Why are the international conventions silent on genocide?

There is a long history of setting rules in human conflicts. However, before the modern era, no power had significant control over all countries, nor was there an alliance of allied nations to enforce or implement these desired rules. But by the mid-19th century, European countries began signing agreements among themselves, making it mandatory to follow international law. These European nations essentially agreed that based on these treaties, they had the authority to impose obligations on international law enforcement. In the middle of this century, these countries reached an agreement on maritime regulations, which became the first foundation of the laws of war. These laws gradually expanded during the 20th century, and some of them are still in force today. After the two world wars, the humanitarian aspects of these laws drew more attention, particularly in the context of eliminating human catastrophes and genocide.

The Israel-Gaza conflict is not the first war in which both sides have accused each other of violating the laws of war. Almost every major military conflict has seen the warring parties accuse each other of breaching international law related to warfare, and these accusations are often heavily publicized. Common allegations during military conflicts include the killing of civilians, killing of the children, the use of unconventional and banned weapons, and even larger accusations like genocide and war crimes. In the recent conflict, both Israel and Hamas have faced similar accusations.

Since Israel is a member of the United Nations, it has certain legal responsibilities that Hamas does not have. However, critics argue that Israel fails to fulfill its obligations. Both sides, however, insist that their actions were within the framework of international law and the laws of war. One of the key arguments used by both parties is the principle of self-defense enshrined in war laws. Both sides have used this principle as a shield for their actions. Meanwhile, the horrific scenes of burned bodies of the Palestinian on the streets of Jabalia refugee camp, burned tents, piles of corpses, and survivors sitting in the rubble with the bodies of their young children in their arms, tell a different story.

Have any Western news outlets, US Presidents, or British Prime Ministers condemned the genocide in Gaza? The images of Israeli war crimes in Gaza or Lebanon are never nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, nor will they ever be. The reason? Editors are afraid. Israel has adopted the plan devised by Giora Eiland. Who is Eiland? He is a retired Israeli Major General and former head of Israel's National Security Council. After retiring, he served as a senior researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies.

The essence of Eiland's plan is that there is no intention to seek a peaceful solution. Instead, it proposes two options for the 400,000 residents of North Gaza: either starve to death or flee their homes. This, according to Eiland, is the only way for Israel to achieve its war objectives. The plan has garnered significant support within the Israeli military, parliament, and media. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has stated that he is studying Eiland's plan in depth. In December, he told his chief aide, Ron Dermer, to find a way to "clear Gaza." Work on this directive is already in progress.

Israel has created a corridor through Gaza, deploying a massive number of troops in the area. As a result, movement for Palestinians from north to south Gaza has been effectively blocked. Meanwhile, indiscriminate killings continue. Continuous gunfire, bombings of 2000 pound bombs on tents, and the introduction of Israel’s latest killing machine, an explosive robot capable of destroying six houses in a single strike, are ongoing. Still, the people of Jabalia refuse to leave their homes. They say they would rather die in Gaza City than in the south. "Death is death," they claim, "but life in the south, in a tent, is unbearable. It’s much worse than the north." Every day, killings continue. The entire world seems silent, even encouraging it.

Professor Avi Barelly of Ben Gurion University, an expert in history, wrote last October that Palestinians are a society that worships death.

Such professors who support genocide, and war criminals such as generals and soldiers who murder unarmed men, women, and children—remain unpunished and free. These individuals will likely go shopping on Oxford Street in London for Christmas, strolling the West End, with no fear of arrest. International courts are powerless to hold them accountable. Similarly, BBC Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen conducted an interview with Eiland. His demeanor suggested he was speaking with a researcher, treating Eiland’s plan to kill as a legitimate approach. Bowen probably believes that conventions on genocide and the Geneva Conventions are irrelevant today. At no point did Bowen challenge Eiland’s statements or attempt to verify his claims. Major news outlets like BBC and Sky News remain silent.

The distinction between armed combatants who kill children, women, and civilians, and unarmed civilians themselves, is deliberately blurred. This is exactly the intent of Israel. Silence only delays time, and this delay prolongs death. If Israel's plan for northern Gaza succeeds, southern Lebanon will be the next target. Israel's former national security adviser, Meir Ben Shabbat, stated that there were three options for Israel's current operations in Lebanon: creating a security zone under Israeli military control, a political settlement that would place Israel's preferred rulers on the border, or clearing land along the entire border. Shabbat himself favored the third option, arguing that it was relatively cheaper and sent a message: anyone who wages war against Israel will be left homeless. If any area under Israeli control is attacked, Israel will respond personally with vengeance. Ultimately, religious Zionists claim that their territory stretches all the way from Jerusalem to Damascus.

What could the consequences of this plan be? Every person in the Arab world would be drawn into a permanent war. Those who are watching the war today will be forced to join the fight tomorrow. Israel is continuously expanding its borders, and this threat will ensnare every country in the region. Jordan, at some point, will sever its peace agreement with Israel. Iran and Hezbollah will fight for their very survival. In 2001, it took the Americans just weeks to overthrow the Taliban, but it took the Taliban 20 years to push the Americans out. In April 2003, it took the US three weeks to topple Saddam Hussein’s statue in Baghdad, but it took another eight years for the American-led war in Iraq to end in defeat. The war we're talking about, however, is not one to remove a ruler—it will become a struggle for identity for Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and Iran’s Sunni and Shia populations. This war will be a fight for their very existence.

Among the various international treaties related to the laws of war, the most significant is the Geneva Convention, approved in 1948 in Geneva. This treaty was approved during four separate conventions held in Geneva in 1948, each addressing the behavior of warring countries during conflict. The set of laws known as the Geneva Conventions has been amended in recent decades. The first convention was the fourth update to the rules on the treatment of the wounded during warfare. It also updated the regulations established in 1864 and 1929. The second convention addressed the rules concerning naval warfare, particularly the treatment of wounded sailors and how to assist warships. The third convention focused on the issue of prisoners of war, specifying how they should be treated and outlining the minimum standards required by international law. The fourth convention addressed one of the most critical issues of warfare—the protection of civilians during conflict, establishing laws to ensure their safety. Despite various criticisms, the laws of war have been applied in many instances.

Many other treaties related to the laws of war have been adopted, including measures such as imposing sanctions or fines on the responsible state to resolve conflicts, and setting up international courts for prosecution. In addition to the International Court of Justice, which handles various complaints between countries, there is the International Criminal Court (ICC), which also has the authority to deal with charges such as war crimes and genocide. From the perspective of critics of international law, executive guarantees should apply not just to the laws of war, but to nearly all branches of international law.

Rayhan Ahmed Tapader: Researcher and Columnist