Amnesty report angers Israeli government, but impunity persists

Amnesty International’s latest report on Israel’s colonial massacre in Gaza has angered the Israeli government. Called “Nothing is immune: Israel’s destruction of landmark buildings in Gaza”, the report calls for war crimes committed during Operation Protective Edge to be investigated. Focusing in particular upon the destruction of four landmark buildings in the final days of the attack, Amnesty deemed these to be of particular importance as they conveyed the clear intent to destroy civilian infrastructure.

“The attacks are of great significance,” says the human rights organisation, “because they are examples of what appears to have been deliberate destruction and targeting of civilian buildings and property on a large scale, carried out without military necessity.”

The report details the extreme losses suffered by Palestinian civilians, which occurred despite the fact that residents had insisted that the areas were not being used by resistance groups. As with the previous Israeli bombardments of Gaza, residents had no time to collect personal belongings before the bombings started and many ended up homeless and destitute. According to Israel, though, this is not enough reason to warrant investigation into war crimes, despite the recurring violations that rendered a large portion of the Palestinian population in Gaza internally displaced. Amnesty’s report said that there were only vague mentions of “a Hamas command centre in one building” and “facilities linked to Palestinian militants” in another, within the justification provided by Israel for the destruction.

The Times of Israel quoted the Israeli foreign ministry as stating that Amnesty International has embarked upon “a de-contextualised description of events”; it also cast doubt on the credibility of the report. The ministry added that the report focuses “on monetary losses to Palestinian civilians, rather than investigate the systematic and deliberate firing of rockets and mortars at Israel’s civilian population by an internationally-recognised jihadist terror group.”

Israel’s reservations and negations, as usual, are reminiscent of previous attempts to justify colonial violence through misinformation and manipulation of the facts. Visual evidence and testimonies have established a narrative that is in accord with previous Israeli massacres, which can also be analysed within the historical context of the Nakba, thus taking into account not only the obvious violations of international law, but also the international framework that condones Israel’s impunity. The reality of this impunity is deciphered easily throughout the report, in particular with regard to the language used, exhibiting a lack of assertiveness that, while coherent from a legal perspective, contributes to the international leniency when it comes to assessing Israel according to established legal parameters. Despite the lack of any doubt regarding Israel’s war crimes, the report still regurgitated phrases such as “the destruction appears [emphasis added] to have also violated the prohibition of international humanitarian law of direct attacks on civilian objects,” instead of asserting that such violation was a recurring feature of Operation Protective Edge.

The international community has been selective in its application of jargon pertaining to human rights abuses by the Israelis, using a range of vocabulary reserved solely for the people engaged in resisting oppression and occupation; the Palestinians. In Israel’s case, impunity is enhanced by the constant dismissal of legitimate Palestinian resistance (with references to “jihadist terror” groups”, for example) which is alleged to threaten Israel’s security, even though the latter remains a colonial occupying power. Thus are atrocities that amount to war crimes committed by the occupation forces given a veneer of legitimacy. Amnesty was right to highlight the atrocities; if that angers the Israeli government, so be it, but the days of Israel being allowed to act with impunity have to come to an end.

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