Open letter from Israeli international law experts
In the early morning hours of October 7, 2023, Hamas militants entered Israel. They intentionally killed hundreds of civilians. They also took dozens of hostages to the Gaza strip, including women, children, older persons and persons with disabilities.
These actions constitute gross violations of international human rights law and humanitarian law, amounting to war crimes and crimes against humanity. We stress that all parties to an armed conflict must comply with norms of international law in general and the law of armed conflict in particular, including the prohibition on indiscriminate attacks and measures targeting civilians.
The taking of hostages is a blatant violation of international law. We call for the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages. Pending their release, they are all entitled to be treated with humanity and respect. This includes the receipt of proper medical care and supply of essential medication for those who need it, and the provision of information regarding the hostages and means of communication with them.
We call upon the international community, including all states and relevant international organizations to pressure those holding the hostages to release them all immediately.
Dr. Shelly Aviv Yeini
Prof. Orna Ben-Naftali
Prof. Eyal Benvenisti
Dr Ziv Bohrer
Prof. Tomer Broude
Prof. Iris Canor
Professor Amichai Cohen
Dr. Natalie Davidson
Prof. Aeyal Gross
Prof. Guy Harpaz
Prof. Moshe Hirsch
Prof. Tamar Hostovsky Brandes
Prof. (Emeritus) David Kretzmer
Prof. Eliav Lieblich
Prof. Itamar Mann
Dr. Tamar Megiddo
Dr. Hilly Moodrick-Even Khen
Prof. Yaël Ronen
Dr. Ido Rosenzweig
Dr. Michal Saliternik
Prof. Yuval Shany
Dr. Yahli Shereshevsky
Dr. Sivan Shlomo Agon
Dr. Dana Wolf
Dr. Ariel Zemach
I fully agree and subsccribe
Prof. Giorgio Sacerdoti, Emeritus International Law, Bocconi University, Milan
More interesting than the text, which everyone will agree with, is the subtext. And that’s in the bold text of “all parties”. It is clear who is meant here. It is perhaps not unreasonable to fear that the Israeli response will most likely also claim the lives of innocent Palestinian civilians. However, that is definitely not their goal. I therefore find it tasteless to linguistically integrate the IDF with the Hamas terrorists into “all parties”. But as we all know, you can argue about taste.
The call for “all parties” to comply with international law is very inappropriate under the current circumstances. I hope that you revise this unwarranted and offensive language.
Not surprising given the nature of this blog.
I fully subscribe to the statement and express my condolences and solidarity with my Israeli colleagues. Nothing justifies the terrorist attacks. Nothing. As President Biden pointed out, the reaction is twofold: solidarity with the victims and right to lawful self-defense. I do not see anything inappropriate in international lawyers pointing out that international humanitarian law is binding on all parties. This recognition is the core of the distinction between them here.
Prof. Dr. Andreas Paulus, University of Göttingen, Germany
Indeed, in his speech yesterday, President Biden did not call for both parties to obey international law, probably because he understood that it was inappropriate to create artificial symmetry between the aggressor and the victim.
There is, indeed, no symmetry: In comparison to the Palestinian terrorists, the State of Israel has far superior military strength and, hence, power. I certainly believe that in defending their people, IDF leadership and troops will do their best to comply with international law, which is all you can ask for at this point.
However, the asymmetry should not cause us to forget that hardline groups on both sides have been pursuing their respective illegal goals. Being able to act illegally without using open and blatant – in this case even indiscriminate – violence is, to some extent, a privilege of the more powerful party in any conflict, big or small.
“Mittelwert”‘s reply can be read as implying that either (i) Israel, being the more powerful party, just did not have to revert to massacres against the civilian population of Gaza – but would possibly have done so if the balance of power was inversed, or (ii) that Hamas, being the less powerful party, did not have much of a choice. At best “Mittelwert” says that illegal occupation of land is “only to some extent” less illegal than barbarically slaughtering civilians – this is heinous!
Especially disturbing is that posts like Mittelwert’s get a free pass while the moderation is quite heavy handed on anything remotely critical of the blog’s political line. This blog really has turned into a cesspit of radical leftwing thought and thus ought not to be taken serious any longer.
I am yet to see where is the ”illegal occupation” motive here since I think that the targeted areas were a part of Israel even under the Partition Plan? In any event they are a part of Israel under the 1950 Armistice agreement. The only argument sillier that this one is the ”decolonization” narrative. Jews lived in Israel since 2nd century BC. They never deserted the area completely and their return to their homeland in greater numbers began while the area was under Ottoman rule and continued under British rule. To call this ”colonization” would be tantamount to saying that native Americans, when they live outside of the reservation are ”colonizing” the US. The discussion of this issue has been plagued by people with little or no knowledge of history, who are, however, extremely radically left.
I have not made any claim of legal or ethical equivalence between the different acts or goals, nor engaged in speculation about the choices a less powerful Israel might make.
It seems that some extreme-right elected politicians in Israel would not necessarily be opposed to a violent expulsion of Palestinians from currently occupied territories, although there is no majority for that, obviously.
Due the control exercised by the State of Israel over the West Bank, however, the Israeli nationalist right-wing has an alternative, via their political influence, to effect an illegal (mainly pseudo-legal) gradual enlargement of territory.
On the Palestinian side, in contrast, the lack of (ideally non-violent) effective means to improve their strategic position is, unfortunately, a factor promoting the extreme violent terrorist activities.
Needless to say that this observation does not provide any justification for them.