do not care how many civilians are being killed as they try to reach a suspected enemy fighter.
That same casual disregard for established norms of warfare has been witnessed time and again during the fighting on the ground in Gaza. It has also been evident in the mistreatment of thousands of Palestinian prisoners and abductees, many of whom have suffered torture or died in detention, as well as in the denial of access to them by the ICRC or other independent observers.
In case of doubt, I do not refer only to the IDF’s lack of restraint on the several fronts it is fighting on today. The same applies to Russia’s conduct of operations in Ukraine and to the foreign-backed civil war in Sudan, where countless civilians have been the victims. We at the Balfour Project also make no excuses for Hamas’ taking of civilian hostages. They must return home – but assassinating Hamas’ chief negotiator is not the way.
Contemplating the relentless daily rise in Gaza’s casualty toll, to levels that shock the most seasoned of humanitarian workers and diplomats, it should be clear to all by now that accountability will not be found within Israel’s civilian or military legal systems. And if there is no accountability, what we are witnessing today will become normalised, to be repeated time and again in future wars. If Israel, the darling of the West, can get away with it then so can we will be the refrain on the lips of leaders everywhere.
Hence the irrefutable case for those concerned with upholding the rule of law, notably the Starmer government, to back to the hilt the agreed mechanisms of international justice and not to obstruct their work or apply pressure behind-the-scenes to protect Israel. Unlike its predecessor, the government has made modest progress in this regard. Much more remains to be done if it is to live up to its declared policies.
If there is one good thing to have come out of the past year, it has been the reassertion of the applicability of international law and global acceptance of the need to enforce it in an even-handed, not selective, fashion. The Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice, which declared the occupation illegal and called on Israel to end it as rapidly as possible, while insisting that third party states such as the UK take concrete measures to prevent its continuation, was a landmark moment. Israel cannot be allowed to be above the law.
Whether the Advisory Opinion will have practical import remains to be seen. Much will depend on policies that need to be adopted in the coming months by the UK and others. An early sign of equivocation on the part of the Starmer government was its decision to abstain in the UN General Assembly’s vote on 18 September on a resolution that incorporated the ICJ’s findings. Dame Barbara Woodward, the UK Permanent Representative to the UN, said this was because “the resolution does not provide sufficient clarity to effectively advance our shared aim of a peace premised on a negotiated two-state solution…” Her contorted explanation flew in the face of the absence of any prospect of a peace process and the refusal of the Netanyahu government to consider a Palestinian state.
That is why UK Government recognition of the State of Palestine matters, as a step towards Palestinian self-determination. It is far more than a gesture – if it were just a gesture it would have been made long ago – and it is anathema to Netanyahu. If the UK moves, so will France, our permanent partner on the UN Security Council. That is where the Occupation needs to be addressed, in line with the ICJ Opinion. There is a glimmer of hope that the Security Council will do so, later this year.
In common with millions of others, many of whom were shaken by the Hamas attacks of 7th October, the seizure of Israeli hostages and the subsequent assault on Gaza, which has turned it into a wasteland and displaced some two million people, for us at the Balfour Project the past year has been a painful one.
When so much empathy and kindness was extended to Ukrainian refugees in Britain, by politicians and ordinary people alike, it has been incomprehensible that our government has not extended the same generosity to Palestinians fleeing Gaza, many of whom have close family ties to the UK. Why have no family reunification schemes or emergency programmes to help badly injured or orphaned Gazan children been put in place? There is still time for the new Labour government to break with Sunak’s policies and do the right thing. The political costs would be low, and the goodwill earned great.
Another sign of a break with the alignment with Netanyahu that characterised past policies towards the conflict would be to revoke the 2030 roadmap for UK-Israel bilateral relations. This had pledged closer cooperation in many fields while dismissing the Palestinians as merely deserving of better living standards. No mention of rights there. Britain’s ongoing support for Israel’s campaigns in the OPT and Lebanon, which extends beyond the provision of arms into intelligence and logistical cooperation, needs to end.
One explanation for the timidity being shown so far in London towards the Netanyahu government could be uncertainty over the outcome of the US elections on 5th November. If Trump wins and resumes his previous love affair with the Israeli right, allowing de jure annexation of much of the West Bank to go ahead, in the process definitively blowing up the two-state solution, Starmer and Lammy will face a stark dilemma.
What will happen then to the talk of a negotiated peace? Might the UK switch to a rights-based narrative and call for equal rights for all in the land controlled by Israel, including Gaza, today? The Balfour Project certainly hopes so. Such a declaration might give pause for serious thought to many in Israel over whether their “let’s-have-our-cake-and-eat-it” approach to the Palestinian question is really in their long-term interests.
Andrew Whitley
Chair, the Balfour Project