The extrajudicial killings of Palestinians: untangling the inner conflict

The most recent escalation of the Israel-Palestine conflict in Jerusalem and the West Bank once again led to a debate over the unresolved accountability of extrajudicial killings. In most incidents, Palestinians have been killed during street attacks against Israeli soldiers and innocent civilians. Among all, the example of Mahdiya Mohammed Ibrahim Hammad in December 2015 was telling – a mother of four young children who was unarmed in her vehicle and was approached by Israeli occupying forces in the village of Silwad, northeast of Ramallah, and shot with 17 times.

On 14 January 2016, the Palestinian Authority called for an international inquiry into the arbitrary killings by Israeli soldiers, echoing the comment made by the Swedish Foreign Minister Margot Wallstrom earlier on the necessity of a thorough investigation. Not surprisingly, the comment was dismissed by Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely as “a mix of blindness and political stupidity”. Yet, data shows that between October 2015 and January 2016, street attacks have disproportionately killed 21 Israelis and 146 Palestinians, a seven-fold stark difference, as Israeli soldiers continue to adopt a “shoot to kill” approach. Against this background, the following are some thoughts on the parameters at play that illustrate the complexity of the issue:

First, any solution will have to untangle the inner conflict created by religious hatred and social distrust, a historical factor that perpetuates a system of structural violence against Palestinians. This conflict manifests itself from the level of international armed conflict, recalling the likely unlawful and indiscriminate use of force in several operations by the Israeli forces against the Gazans, to the ongoing near-daily arbitrary killings of Palestinians. The attempted justifications have contributed to the Palestinian struggle to leverage protections for their fundamental rights and freedoms under a non-transparent and unfair regime, whose judiciary does not immediately denote ultimate accountability and justice.

Second, “shooting to kill” as the normalised tenet of Israeli policy represents the lopsided superiority of Israelis. While it can be explained by a certain perception of terrorism and patriotism, the current systematic suppression entails ramifications on the other group: according to the Israel Democracy Institute in their October 2015 survey, some 78 per cent of the Arab public were “apprehensive of being harmed and a majority (53 per cent) did report a change in their daily habits”. The tilted attitude towards Israel’s security services even led to 53 per cent of the Jewish interviewees to support “any Palestinian who has perpetrated a terror attack against Jews should be killed on the spot, even if he has been apprehended and no longer poses a threat”. This highlights the inherently dangerous endorsement by the Jewish community for the extra-legal nature of apprehension.

Third, a systemic reform needs to look from a human rights based perspective. While independent institutions can hold the perpetrators to account for unjustified excessive force – or attempted murders by attackers if evidence presented so proves – it has to nonetheless bring the practice in line with international human rights standards. In this regard, the rights of Palestinians are critically recognised by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that everyone “has the right to life, liberty and security of person (Article 3)”, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights which states that no one “shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life (Article 6)”. Specifically, the Fourth Geneva Convention and its first protocol further prohibit “killing civilians or attempting to murder them without any justification (such as a real threat or danger)”.

Under the current circumstances, what may be more adequate for moving out of the gridlock is to recognise the problem blinded by patriotism, national security and dehumanisation of Palestinians. It invisibly grants the shield to Israeli soldiers to defend, or self-defend, by employing lethal forces. As succinctly pointed out by Law Professor Mordechai Kremnitzer, it should not be “an unconditional license to kill”. Sadly, “shooting to kill” by its definition celebrates the death of attackers regardless of real danger posed, which violates international law principles of self-defence that prohibit disproportionate response when performing the Rules of Engagement.

Before re-examining the policy, and the incomplete legal framework to regulate it, it is perhaps more important to clear out any ideological influence which has framed the phenomenon in terms of war. As mentioned, the constant international armed conflicts in the region brought about underestimated ramifications of indoctrinating the nation with military means to conflict resolution. Admittedly, eliciting overarching responses is determined by removing perceived danger. However, while “shooting to kill” no longer deters attackers, the question becomes: what is the socio-economic trait that fosters their self-identification?

Momentum grows alongside the Israeli occupation and the lack of settlement for Palestinians. These attackers symbolise the extreme despair to “drive a violent struggle against the occupation” as articulated by Kremnitzer. Truth be told, both sides are in fear and anger. Unfortunately, this sense of humanity and dignity has been distorted in a political competition that takes advantage of Israeli patriotism by advancing harsher security measures. The resulting over-reaction is a manipulation by the authorities and keeps the ball rolling.

It deserves repeating: the international community shares considerable responsibility to protect Palestinians from perpetual human rights violations. This is particularly true when the Israeli reaction to the Swedish criticism by Wallstrom ostensibly showed their self-served immunity and panic relating to the Western powers. How multilateral efforts on the international level – since an internal investigation is beyond the intention of Israel and the Palestinian capacity – can push for justice will very much depend on the ICC to resolve accountability and the Security Council to protect. As Palestine is now a state party to the Rome Statute, instances of alleged international crimes could be investigated externally.

The fragmented response within the territory makes it harder to fill the normative vacuum on the issue of extrajudicial killings. To effectively reconstruct the norm, Israeli Jews must resist a nation that promotes arbitrary killings in the discretionary hands of security forces. The rationale behind is simple: today’s support for extrajudicial killings of Palestinians would indirectly grant a justification carved out a wide boundary for Israeli soldiers to “shoot to kill”; tomorrow, the same lethal suppression will befall any Israeli dissidents if that is what it takes for politicians to achieve the ends of winning the majority. Ironically, military means can never realise values of equality and justice that a nation like Israel holds dear.

Sean Yau Shun Ming is a LLB candidate at the University of Hong Kong. He is the Programme Director of Justice Labs and a current intern at Amnesty International Hong Kong.

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