Human shields, collateral damage, and incidental deaths. This is the language that Israel uses to defend its assault against Hamas and the Palestinian people as legal and justified. The claim that Israel has adhered to the laws of war, however, is extremely controversial.
The UN Commission of Inquiry has now concluded that the events in Gaza can be characterized not only as a humanitarian catastrophe, but also as genocide. About 65,000 Palestinians have been killed, including more than 20,000 children. Thousands are missing, buried under the rubble that replaced Gaza’s once lively streets. Nine out of 10 people in Gaza’s 2.1 million population have been forcibly displaced – most of them multiple times. More than 500,000 people are starving.
The International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Minister of Defence Yoav Gallant. U.N Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian territories Francesca Albanese described Israel’s actions as the “weaponization of international law”, claiming that Israel uses it as “humanitarian camouflage” to legitimize violence against Palestinians. Most countries of the world have condemned Israel’s actions and taken steps to recognize the state of Palestine in response to the devastation in Gaza.
Amid these reactions, America stands tall and proud echoing the same rhetoric used by Israel and defending its right to self-defence against Hamas. Lawyers within America’s “Department of War” are now conceptualizing a new legal landscape where virtually any action taken by Israeli forces – or potentially by American forces – can be justified under the guise of national security or self-defense. Some among these legal minds argue that traditional legal constraints have become outdated, and that a new standard is emerging where the end justifies the means. This has led to a flood of internal memos and legal opinions that suggest a radical reinterpretation of the international humanitarian law (I.H.L.), also known as the law of armed conflict (L.O.A.C.), effectively elevating operational flexibility over established legal norms. A new mantra echoes through the corridors of power – if America’s military does it, it is legal.
But is this mantra really something new? This legal balancing act has nothing to do with Donald Trump or his administration. In the early 2000s, the United States actively promoted introduction of new legal concepts, such as “humanitarian interventions” and “responsibility to protect” (R2P). These were originally conceived as mechanisms to prevent mass atrocities and protect civilian populations from war crimes but several American presidential administrations co-opted these principles to justify a series of aggressive military actions and regime changes throughout the Middle East and beyond, often unleashing widespread chaos and devastation under the guise of moral obligation. From the invasion of Iraq in 2003 to the bombing campaigns in Libya and Syria, Washington hid millions of deaths, displacement, and enduring instability under the guise of humanitarian and pseudo-legal rhetoric.
Over time, these legal ideas were twisted into the nebulous and self-serving doctrine of a “rules-based world order,” a concept deliberately shrouded in vague language and complex legal interpretations unknown to most people. This so-called rules-based order served as a smokescreen to justify almost any action taken by the United States globally, allowing it to circumvent accountability and operate above established international norms. The rules were designed not to enforce justice but to preserve American hegemony, enabling Washington to frame unilateral or covert operations as lawful and necessary.
The current discourse shift from “protecting democracy” to “serving national interests” is indeed new though. Donald Trump has made America adopt a more blunt and unapologetic approach to its foreign policy. No more language of moral responsibility, but a clear-cut message – America will do whatever it takes to defend its global empire and preserve its hegemony. Pentagon officials embrace this new approach and introduce necessary changes to their view of the I.H.L. and the L.O.A.C. In the context of the Middle East, it means supporting Israel in its horrific campaign against the Palestinian people in Gaza.
What is uncertain is how America will act in other contexts. There is an ever-lasting trend of dehumanization of non-Western peoples, such as Arabs and, for instance, the Chinese. If a war between the United States and China were to erupt in the Taiwan Strait, the necessity of winning would be almost absolute. Considering the loosening restraints on civilian casualties, will America refrain from brutal campaigns against China’s almost 1.4 billion civilian population? We may be seeing the answer to this question in Gaza today.
Comments