One War crime does not justify another
“It is similarly possible to argue interdicting water and electricity is legal, if they are of military benefit to Hamas.” Luke Akehurst
“The attempt to label Israel’s actions “collective punishment” and a war crime is also overblown. Why not just say “I don’t think Israel should do this”? Collective punishment means deliberately harming civilians for something their government or others have done. It doesn’t apply to harm done because it is impossible to fight enemies like Hamas in urban areas without incidental harm to civilians, who Israel has also advised to get out of harm’s way.”
Luke Akehurst
According to Luke Akehurst the deaths of more than 5,000 people in Gaza, more than 1,000 children, is “incidental harm”. This is a disgusting apologia for Israeli war crimes. How is the destruction of 25 tower blocks in a single residential area of Gaza, “incidental harm”? How very tender of the military to give the inhabitants a warning that they are about to render them homeless. Is this a “Hamas target”? How is the Israeli military ringing up hospitals and demanding that they evacuate people who patently cannot be moved, not a war crime? How is the siege of Gaza, starving the population of food, water, medicine, and even the fuel to keep incubators on in hospitals, how is this not a war crime?
It is, apparently, the Gazans own fault that they suffer “incidental harm”, because they refused to “get out of harm’s way”. Luke Akehurst even attempts to present an argument that cutting off water to civilians could be ‘legal’, “if it is of military benefit to Hamas”!
“It is similarly possible to argue interdicting water and electricity is legal, if they are of military benefit to Hamas.”
It is possible to argue anything, if you have no shame. You have to wonder if there is anything the Israeli state could do that Luke Akehurst would not justify.
What Hamas did was savage; a war crime which should be condemned and the hostages should be released. It was a pogrom. But one war crime does not justify another. To say that Israel has the right to defend itself does not mean that it can starve the people of Gaza and bomb them relentlessly. Is there any moral difference between butchering civilians in their homes with automatic weapons and butchering them with bombs delivered from the sky? None whatsoever. They are both unjustifiable.
The real intent of the Israeli government was exposed by their Ambassador in London. Speaking on TV she used the analogy of the Dresden bombing. This was, she said “necessary to defeat the Nazi’s.” The logic is clear. If Palestinian civilians are killed on a mass scale this is justified by the aim of “wiping our Hamas”, call it mass “incidental harm”.
The idea that the Netanyahu government racist to the core, with fascists in it, can fight “a just war” is ludicrous. The fascist Ben Gvir can be seen on videos handing out automatic rifles to settlers. On the West Bank the IDF facilitates the attacks of settlers on Arabs, including the pogrom at Huwara.
Even amongst those people who suffered the trauma of having their family members and friends killed by Hamas, voices are being raised, saying that they do not want revenge, that more killing will make things worst. With a witch-hunt taking place in Israel against anybody who does not support retribution, these people have shown extraordinary bravery and humanity.
The Labour leadership should listen to these people. The Labour Party has been shaken by the outrage at Keir Starmer’s comments on LBC. That the Guardian reported in such detail what happened in a Shadow Cabinet meeting is an indication that the disquiet has reached all the way to the top of the party. Wes Streeting was quoted as saying “We sounded as if we didn’t care about Palestinians.” But changing the language and presenting a ‘sympathetic’ face is just manoeuvring.
Lisa Nandy, asked three times if the Israeli government had broken international law, refused to answer. In other words she was silent on the crimes of the Israeli state. This is the position of the Labour leadership. MP Zara Sultana was right when she said that to say that the Israelis should stick to international law when they are patently breaking it, was an insult to the people of Gaza.
You cannot complain that some on the left do not denounce Hamas and then refuse to condemn the Israeli state for the siege, for the starving of the people of Gaza, the bombing of the civilian population, the forced movement (under threat of bombing).
At the time of writing 81 MPs have signed an early day motion calling for
- the release of the hostages
- end the total siege of Gaza, and
- cessation of hostilities, to
- allow for unfettered access of medical supplies, food, fuel electricity and water
Of these, 37 of them are Labour MPs, by no means all of them on the left. The Labour leadership should follow suit. Its refusal to condemn the war crimes of the Israeli state makes it complicit in its crimes. All the talk of “protecting civilians” is meaningless if they support Israel’s military action.
A big test awaits the Labour leadership. If the IDF goes into Gaza, will Labour support their “right” to do so? The anger which has resulted from Starmer’s LBC interview and his refusal to condemn what is collective punishment of the Palestinian people, will be amplified if they do not oppose an invasion. For we can be sure of one thing. If the IDF go in then the “incidental harm” will increase. Combine this with the maintenance of the siege and potentially tens of thousands of people could die from starvation and disease.
Martin Wicks
Martin Wicks 