Yes, we must call for respect for International Humanitarian Law
No, there must be no blind spots in our discourse.
An article by Pierre Brunet
The events in Gaza, following the terrorist attack perpetrated by Hamas on Israeli soil on October 7, mark a turning point in what might be called “humanitarian discourse”. Let’s recall the facts: on October 7, within the borders of the State of Israel, terrorist attacks of unprecedented barbarity and cruelty were committed, resulting in the death in atrocious conditions of over 1,200 men, women and children, and the kidnapping of almost 240 hostages. These constitute unjustifiable crimes against humanity. In addition, on October 7, Hamas fired over 3,000 rockets at towns in Israel. These attacks prompted an Israeli response in the form of a military operation in the Gaza Strip. The operation was legitimate in principle, for what state in the world would stand idly by after such actions? Israel has the right to defend itself, like any other country.
Without October 7, the Israeli army would not have launched an offensive in Gaza to wipe out the Hamas military apparatus. This reminder is essential, given the impression that, in the face of humanitarian discourse in the broadest sense of the term (NGOs, UN…), Israeli leaders would have taken the decision, suddenly and without reason, to enter this territory to sow death and destruction. This is not the case, and humanitarians know it.
Why, then, does their often legitimate discourse seem so hemiplegic? And why does this discourse show minimal empathy towards the Israeli victims of October 7, as well as towards the fate of the hostages? Why do some human rights NGOs, or some association sans frontières, refuse to call Hamas what it is: a terrorist organization? Why are organizations and groups fighting violence against women silent in the face of the crimes inflicted on women and girls on October 7? Because they are Israeli? On the other hand – and not without reason, since the situation of the people of Gaza is terrible – we are witnessing absolute empathy for them, and constant denunciation of the “war crimes” committed by Tsahal…. Without ever mentioning Hamas’s heavy share of responsibility for the tragedy suffered by the Gazans. Are humanitarians, who claim to be neutral and impartial, subject to their “blind spot” in the Palestinian context?
This is an important question.
In a world of fake news and manipulation, we “humanitarians” are still considered to be “telling the truth”. If we keep quiet about Hamas’s share of responsibility, the general public, who are rarely specialists in the field, think it’s negligible. But is it?
Before giving an answer, let’s say that NGOs, the UN and humanitarian organizations are doing their part by demanding that Israel respect International Humanitarian Law (IHL). Let’s not forget that the first massive violation of IHL in the current episode was the attack on October 7… Israel’s blockade (at the start of operations) of fuel, electricity, water supplies, etc., was contrary to IHL and unacceptable, was contrary to IHL and unacceptable, as were strikes such as that which targeted an MSF evacuation convoy on November 18, killing and wounding one of the NGO’s Palestinian staff, or that of November 21 against the Al-Awda hospital, which killed three doctors, two of them working for MSF. Last but not least, the violence of the air strikes on the Gaza Strip has resulted in an appallingly high number of civilian casualties, which we are right to denounce. But does this mean that the UN and NGOs should adopt, without caution, the figures presented by the Hamas Ministry of Health, which has a vested interest in ensuring that these figures are as high as possible?
This brings us to the question of Hamas’s responsibility, a blind spot in humanitarian discourse. This responsibility is systematically ignored. In French, the verb “ignorer” has two meanings: the first means not to know, the second to pretend not to know. It’s hard to believe that NGOs, especially those operating in Gaza, don’t know. So why have they chosen to put on blinkers, and first of all, what is it that they don’t want to talk about? A few reminders, among others:
- Hamas deliberately uses the Gazan population as human shields, preventing them as much as possible from leaving the combat zones (roadblocks, shooting) and thus increasing the number of civilian casualties.
- Hamas uses mosques, schools, kindergartens, etc. as centers of military activity and weapons storage, as well as hospitals (which is contrary to IHL). Hamas also uses ambulances to transport its fighters and leaders.
- Hamas has carried out massive thefts of fuel (used for its tunnels and rockets), notably from the UN, resulting in a shortage that prevents the operation of the seawater desalination plant, pumps, the power station or generators and vital hospital equipment. Hamas is also diverting electricity from hospitals to its tunnels.
- Hamas claims to ensure that Palestinian civilian casualties are kept to a minimum, as evidenced by the recent statement by Ismaël Haniyeh, head of the Hamas Political Bureau: “… We need the blood of (Palestinian) women, children and the elderly to awaken in us the spirit of our revolution...”.
- Hamas openly declares that it has no concern whatsoever for the protection of the Gaza population under its control, as demonstrated by the recent statement made by Mousa Abu Marzouk, a member of the Hamas Political Bureau, to a journalist: “...The fate of the Gazan people is not our responsibility, they are refugees, it is up to the UN to take care of them…“.
On November 12, the European Union condemned “Hamas’s use of hospitals and civilians as human shields” in the Gaza Strip.
Hamas thus bears a grave responsibility for the suffering and shortages experienced by the population of Gaza. Acknowledging this reality may be uncomfortable in terms of security for NGOs operating there. But does this mean we should be complacent towards Hamas? Similarly, if we are rightly concerned about the fate of people caught in the crossfire, why should we oppose the Israeli army’s instructions to the Gazan population to move southwards in order to minimize civilian casualties? Isn’t this inconsistent and contradictory? You can’t accuse Israel of causing too many civilian casualties and at the same time accuse it of trying to avoid them. After all, it’s not a question of “forced displacement” as we too often read, but of appeals to leave combat zones.
Finally, the term “occupied territory”, commonly used by NGOs to designate Gaza, means that we must remember that Gaza was evacuated by Israel in September 2005… And Hamas took (bloody) control of the territory in 2007.
This is not to absolve Israel of its faults elsewhere: the illegal Israeli colonization of the West Bank and the attacks carried out there by settlers against the Palestinian population, with many Palestinians killed, are criminal and must stop. But the settlers’ crimes in the West Bank, which must be condemned, cannot justify October 7, which is of a different nature.
Beyond October 7th and the war in Gaza, it seems to me that there are two fundamentals. Israel has the right to exist in security within its borders. The Palestinians have the right to a viable state.
In conclusion, I’d like to say to my humanitarian friends: yes to denouncing the unacceptable number of civilian casualties, yes to demanding respect for IHL and humanitarian access to populations caught up in the war in Gaza, but let’s avoid cultivating a blind spot in our discourse on the situation. To do so is to play into the hands of Hamas, a terrorist organization guilty of monstrous crimes, which considers the Gazan population to be expendable material, and whose stated aim is the disappearance of a UN member state. Is this the role of humanitarian organizations?
As I write these lines, a truce allowing the exchange of 50 Hamas hostages for 150 Palestinian prisoners in Israel, and the delivery of humanitarian aid to Gaza, is underway with 69 hostages already freed and several hundred aid trucks arriving (reminder: more than 2,000 trucks have entered Gaza since the start of the war…). Hope in the midst of a merciless war.
The author of this article wishes to make it clear that his comments are his own and are intended as a contribution to the debate on International Humanitarian Law.
Pierre Brunet
Writer and humanitarian
Pierre Brunet is a novelist and member of the Board of Directors of the NGO SOLIDARITES INTERNATIONAL. He became involved in humanitarian work in Rwanda in 1994, then in Bosnia in 1995, and has since returned to the field (Afghanistan in 2003, Calais Jungle in 2016, migrant camps in Greece and Macedonia in 2016, Iraq and North-East Syria in 2019, Ukraine in 2023). Pierre Brunet’s novels are published by Calmann-Lévy: “Barnum” in 2006, “JAB” in 2008, “Fenicia” in 2014 and “Le triangle d’incertitude” in 2017. A former journalist, Pierre Brunet regularly publishes analytical articles, opinion pieces and columns.
Read more of Pierre Brunet’s articles on Défis humanitaire :
Ukraine: a destroyed dam and a humanitarian partnership response
Ukraine: one year after the invasion began, the humanitarian system faced with its contradictions…
Opinion column by Pierre Brunet – The construction of disaster?
You must be logged in to post a comment.