Condemn the Crimes, Comprehend the Context, Daily Brief, 25 October, 2023

If there’s one thing everyone should take away from the conflict in Israel and Palestine over the past couple weeks – and in fact, from conflicts everywhere over the past forever – it’s this: atrocities do not justify atrocities.

If you read a million sentences about these events, at least remember these five words.

It’s not difficult to get the basic idea here. The “laws of war” apply to all sides in a conflict, and when one side violates those laws, it does not give license to the other side to ignore them. In fact, nothing one side does can excuse war crimes by the other side.

For example, the fact that Palestinian fighters committed horrific crimes against Israeli civilians does not justify Israeli authorities committing war crimes against Palestinian civilians. Deliberately impeding relief supplies to civilians is a war crime, as is collectively punishing civilians.

Similarly, the Israeli authorities’ systematic repression of Palestinians for decades, which amounts to the crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution, and holding Gaza’s 2.2 million people in what is effectively an open-air prison for more than 16 years – none of that justifies Hamas’s war crimes.

There are no excuses for war crimes. Rules are rules. Atrocities do not justify atrocities.       

Of course, it is important to understand the context of any armed conflict. There’s a history, both recent and longer-term, and events are turned into drivers of war. No context excuses horrific acts. Understanding the context, though, can help us understand what’s going on right now.

It seems a pretty basic concept, right? But it’s amazing how easily (or maybe deliberately) it’s misunderstood.

In calling for a humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza yesterday, UN Secretary-General António Guterres condemned Hamas’s “appalling” October 7 attacks and noted those attacks “did not happen in a vacuum.”

“The Palestinian people have been subjected to 56 years of suffocating occupation,” Guterres said. “They have seen their land steadily devoured by settlements and plagued by violence; their economy stifled; their people displaced and their homes demolished.”

Israel’s government was outraged. The foreign minister cancelled a meeting with Guterres, and Israel’s ambassador to the UN called on Guterres to resign immediately, saying the Secretary-General’s comments, “constitute a justification for terrorism and murder.”

But is naming the context of the conflict – those roots that are multiple and run deep – necessarily justifying the crimes committed within the conflict?

It really doesn’t seem so.

Guterres was very clear in his speech yesterday: “I have condemned unequivocally the horrifying and unprecedented 7 October acts of terror by Hamas in Israel.” He wasn’t justifying any crimes whatsoever.

He also rightly pointed out that the blockade of Gaza amounted to the “collective punishment of the Palestinian people” and violated international law. He was seeking a humanitarian ceasefire to end “epic suffering” in the Gaza Strip, where thousands of civilians have been killed in airstrikes, and hospitals are unable to function. Israel has cut off water and electricity and blocked fuel shipments.

Guterres continued: “We must demand that all parties uphold and respect their obligations under international humanitarian law; take constant care in the conduct of military operations to spare civilians…”

“Even war has rules,” he said.

And whatever the context and whatever the history, those rules apply to all sides.

Atrocities do not justify atrocities.