The Gaza crisis: NOT AS DISTANT AS THE MEDIA THINK
(This commentary will appear in the upcoming January-February 2008 issue of the PJR Reports.)
By H. Harry L. Roque Jr.
THE PHILIPPINE media have allowed the crisis at the Gaza strip to take a back seat to two ongoing domestic issues: the Alabang boys and Pangandaman Valley Golf Club incidents.
While perhaps the distant location of Gaza and its long history may largely be to blame for the lack of serious media discussion on the Gaza issue, it is imperative that the Philippine media, in line with its duty to educate, should accord equal importance to the crisis in Gaza. Perhaps unknown to media practitioners, it involves important rule of law issues that are equally relevant to the Philippines, what with the armed conflicts involving the New People’s Army and the MILF, as well as our unresolved territorial controversies that may also lead to further armed conflicts. This despite how one media practitioner described the issue as “malayo sa bituka” (“far from our stomach”, i.e., of little relevance)
Thus far, the bulk of the reportage by Philippine media on the Gaza crisis has been on the plight of OFWs who continue stranded in the place of conflict. This is a sorry reflection of how Philippine foreign policy has been crafted of late: parochially reduced only to how events overseas may directly affect our overseas workers constituting the Diaspora.
Not much has been said in Philippine media as to why there are mammoth rallies around the globe against this latest instance of Israeli adventurism. And yet, by unilaterally resorting to the use of force, Israel has again showed its defiance of International Law, which prohibits the use of force, and restrictively allows the same only to circumstances constituting self-defense or when authorized by the Security Council of the United Nations.
As imperfect as the UN may be, it has nonetheless been largely instrumental in preventing what the UN Charter describes as “scourges of war.” This prohibition on the use of force is in fact the most important rule in the UN Charter and one that has proven largely effective in preventing armed conflicts on the same scale as those that ravaged humanity in the past two world wars.
Why Israel has not opted to have the Hamas issue debated in the Security Council is open to speculation. The fact is that if the Hamas rocket attacks are indeed threats to international peace, the international community has already granted the Security Council primary jurisdiction to deal with these types of threats. For Israel and its ally, the US, to now insist on the unilateral use of force is a blatant disregard of a cardinal rule recognized by all civilized states.
Israel of course will claim that its recent offensive is but an exercise of self-defense. In fact, it has stated that it will only stop when and if Hammas stops launching missiles into Israeli territory. But the question is: self-defense against whom?
Hamas is a non-state party Israel accuses of operating in the territory of its neighboring states. Without accusing either Palestine or Lebanon of aggression, it has waged wars against both these states solely on the ground that Hamas operatives are found in the territories of these two states.
There is the further issue of proportionality. Assuming Israel may invoke self-defense against a non-state actor, is the force it has utilized proportional to the rocket attacks launched against its territory? Surely, a complete dislocation of the civilian populations in Gaza belies proportionality.
Meanwhile, the death toll as a result of the crisis continues to rise. Included among the victims are protected individuals under humanitarian law such as civilians, including women and children. What is the sense, for instance, of targeting even the 11 children and four wives of an alleged Hamas leader? Has there since developed a principle attributing criminal guilt solely by virtue of family relations? And what was the logic in targeting not one, but three UN- run schools?
The fact that Israel has been targeting civilian homes is a breach of humanitarian law itself since the Geneva conventions prohibit combatants from targeting civilian infrastructure. And yes, the fact that Israel has been violating the binding norms of humanitarian law apparently with impunity is equally deplorable since these grave breaches weaken the rule-enforcing value of the law.
Why should soldiers in the AFP, or the NPA and the MILF, desist from targeting civilians when the Israelis have seemingly gotten away with it? It is indeed ironic that while the Grave Breaches of IHL in Gaza has barely been discussed by the media, it is today reporting on another serious breach of IHL: the kidnapping of the three ICRC representatives in Sulo.
Ultimately the Gaza issue should be accorded equal importance by the media as the Alabang boys and the Valley Golf incidents because it undermines the rule of law on the prohibition against the unilateral use of force and the ancient norm according the protection of civilians and other non-combatants in times of armed conflicts, the ICRC included..
The Gaza issue could spell disaster to countries like the Philippines. For while Israel may have the confidence to engage in military adventurism and commit grave breaches of humanitarian law owing to its superior military strength, countries like the Philippines can only rely on other countries’ compliance with the rule of law against threats of these nature. Think of the Spratlys. Think of China. Think of Malaysia. Think of terrorists operating in Mindanao. This is why Filipinos should take the Gaza incident more seriously. Unless the rule of law is observed, our tora-toras will simply be no match to our potential state adversaries’ military might.
Prof. Roque teaches Public International Law at the University of the Philippines College of Law and at the Philippine Judicial Academy. He is also Chair of the Center for International Law (CENTERLAW)
Comments are closed.