clear

Creating new perspectives since 2009

'Protective Edge' and the re-evaluation of humanitarian concerns

August 3, 2014 at 1:18 pm

Within a day following the commencement of Operation Protective Edge, Human Rights Watch (HRW) issued a statement replete with rhetoric embraced by Israeli allies. The statement’s title, “Indiscriminate Palestinian rocket attacks”, is followed by a brief speculation in the form of an inconspicuous subtitle, about the possibility of considering Israeli airstrikes on Gaza as collective punishment.

While the statements may sound incongruous, they are perfectly in line with HRW’s “core values” as stipulated on their website: “We do not embrace political causes, are non-partisan, and maintain neutrality in armed conflict.” Taken within the context of Palestine, the so-called human rights organisation remains shackled to the convenient “humanitarian” approach, while spokespersons of organisations affiliated to the imperialist United Nations, such as UNRWA, have recently started expanding their rhetoric to include political references as recognition against divestment from the political implications.

In addition to the fluctuating introduction, and with references to rockets fired on July 7 by Palestinian resistance fighters, HRW stated that “violations by one party to a conflict never justify abuses by another side.”

HRW Deputy Director Joe Stork refrained from the discussion of targeting civilians through an exhibition of alleged neutrality by refusing to distinguish between Israel’s state terror and Palestinian resistance. “Regardless of who started this latest round, attacks targeting civilians violate basic humanitarian norms.”

The above excerpts provide the backdrop for the most ludicrous statement that gives an indication of where HRW’s loyalties lie. “The unguided rockets launched by Gaza armed groups are inherently indiscriminate and incapable of being targeted at possible military targets in or near Israeli population centres.” Implicit in the statement is the presumption that HRW would have no qualms about precision strikes such as those utilised by Israel, which have resulted in multitudes of Palestinian deaths and injuries.

As can be seen, HRW’s choice of language constitutes a direct contribution to the misrepresentation of Palestinian resistance against colonial massacres. Primarily, the “unguided rockets” utilised by Palestinian armed factions are magnified into an alleged threat that makes Israel’s bombardment of Gaza pale in comparison, despite the fact that repercussions upon Israel’s settler-society have ranged from “stress” to seeking the comfort of shelters. Palestinians in Gaza search through rubble to retrieve fragments of bodies – presumably this macabre consequence is of no significance to HRW’s apolitical, humanitarian agenda. Neither are the severed bodies of Palestinian children a cause for concern – for human rights organisations, the dead cease to pose a humanitarian problem following burial. Memory, after all, is also an integral part of Palestine’s historical and political process; hence its inclusion into HRW’s agenda would constitute a betrayal of the organisation’s “core values”.

Divesting humanitarian ramifications from the political has enabled human rights organisations to promote the fragmentation of internationalism. At a time when the world is explicitly mobilised against Israel’s colonial violence – a process which clearly conveys recognition of the role that imperialist politics plays in sustaining recurring massacres against the Palestinian population, human rights organisations seek to manipulate public opinion by modifying their roles into mediating mediums. Mediating mediums whose primary objective is fomenting alleged neutrality as an extension of what world leaders are desperately trying to convey to the increasingly alert masses.

After decades of colonisation, reliance upon absolving Israel from blame by introducing arguments focusing upon impartiality should have become obsolete. Insinuating irrelevance with regard to Israel’s role in initiating the perfected massacre, which Stork attempts to dilute by distancing the current killings of Palestinian civilians from the origins of the settler-colonial state, is an insult to the oppressed and the “basic humanitarian norms” regurgitated in the absence of unequivocal assertions.

The process of isolating humanitarian agendas from the political process renders human rights organisations complicit in endorsing oblivion. In recent years, this trend has become particularly evident, as organisations and imperialist powers seem to have developed a seamless collaboration manifested in the choice of “humanitarian agendas” endorsed.

Within the context of Palestine, the exhausted list of repercussions upon the Palestinian population in Gaza is constantly exploited as the means of illustrating promised aid and projects. This, in turn, becomes an additional means of demeaning the humanitarian process by upholding political violence in various forms, notably the sanctioning of Israel’s brutal violence and the inadequate financial aid that aims to alleviate temporary anguish in order to preserve remnants of a population to be relentlessly violated in recurring manifestations of imperialist-supported colonialism.

The trend is reminiscent of the hegemonic interpretation of international law – a selective process that extracts impunity for perpetrators while ensuring culpability for resistance becomes an internationally-endorsed phenomenon. HRW’s insistence upon neutrality while fully aware of the implications sustaining such doctrines amounts to collaborative efforts aiming to destroy the slivers of international law proclaiming the legitimacy of resistance against colonialism.

Following the initial statement, HRW attempted to remedy by acknowledging its investigations and subsequent findings of Israeli international law violations. Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East Director at HRW stated, “Israel’s rhetoric is all about precision attacks but attacks with no military target and many civilian deaths can hardly be considered precise.” The detailed report also advocated from the suspension of weapons transfer to Israel, Hamas and armed groups in Gaza, if such material is proved to have been used “in violation of international law”. Considering Israel receives $3 billion annually in military aid from the US, the implication of such a statement would be directed against Palestinian resistance, whose military capabilities have improved through aid offered by Iran and Hezbollah.

The HRW report also advocates for legal proceedings in the International Criminal Court – a move that Israel has expressed apprehension about. However, given the selective interpretation of genocide and war crimes constantly applied by imperialist powers, legal proceedings may prove to be of detriment to Palestinian liberation.

A departure from the rhetoric espoused by human rights organisations would be to endorse unequivocally the Palestinian legitimate struggle through armed resistance – a stance which would not contradict the values associated with freedom and liberation. If these organisations’ “humanitarian agenda” prevents such a stance, it is perhaps time to re-evaluate the existence and purpose of compromised altruism, redraw the borders of allegiance, or reorganise effectively into an imperialist mouthpiece, to avoid the risks associated with their current duplicity.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.