Opinion Gaza should haunt us
The spectacle of human suffering brings to mind Hugo Grotius who argued that pain and suffering must be minimised even amidst warfare
It is ethically perverse to regard any juristic or humane concern with the plight of the Palestinians as “antisemitic”; rather, it calls for a renewed enterprise in the vein of Levinas to understand the “difficult freedoms” that we all have.
-
Share -
-
-
A flotilla of 34 boats carrying 500 tons of humanitarian aid and 600 people from 45 countries, including Italy, Greece, Spain and Tunisia, is now poised to reach Gaza. This initiative is unique in that it includes, among others, members of the European Parliament such as Italians Annalisa Corrado and Benedetta Scuderi, Emma Fourreau from France, and Ireland’s Lynn Boylan, who is accompanying the Flotilla to document any “possible breaches of human rights or international law”. Although “scared”, they insist they are not “intimidated”. As Scuderi put it: “I think it’s normal to be afraid of facing the Israeli government, which sets no limits in its destructive actions, acts contrary to international law, and has already stated it wants to treat us as terrorists […] But we will not be intimidated.” She adds that this is a mission “worth making oneself available for, even if the consequences may be heavy or difficult to manage. I cannot even imagine the fear Palestinian children feel under the bombs or when being amputated of their limbs without anaesthesia.”
This haunting spectacle of human suffering brings to mind the 16th-century jurist Hugo Grotius, who argued that pain and suffering must be minimised even amidst warfare. Avoiding “unimaginable” surplus suffering is central to modern human rights principles. Yet, Gaza today faces “the largest humanitarian blockade of the 21st century”, which has placed 2,44,000 people in famine conditions under IPC Phase 5, the most severe category of food insecurity.
Israel’s National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir has already announced that “activists will be designated as terrorists, imprisoned, and denied special privileges such as television, radio, and choice of foods”. Governance becomes a tool for repression, part of a global process of “democratic backsliding” — a euphemism for righticide and democide, where even a modicum of human rights activism is recast as terrorism.
Against this backdrop, 142 nations recently voted in favour of a resolution introduced by France, with 10 against and 12 abstaining. The resolution urges “peaceful settlement of the Palestine issue and implementation of the two-state solution”. Those who voted against it include Argentina, Hungary and, unsurprisingly, Israel and the US. That India has thrown its support behind the resolution, despite growing strategic and industry/trade ties with Israel, is a happy sign.
The resolution prescribes “a single roadmap” to a two-state solution, entailing an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, the release of hostages and the establishment of a Palestinian State “that is both viable and sovereign”. Crucially, it calls for “the disarmament of Hamas and its exclusion from governance in Gaza”, the normalisation of ties between Israel and the Arab countries, as well as collective security guarantees. Far from being a “one-sided” declaration and “hollow gesture”, as Israeli Ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon has claimed, the resolution explicitly condemns the Hamas attack of October 7, 2023, and calls for the disarmament of Hamas. To reject it as a victory for Hamas reeks of the arrogance of hard power.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his war cohorts would do well to read with care the work of the great Jewish theologian and philosopher Emmanuel Levinas, who spoke of the two Torahs — one being the transcendent voice of God, and the other concerning everyday human ethics. Both constrain the lust for violence and destruction and, in different ways, lead us away from “egology” towards “responsibility toward the Other.” As Rabbi Israel Salanter observed in 1850: “The material needs of my neighbour are my spiritual needs.”
Yet, beyond the neighbour lies the distant third — all too often construed as a monstrous third who inspires the “temptation to murder”, a passion for killing which often results in war and renders “morality derisory” and leads to “the diabolical criminality of absolute evil” seen in genocide and other “horribly perfect” forms of racism (Levinas). The foundational violence of necropolitics — the use of political power to decide who lives and who dies — must now cease. (See Jothie Rajah’s Discounting Lives: Necropolitical Law, Culture and the Long War on Terror).
Israel is now combating the indictment of “genocide” before the International Court of Justice. Although the Court has never found sufficient evidence for deliberate and systematic killing or persecution of a large number of people “from a particular national or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group,” Article 6 of the Genocide Convention enacts the duty of states to prevent and punish preparation for genocide. The Court must now arrive at a sound jural construction on the materials and arguments pressed before it. Already noted (in the context of Israel’s military offensive in Rafah, which has led to the exodus of approximately 800,000 Palestinians) is that the steps for the security of civilians in the Gaza Strip are “insufficient”. Further, Israel must now act to “take effective measures to prevent the destruction” of the relevant evidence and to ensure any UN-mandated body “unimpeded access” to the Gaza Strip. Considering the “catastrophic situation in Gaza,” the ICJ has ordered the provision of “urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance,” and reiterated its “grave concern over the fate of the hostages” held by “Hamas and other armed groups”, calling for their “immediate and unconditional release”.
It is ethically perverse to regard any juristic or humane concern with the plight of the Palestinians as “antisemitic”; rather, it calls for a renewed enterprise in the vein of Levinas to understand the “difficult freedoms” that we all have.
The writer is professor of law, University of Warwick, and former vice chancellor of Universities of South Gujarat and Delhi
-
Share
-
-
-
Share
