Yes, Israel's plan for Rafah would be a crime – but international law has never protected Gaza
This week, Israel's defence minister, Israel Katz, has shared plans to forcibly move Palestinians into a camp in the ruins of Rafah. Once they enter, they cannot leave. In other words, a concentration camp, which by definition is an internment centre for members of a national group (as well as political prisoners or minority groups) on the grounds of security or punishment, usually by military order. Michael Sfard, an Israeli human rights lawyer, was quoted in the Guardian as saying that Katz 'laid out an operational plan for a crime against humanity'. Hundreds have been killed and thousands wounded trying to access food.
I have tried hard to understand the incomprehensible suffering endured by Palestinians in Gaza and how it is that most Israelis do not acknowledge their humanity. How are they able to show no remorse for what their army is carrying out in their name? I believe the seed of our dehumanisation was planted during the Arab-Israeli war in 1948. Palestinians were violently deprived of land, property and belongings in what we would come to call the Nakba (Arabic for 'the catastrophe'), on the grounds that the land was God-given to the Jewish people. From that time, Israelis have been able to use Arab homes, lands and orchards without any feeling of guilt. The 7 October attacks were the starting point of the war, but Israel has been systematically degrading and dispossessing the Palestinian people for decades.
Such violations of international law lead to a feeling of despair about the inability of institutions to prevent the horrors of Israeli actions in Gaza and the West Bank and to hold perpetrators to account. The UN-backed international criminal court has issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant over allegations of 'the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare; and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution and other inhumane acts'. No arrests have been made. The west continues to supply military and political support to Israel. I ask myself: should we Palestinians feel helpless in the face of this failure?
And yet the truth is that international law, though used as a measuring stick and point of reference by human rights organisations, has never been Palestine's salvation. Ever since the failure to implement the 1948 UN resolution 194, which gave Palestinian refugees the right to return to their homes in what became Israel, we have been disappointed again and again.
This has not been for lack of attempts by Palestinians over the years to invoke the law – whether through Israeli courts, international tribunals or third-party enforcement mechanisms. One simple reason for their failure has been that international law lacks effective means of enforcement. More complex reasons rest with the interests of the powerful. My hope lies in Palestinian resilience.
The prevalent hope and expectation was that the Palestinians would forget their land in a generation or two. This proved totally unfounded. Seventy-seven years later, Palestinians are as attached to the land they were forced from as in those first few bloody days.
Likewise with all the illegal changes and extensive Jewish settlement and altered geography in my home, the West Bank, we Palestinians continue to hold on to the practice we call sumoud: refusing to give up or leave. I cannot speak for Palestinians in Gaza, but I can see that we share the same spirit despite the immensity of the suffering.
When the war ends, and journalists and foreign organisations are allowed access to Gaza, the truth will emerge. The heart-wrenching first-hand accounts by those living there – the experiences of the women, men and children, of artists, writers and poets; lives cut short, or changed irrevocably – may yet come to haunt Israelis.
It will be our humanity, not any international law, that will judge and hold Israel and its allies accountable. On a different scale but in no less glaring a manner, the illegal unilateral changes that Israel is carrying out in the West Bank, often with the aid of settler militias, will provide an image of Israeli greed for land and its ideologically driven policies.
Perhaps there is no better example of the absurdity of Israel's actions than the case of the Old City of Hebron. The city is held hostage by a small group of Jewish extremists numbering 900 who live in the centre of Hebron – the second-largest Palestinian city in the West Bank, with a population of 232,500. The Jewish population is protected day and night by more than 1,000 Israeli soldiers. To allow settlers and soldiers to move freely, restrictions on Palestinian movement include dozens of fortified checkpoints, roadblocks and permanent and temporary military posts. The old city has practically been emptied of its Palestinian population. Is this sustainable?
As far as the future of Gaza is concerned, the question that is going to be crucial is whether, with the destruction of the means of surviving – the farmland, water supplies, hospitals and schools – the land can continue to sustain life.
The world community that has shamefully failed to enforce international law could make a difference on this matter if it insists that, after the end of hostilities, Israel allows the opening of the Gaza Strip and ensures that aid is brought to enable Palestinians to continue living there while the area is rebuilt.
Gaza has a history of 4,000 years of continuous human habitation. Israel's attempt at causing life there to cease is doomed to fail. Palestinians will, either with the help of others or without, find a way to survive.
Raja Shehadeh is a Palestinian lawyer and writer, and founder of the human rights organisation Al-Haq. His latest book is Forgotten: Searching for Palestine's Hidden Places and Lost Memorials, with Penny Johnson.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
14 minutes ago
- The Guardian
In Gaza, we know why Israel wants to herd us all into one camp – our lives are bargaining chips
After 21 months of war, the Israeli minister of defence, Israel Katz, has proposed a new initiative to force all Palestinians in Gaza into a camp on the ruins of Rafah. I lived west of Gaza city, just five minutes away from the beach. I used to see the waves from the roof of our house. The area was marvellous, with luxury architecture, hotels and tourist resorts. Since the war began, I have been moving between the northern, western and eastern areas of the city. We were unable to settle in one place because Israeli ground invasions continued to move from one area to another. Later, the Israeli army named these areas 'North Gaza' as part of its apartheid policy, dividing Gaza into north and south and treating them differently. I remember at the beginning of the conflict when the planes dropped evacuation leaflets saying: 'You must now head to the south of the valley. You are in a dangerous combat zone.' My father told me and my siblings that these leaflets were nothing but a displacement plan. The south was not safe, and we had to stay in northern Gaza. Before 7 October, we could move freely from north to south without any restrictions. This was one of the features that distinguished Gaza from the West Bank. However, when many people rejected Israel's orders at the start of the war, the IDF established a checkpoint between the north and the south. Israel said that anyone seeking food should travel to the south of Gaza and never return to the north. In fact, it implemented a starvation policy as a means of displacement. People who couldn't stand the hunger left, but we stood firm in our decision not to submit. I remember being poisoned during last year's Ramadan. There was nothing in the markets except weeds, whereas the south was brimming with goods. We were dying of hunger and exhausted as we were displaced from one area to another. Relatives who had been displaced to the south told us it was safe. But then, Israel invaded Rafah and destroyed it, killing many. After this, those who had fled became crowded in the centre of Gaza along roads, living in tattered tents. They were unable to return to the north across the Netzarim checkpoint. A young man, Omar Marouf, only 22 years old, decided to return to northern Gaza across the checkpoint. We still do not know what happened to him. Was he killed? Then the aid was cut off. Up and down the territory we were being bombed and starved, sometimes shot while queueing for what little food was being allowed in. According to Katz, Rafah will become a 'humanitarian city', but no one in Gaza can believe this claim. I asked my grandfather, who, aged four, witnessed the displacement of the Nakba in 1948, about the purpose of Katz's plan. 'Is this plan a prison within a prison?' I asked. 'There is no point in going there,' he responded. 'We are already in a prison with closed doors.' There will be death in every corner of Gaza as long as it is occupied. Neighbouring Arab countries have denied us refuge, especially Egypt. Currently, it only receives people from Gaza as patients and refuses to grant them residency. The people of Gaza believe the plan is nothing more than an Israeli pressure tactic against Hamas, hoping it will waive the demand that Israel withdraws from the Morag axis – an Israeli 'security corridor' between Rafah and Khan Younis. Gaza's people are waiting for another pause in the conflict with empty stomachs. Young people have stopped queueing for aid, hoping that a truce is near and that there is no need to risk their lives. This truce, even if it is for 60 days, is the only chance for us to breathe. I do not know what will happen if these negotiations fail. This ceasefire is our last hope to live in peace, even if for a short while. Nour Abo Aisha is a freelance writer based in Gaza Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
Spectator
2 hours ago
- Spectator
The BBC Gaza documentary report is a cover-up
The BBC's long-awaited editorial review of its documentary Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone was published today. It reads not like a rigorous investigation into serious journalistic failures, but like a desperate institutional whitewash. The report bends over backwards to defend the indefensible, trying to sanitise a catastrophic editorial misjudgment as little more than 'a significant oversight by the Production Company.' At the heart of the scandal lies the BBC's failure to disclose that the documentary's narrator, a Palestinian boy named Abdullah Al-Yazouri, is the son of Ayman Al-Yazouri, a senior official in the Hamas-run government in Gaza. This, the report acknowledges, was 'wrong' and constituted a breach of guideline 3.3.17 on accuracy, specifically the obligation to avoid 'misleading audiences by failing to provide important context.' Yet this is the only breach the report concedes, despite a litany of other egregious failures. According to the BBC, the production company hired to make the film was 'consistently transparent' in believing that the narrator's father held 'a civilian or technocratic position' and 'made a mistake' by not informing the BBC. This is absurd. The director, co-director, and one Gaza-based crew member were all aware of the father's identity. In my opinion, the notion that anyone could mistake a deputy minister in the Hamas government for a non-political figure is either wilful blindness or calculated deceit. Even more damning is the revelation that the production company met directly with both the narrator and his father in August 2024. And yet, the report states with astonishing credulity: 'I have been told by the Production Company that there was no discussion of the father's position at this meeting.' Somehow, though, the report's author considers this not to be evidence of concealment, but merely an unfortunate omission. The BBC claimed contributors' social media had been checked, yet it took just one independent journalist a single evening after broadcast to uncover everything they missed, and they still aired it again two days later. The narrator's family was paid around £1,817 in goods and cash. The report assures us that sanctions checks were performed and 'no positive results returned'. One wonders how the family of a senior Hamas official could possibly escape UK sanctions, given that Hamas is a fully proscribed terrorist organisation under British law, but then again the money was paid to the narrator's sister, intended for his mother. Even more startling is the admission that the BBC 'was only made aware of the disturbance fee paid for the Narrator after the broadcast of the Programme.' Aside from the Hamas minister's son, perhaps the most brazen deception in the film was also swept under the rug in just two short paragraphs of the BBC's report; its use of non-sequential editing in a sequence portraying a supposed mass-casualty incident. The programme presents us with a child volunteer paramedic (an entirely unbelievable notion anyway) responding to an Israeli airstrike. It opens with a graphic reading '245 days of war' signalling to viewers that the events depicted occurred on a single, specific date. The narration references a particular airstrike and location, accompanied by a map pinpointing the area, further reinforcing the impression that this is a chronological slice of a real event. And yet, the child appears in multiple shots wearing different shoes and with visibly different hair lengths. He looks freshly shorn in one scene and noticeably untrimmed in another. The only constant is a T-shirt, which the BBC admits created an illusion of continuity. The report concedes the sequence 'included scenes shot on different days', and that the impression of a continuous event was 'reinforced by the fact that the child was wearing the same clothes throughout'. Despite this orchestrated consistency, the report ludicrously claims: '[The sequence] did not make any assertions as to how what was shown fitted into the broader chronology of the Israel-Gaza war.' This seems to me to be indefensible. The film used date-stamped graphics, mapped coordinates, location-specific narration, and a carefully coordinated wardrobe, all designed to give the appearance of a single, continuous event. Yet the BBC insists that audiences were not materially misled, and that no editorial breach occurred. It is a blatant exercise in gaslighting, and an affront to even the most basic principles of journalistic integrity. The mistranslation of the Arabic word Yahud, 'Jew', as 'Israelis' is another glaring deception. The report flatly states: 'I do not find there to have been any editorial breaches in respect of the Programme's translation.' Instead, it claims: 'The translations in this Programme did not risk misleading audiences on what the people speaking meant.' This is not merely wrong, it is a conscious sanitisation of genocidal anti-Semitic rhetoric. The fact that Palestinians might use the word 'Jew' and 'Israeli' interchangeably is rather the point. The reason for their animosity towards Israel is precisely because it is the Jewish homeland and the world's only Jewish state. Why else would they use that word? The refusal to translate the word accurately distorts the ideological nature of the conflict. The BBC had ample opportunity to catch these failures. According to the BBC's own investigation, the narrator was identified in the early development stage having previously featured on Channel 4 News. Internal emails from December and January show that multiple BBC staff raised concerns about social media vetting, Hamas affiliations, and whether narration was being scripted for propaganda purposes. Yet these warnings were ignored or brushed aside. Incredibly, a mere footnote reveals: 'There was a reference in the Programme's Commissioning Specification to the Production Company understanding their obligations under the Terrorism Act, which it was stated they would get briefed on. I understand that they were not in fact briefed on these obligations.' Another footnote discussing the Hamas affiliation of the narrator's father mentions a post-broadcast phone call in which the production team allegedly said they 'had not told [the BBC] earlier because they did not want to scare [them].' The production company denies this, but the report admits 'the balance of evidence… supports the conclusion that a comment of this nature was made', but still insists it cannot be read as intentional deception. Despite all this, the BBC concludes smugly: 'I find that the correct formal mechanisms for an independent commission were followed'. This is an insult to the intelligence of every viewer, every Briton and every Jew. If this is what editorial compliance looks like, then those mechanisms are unfit for purpose, and the BBC is a sham organisation. This travesty is not an isolated error. It follows years of documented bias, mistranslation, double standards, and selective outrage. What the BBC has now produced is not an act of accountability, it is an act of institutional self-preservation. A cover-up of a cover-up. A report written not to confront failure, but to excuse it. And in doing so, the BBC has confirmed precisely what so many critics already feared: that when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the BBC is no longer a broadcaster, it is a partisan actor.
The Guardian
4 hours ago
- The Guardian
Israel attacks Syrian military amid deadly clashes between Druze and Bedouin clans
Israel's army has said it struck military tanks in southern Syria, where government forces and Bedouin tribes have clashed with Druze militias in the latest escalation in the Middle East country's struggle for stability after a 13-year civil war. Dozens of people have been killed in the fighting between local militias and clans in Syria's Sweida province. Government security forces that were sent to restore order on Monday also clashed with local armed groups. Syria's interior ministry has said more than 30 people have died and nearly 100 others have been injured. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a UK-based war monitor, reported at least 99 dead, including two children, two women and 14 members of the security forces. As the violence escalated, Israel – which has previously attacked Syria in purported defence of the Druze – said it had struck 'several tanks' in the area as a 'warning' to Damascus. The clashes in Syria initially broke out between armed groups from the Druze and Sunni Bedouin clans, the observatory said, with some members of the government security forces 'actively participating' in support of the Bedouins. Syrian interior ministry spokesperson Noureddine al-Baba said government forces entered Sweida early on Monday to restore order. 'Some clashes occurred with outlawed armed groups, but our forces are doing their best to prevent any civilian casualties,' he told the state-run Al-Ikhbariya TV. Al-Baba told the Associated Press that the 'clashes are fundamentally not sectarian in nature.' 'The real conflict is between the state and bandits and criminals, not between the state and any Syrian community,' he said. 'On the contrary, the state views the Druze community in Sweida as a partner in advancing the national unity project.' Bassem Fakhr, spokesperson for the Men of Dignity movement, one of the largest Druze factions in Sweida, told AFP talks were 'under way between the notables of the city of Sweida and representatives of the general security [forces] and the defence ministry to reach a solution'. Druze religious authorities had called on Monday evening for a ceasefire in the area, saying they were not opposed to the Syrian central government. But Sheikh Hikmat al-Hijri, one of the three Druze spiritual leaders in Sweida, expressed his 'rejection of the entry' of general security forces into the province, demanding 'international protection'. Rami Abdurrahman, who heads the observatory, said the conflict started with the kidnapping and robbery of a Druze vegetable seller by members of a Bedouin tribe who set up a checkpoint, leading to tit-for-tat attacks and kidnappings. Syria's interior ministry described the situation as a dangerous escalation that 'comes in the absence of the relevant official institutions, which has led to an exacerbation of the state of chaos, the deterioration of the security situation, and the inability of the local community to contain the situation.' UN deputy special envoy for Syria Najat Rochdi expressed 'deep concern' over the violence and urged the government and local groups to 'take immediate steps to protect civilians, restore calm, and prevent incitement.' She said in a statement the clashes underscored the 'urgent need for genuine inclusion, trust-building, and meaningful dialogue to advance a credible and inclusive political transition in Syria.' Israel – which also has a Druze population – reported hitting several tanks heading towards Sweida on Monday. The strikes were 'a clear warning to the Syrian regime – we will not allow harm to be done to the Druze in Syria', defence minister Israel Katz posted on X. Israeli forces in December seized a UN-patrolled buffer zone on Syrian territory along the border with the Golan Heights and have launched hundreds of airstrikes on military sites in Syria. While many Druze in Syria have said they do not want Israel to intervene on their behalf, factions from the Druze minority have also been suspicious of the new authorities in Damascus after former president Bashar Assad fled the country in December during a rebel offensive led by Sunni Islamist insurgent groups. On several occasions, Druze groups have clashed with security forces from the new government or allied factions. In May, Israeli forces struck a site near the presidential palace in Damascus, in what was seen as a warning to Syrian interim President Ahmad al-Sharaa. The strike came after dozens were killed in fighting between pro-government gunmen and Druze fighters in the town of Sahnaya and the Druze-majority Damascus suburb of Jaramana. Syria's foreign ministry called for 'all countries and organizations to respect the authority of the Syrian Arab Republic and refrain from supporting any separatist rebel movements.' In a statement, it called for Syrians to 'cease acts of violence, surrender illegal weapons and thwart those seeking to dismantle the Syrian social fabric and sow discord and division.' With Associated Press and Agence France-Presse
