.png)
.png){kind=small}
By Rooan Al Kalmashi, 2023 Y20 Fellow
It was mid-August that I was sitting in a roundtable with young delegates from the G20 countries in Varanasi; discussing ways to facilitate global consensus on conflict prevention and peacebuilding. After sleepless nights, months of bilateral meetings and negotiations, a final Communique was signed and agreed to on 20 August 2023.
Against the backdrop of the Ukraine-Russia war, we called on G20 members and observers, both in the Global North and South, to declare that peacebuilding is a process that involves addressing root causes of conflict, deem all acts of terrorism as unjustified regardless of their motivation and perpetrator and most importantly – to heal wounds of the past.
Only 3 months later, I am compelled to reflect on these principles in the Communique under the shadow of the Israel-Palestine conflict, which weighed on my conscience long before Hamas’ attack on 7 October 2023. If activists of the 60s and their progeny made the personal political, it is certainly true that since mid-twentieth century, the political has been made personal for many young people in the Global South who have experienced both terror and the War on Terror.
We are navigating a growing global counterterrorism architecture that has been elevated over the humanitarian imperative. Though the humanitarian imperative embodies deeper and more principled moral ideas than International Humanitarian Law (IHL) – the principles are both based on normative commitments – civilians cannot legally be targets of violence or be disproportionately harmed by it. These obligations apply to all parties involved in armed conflict, even if one side has violated them.
The Israel-Palestine conflict is not just a political standoff; it is a complex web of historical grievances and a tragic history of violations of IHL for 75 years. The conditions of IHL Conventions and Protocols apply to the conflict between Israel, Palestine and Hamas. This includes Israel as a state and Hamas as a non-state actor in a non-international armed conflict. Several articles of IHL have been invoked in this context, pointing to a need for concrete action to hold parties accountable for their actions.
Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention is explicit in its prohibition of collective punishment. It states that "No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed." The Israeli government has implemented policies that have the effect of collective punishment. House demolitions, arbitrary arrests, strategic deprivation and targeted killings, primarily in the Gaza Strip, are evidence of such practices.
Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention is another critical component of IHL that cannot be ignored. It unequivocally forbids the transfer of an occupying power's civilian population into the occupied territory, regardless of motive. The international community recognises the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem as illegal under this provision.
Article 55 of the Fourth Geneva Convention establishes the right to food, water, and medical care for internally displaced persons. Contrary to its duty under this provision, the act of Israel cutting off water, electricity, food, and fuel to the population of Gaza punishes the entire population of Gaza for the acts of Hamas.
Article 28 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that the presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations. This provision highlights the responsibility of all parties involved in the conflict to avoid using civilian populations as shields. When violations of these principles occur, it is crucial to recognise that they constitute war crimes.
Article 34 of the Fourth Convention repeats the prohibition on the taking of hostages. This prohibition has clearly been breached by Hamas.
In essence, when attacking Hamas or any other group, Israel must still weigh the proportionality of any harm to human shields and other nearby civilians. If the harm to them is disproportionate to the military objective, the attack is illegal under Article 51(5)(b) of Additional Protocol I.
These allegations are not just theoretical; they have resulted in protracted displacement, severe restrictions on Palestinian communities, and a substantial humanitarian crisis. The relentless cycle of violence in an increasingly adversarial geopolitical landscape serves not only to perpetuate death and trauma on both sides, but also reveals an alarming disproportionality in its impact. It is clear that peace cannot be achieved through military means – Einstein once noted that insanity consists of repeating the same experience and expecting a different result.
As calls for ceasefire and humanitarian pause repeatedly fail to pass as resolutions at the UN Security Council, I also reflect on another important Y20 Communique call – reforming the UN Security Council to allow more representation, accountability and to reflect contemporary realities. I am of the opinion that if member states are unwilling to put serious pressure on Israel, they are better off disengaging from an imaginary peace process, rather than lending legitimacy to Israel’s behaviour or giving the illusion of progress without the substance.
-------
The views and opinions expressed by Global Voices Fellows do not necessarily reflect those of the organisation or its staff.