News

Junior foreign minister Peter Kent and Liberal Party Leader Michael Ignatieff agree Israel has the right to defend itself against attack, political and legal expert Michael Byers noted today in his Globe opinion column Two wrongs don't make a right

"I agree [with them], he wrote.

"But I also agree with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who called the [Israeli air strike on a United Nations school in Gaza that killed 42 Palestinians last week] 'totally unacceptable.'

"And I agree with Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, who called for 'credible, independent and transparent' investigations into possible war crimes.

"I can agree with all these comments because they concern different strands of international law . . . "

"It's not sufficient to say Israel has a right to defend itself. We must consider whether the Israel Defence Forces are acting in a necessary and proportionate way.

"After a six-month ceasefire, Hamas launched rockets at Israel before the Israeli military began its air campaign. Two weeks into the conflict, more than a dozen Israelis have died, three of them civilians. All of this is serious, but Israel's existence is not at risk from Hamas.

"According to Palestinian reports, more than 900 Palestinians have been killed, nearly half of them civilians, including many children. Israeli F-16s have bombed crowded neighbourhoods, and hundreds of homes have been destroyed along with scores of government buildings. The viability of Gaza has been severely compromised . . .

"The direct targeting of civilians is prohibited [by the Geneva conventions, which Israel has ratified] as are indiscriminate attacks. The Israeli military's use of white phosphorous shells is almost certainly illegal in a densely populated area such as Gaza. Individual targets may only be selected if the direct military advantage anticipated from the strike exceeds the expected harm to civilians. Hamas rocket attacks on Israeli towns rather than specific military targets are illegal. So, too, is the use of powerful bombs in crowded neighbourhoods.

"The Israeli government points to the fact that Hamas is using civilians as human shields. Hiding behind civilians is illegal, but two wrongs do not make a right. The relevant question is, again, whether the direct military advantage of a particular target exceeds the risk to civilians. Is destroying a mortar position next to a school worth 42 innocent lives?

" . . . Violations of all these rules constitute war crimes, which are subject to universal jurisdiction in the sense that the perpetrators may be prosecuted in any country's domestic courts.

"The absence of a reliable mechanism for prosecuting Hamas and Israeli perpetrators is unfortunate. But so, too, is the support that some Canadian politicians have given to apparent violations of international law. The long-term viability of these rules depends on our willingness to speak out in defence of them — against all perpetrators."

Whether you agree or not, it's a provocative argument so we at globeandmail.com are pleased that Prof. Byers will be online today from 2-3 p.m. ET (11 a.m. to noon PT) to take your questions on his opinion column and international law in such conflicts.

Join the Conversation at that time or submit a question in advance.

Your questions and Prof. Byers's answers will appear at the bottom of this page when the discussion begins.

Michael Byers is Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia.

He was a visiting professor of law at the University of Tel Aviv in April of 2004.

Editor's Note: globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject each question/comment. Comments/questions may be edited for length or clarity. HTML is not allowed. We will not publish questions/comments that include personal attacks on participants in these discussions, that make false or unsubstantiated allegations, that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact cannot be easily verified, or questions/comments that include vulgar language or libellous statements. Preference will be given to readers who submit questions/comments using their full name and home town, rather than a pseudonym.

Darren Yourk, globeandmail.com editor writes: Thanks very much for joining us this afternoon Michael. We have a lot of reader questions, so we'll get right to it.

Jesse McLaren from Toronto Canada writes: Why does the media keep repeating the false claim that Hamas is to blame, rather than providing an account consistent with history and geopolitics? Since Israel broke the truce and launched the war, why does nobody talk about the right to self-defense of Palestinians and their democratically-elected government?

Michael Byers writes: Jesse, Rather than assigning blame for starting the conflict, we should recognize that legal violations are probably being committed on both sides - and that innocent Israeli and Palestinian civilians are dying as a result. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is right to call for an immediate ceasefire. I'd like to see the Canadian government do likewise. Then, once the fighting stops and international journalists are allowed into Gaza again, we'll be able to form a more complete picture as to what happened.

Seth Feldman from Toronto Canada writes: Would it make any difference in international law if Gaza were part of a Palestinian state? Would it at least clarify the situation if we could say (de jure rather than just de facto) that the nation of Palestine attacked the nation of Israel and that the nation of Israel responded in kind? In other words, can international law really be applied to conflicts between states and non-state or quasi-state entities?

Michael Byers writes: Dear Seth, The status of Gaza does complicate matters with respect to the right of self-defence, though after 9/11 it became widely accepted that the right can be exercised against terrorism (subject to the regular limitations of necessity and proportionality). It is also relevant that, in 2004, the International Court of Justice issued a so-called "advisory opinion" in which it found that the Fourth Geneva Convention (which concerns the obligations of occupying powers) applies to Israel's actions in Gaza. The Convention's full title is "Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of August 12, 1949", which gives you a sense as to the nature of its provisions.

Dan M. From Toronto writes: What would you recommend the Israelis do which they have not already tried? Since the Hamas rockets started about seven years ago, the Israelis have tried: diplomacy; economic pressure; political pressure; they have tried to get Arab governments to exert pressure on Hamas; they have tried limited military incursions; and they tried a six-month ceasefire with Hamas. What do your propose?

Michael Byers writes: Dan, There is no single solution. And though we need to understand the incredibly complex history of the conflict, we also need to focus our attention on the future. I very much hope that President Obama will begin applying pressure to both sides the moment he takes office, and that diplomatic contact is opened with Hamas. One of George W. Bush's greatest foreign policy failures was his almost complete disinterest in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. I strongly condemn Hamas' indiscriminate targeting of Israeli civilians. At the same time, I agree with Sir Winston Churchill, who famously said: "To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war." Israel is not going to solve this problem through force of arms.

Mathieu Labreche from Brussels Belgium writes: My question specifically relates to the right to self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter. To my knowledge, a new precedent has been set since 9/11 whereby the right to self-defence can extend to a non-state actor (i.e. terrorists) if there is a clear nexus with the state. In other words, 'state-sponsored terrorism'. In light of the current events in Gaza, how does the argument of self-defence against a non-state actor factor in?

Michael Byers writes: Mathieu, I've written about this in my academic writings, including a book entitled War Law: Understanding International Law and Armed Conflict. In brief, the international response to the U.S. intervention in Afghanistan established that the right of self-defence now permits the use of force within the territory of state-sponsors of terrorism, but not within countries (like Germany in 2001) where terrorists are operating without the knowledge of the government. For similar reasons, it is likely that the right of self-defence permits the use of force against terrorists operating from within "failed states" such as Somalia. Gaza, it seems to me, falls somewhere in between.

Steven Little from Canada writes: Did you see evidence during your stay in Tel Aviv that Israel at the level of government genuinely wants a peace agreement with the Palestinians? If so, why do think they keep on settling the 'occupied' lands? What are the explanations and how is it that they do not seem to see this as a behaviour that excludes the possibility of peace?

Michael Byers writes: I haven't spent enough time in Israel to give definitive answers to your last two questions. But I can tell you that I was struck by the diversity of opinions within Israel and the healthy, rigorous debates that occur. There are many individuals and groups in Israel who are strongly and openly critical of Israeli government policy, and just as many who defend it unequivocally. It's also important to remember that Israel is on the verge of an election with Gaza the central issue in the campaign. For at least some of the candidates, being tough on security might be seen as providing electoral advantage. And I say that with full appreciation of the distress and fear experienced by many Israelis when their country is threatened or attacked.

Sarah Bee from Canada writes: It is difficult to know whether information shared in the press is accurate. Between domestic sources, sources in Israel and sources from Al Jazeera, there are wildly different accounts of what is happening. Arab news sources report IDF soldiers burning down orange groves in Gaza, while Israeli sources site the uncovering of mass storage areas for rockets and other bomb making material. Do you feel there are any reliable and balanced sources of information out there that are painting a picture of both sides of this struggle?

Michael Byers writes: The "fog of war" always makes it difficult to determine what exactly is happening in an ongoing armed conflict. In this instance, the difficulty has been greatly exacerbated by the Israeli government's refusal to allow international journalists into Gaza. I don't buy the argument that they're protecting the journalists' lives, since experienced journalists like the Globe's Patrick Martin fully appreciate the risks when they accept an assignment to a frequently dangerous region. For my part, I try to read as widely as possible - something which is greatly facilitated by the Internet. But I cannot stress enough that we need an immediate cessation of hostilities. Only then we can form a complete and accurate picture of what has happened and begin to assign blame - including, perhaps, through war crimes prosecutions.

Fatehia Saleh from Montreal Canada writes: Prof. Byers, thank you for a balanced and well-argued article. I have a question. Is there any action that I can take as a Canadian citizen that might be helpful to civilians in Gaza now caught in the fighting? I feel so helpless in the face of the photos and reports we hear and the endless arguments over who did what to whom and who is worse than the other.

Michael Byers writes: Fatehia, You can write to both Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff and ask them to join US Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's call for an immediate ceasefire. You can explain to your friends and family that both sides are likely at fault and that two wrongs do not make a right. In the circumstances, the protection of innocent civilians must take priority.

Keith Chadwick from Canada writes: Thank you for speaking on this issue. Mr. Byers, I am wondering what will happen for Gaza once the war is over. I view this war as one to create a failed state is Gaza. This will have long term consequences, there will be no voice for peace negotiations in Gaza, let alone motivation for peace talks. How can Israel and the international community help Gaza become a viable, legitimate state and avoid Gaza from becoming a failed once the fighting stops?

Michael Byers writes: Keith, The border between Israel and Gaza will have to be opened so that goods and labour can move freely, as they once did. Palestinians, especially young Palestinian men, must be provided with economic opportunities if we're to end the cycle of anger and violence. At the same time, an open border could pose increased security risks, for instance suicide bombers, and for this reason I support Lewis Mackenzie's call for a UN peacekeeping force to help manage the situation. Bringing peace to the Middle East will be very difficult, but the process begins with understanding that Israelis and Palestinians share a common humanity.

Darren Yourk, editor, globeandmail.com writes: That's all we have time for this afternoon. Thanks to everyone who participated.