These roots have a long history of negotiating, resulting in agreements between the ancient City States, the classical periods of Greece and Rome. A very early framework was formed by the Ancient Romans and much of this early formation in various shapes, according to some academics, is still in use today in what passes for ‘international law’. Some argue these origins predate the Roman period by a few thousand years. Maybe they are correct but for our purposes the Roman period will suffice.
Modern international law is basically a set of rules, norms, and standards that states and other actors on the international stage feel an obligation to obey in their day-to-day mutual obligations and relations with each other. In general most states do obey these rules much of the time, when it suits their interests, but certainly not always. International law is divided into ‘public international law’ and ‘private international law’ and for our purpose it is the former which is of greatest importance.
Modern international law is basically a set of rules, norms, and standards that states and other actors on the international stage feel an obligation to obey in their day-to-day mutual obligations and relations with each other. In general most states do obey these rules much of the time, when it suits their interests, but certainly not always. International law is divided into ‘public international law’ and ‘private international law’ and for our purpose it is the former which is of greatest importance.
‘Public international law’ consists of the “generally understood rules governing the relations between states as well as an enormous mass of treaty-based regulations”. Therefore public international law covers such questions and issues as the right to go to war and how citizens of neutral countries should be treated under such circumstances, the laws against genocide and the code of practice for treating prisoners of war. It also governs the regulations on international air traffic control, the laws of the seabed and the extradition of prisoners. The list of areas covered by ‘public international law’ is long and sometimes convoluted. This law is, however, based very much on the goodwill of nations and other actors on stage and is unenforceable therefore differing greatly from most jurisdiction’s domestic legal structures. These rules are expectations more than laws and states can make behavioural choices whether favourable or otherwise to these rules. This makes the entire project somewhat meaningless in many respects.
Rogue states are common as breaches of international law are becoming more and more frequent. Among these rogue states number the US, UK, Russia, China and Israel, and this list does not exhaust those guilty of such breaches. It might be noticeable that four of the mentioned rogue states are also permanent members of the five countries which constitute the United Nations Security Council, the fifth being France who themselves are far from innocent. This means in effect that all five of the Permanent Security Council members constitute rogue states. Hardly a vote of confidence in the United Nations! International law is administered by a host of agencies. Perhaps the best known are the International Court of Justice in the Hague, Holland, and the International Criminal Court also situated in the Hague.
The rules governing international law are far from even handed. Fairly recently the ICC issued an international arrest warrant against Russian President Vladimir Putin, and with a certain amount of justification. How this warrant is to be served is another matter altogether. It is noticeable to see that the warrant against Putin and the reasons for its issue, the “war crime of unlawful deportation of population (children) and that of unlawful transfer of population (children) from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation” and crimes against humanity including “torture of people” and “attacks on hospitals and medical facilities” do not appear to apply to Israeli Zionist Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. It is true - Putin has committed atrocities against the Ukraine, as they themselves are, arguably, doing now in western Russia but these crimes pale into the shadows compared with the genocidal criminal acts carried out by the Israelis in Gaza and now the neighbouring nation sate of Lebanon.
The rules governing international law are far from even handed. Fairly recently the ICC issued an international arrest warrant against Russian President Vladimir Putin, and with a certain amount of justification. How this warrant is to be served is another matter altogether. It is noticeable to see that the warrant against Putin and the reasons for its issue, the “war crime of unlawful deportation of population (children) and that of unlawful transfer of population (children) from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation” and crimes against humanity including “torture of people” and “attacks on hospitals and medical facilities” do not appear to apply to Israeli Zionist Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. It is true - Putin has committed atrocities against the Ukraine, as they themselves are, arguably, doing now in western Russia but these crimes pale into the shadows compared with the genocidal criminal acts carried out by the Israelis in Gaza and now the neighbouring nation sate of Lebanon.
Two other actors on this stage in breaching international law are Hamas and Hezbollah, the latter who use the Lebanon as a base to launch rocket attacks on Israel. Hamas severely breached international law on 7th October 2023 when, as we all know and are constantly reminded, they crossed into Israel committing a host of criminal acts amounting to horrific war crimes. The Israeli disproportionate retaliation equally and more so, certainly in gravity, amounts again to war crimes in both Gaza and Lebanon. In Lebanon the Israelis have already proved their capabilities to take out leading Hezbollah personal by using booby trap detonators in pagers and mobile phones. There is no reason they could not have continued using these methods coupled with actions by Israeli special forces and such eradication without the mass bombing and genocide of civilians is surely preferable. Israel is the major military power in the region and have proved beyond doubt on more than one occasion their ability to defend themselves. They do not need to use the kind of ordnance - usually expected to be deployed against another nation state, or states, as was the case in 1967 and 1973 - against a poorly equipped bunch of religious nutters. The truth is it is not, and perhaps never has been, Israel's sole intention to wipe out Hamas. This could have been done without all this killing, and, for that matter the removal of Hezbollah. Their long-term intentions could well be to expand Israeli influence and even governance throughout the region and to ensure there will not be a ‘two state solution’ to the situation regarding the status of Palestine. Israel may intend to “reshape” the region entirely. The groups who oppose such a ‘two state solution’ are, ironically enough, Israel, Hamas and Hezbollah, making them almost allies in this particular respect.
International law is supposed to protect United Nations Peace Keeping troops like the United Nations International Force In Lebanon (UNIFIL) but recent events have proved, yet again, the futility of this misleading phrase, ‘international law’. The UN are proving as toothless as their predecessor, the League of Nations were against Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany. Israeli forces have repeatedly - in what appears to be deliberate - attacked UNIFIL bases inside Lebanon. Professor Ray Murphy, of the University of Galway said:
International law is supposed to protect United Nations Peace Keeping troops like the United Nations International Force In Lebanon (UNIFIL) but recent events have proved, yet again, the futility of this misleading phrase, ‘international law’. The UN are proving as toothless as their predecessor, the League of Nations were against Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany. Israeli forces have repeatedly - in what appears to be deliberate - attacked UNIFIL bases inside Lebanon. Professor Ray Murphy, of the University of Galway said:
it’s clear Israel wants UN peacekeepers out of Lebanon. The IDF wants free reign to do what it has done in Gaza and doesn’t want international observers in the area (Irish Daily Mirror 12th October 2024 P.9).
This is a very good analysis of the situation given extra credence by the incursion by an Israeli Tank into a UNIFIL compound on 13th October. Add Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu’s comments amounting almost to an ultimatum, stating; “UNIFIL” must “pull back” out of the area and the intentions of Israel are clear. These attacks have not yet (at the time of writing) resulted in deaths of UNIFIL soldiers but casualties among the UNIFIL troops are beginning to grow. Irish soldiers make up part of this force and what has the 26-county government done? They have complained to the toothless UN who appear powerless to take action. Last year a young Irish soldier, Sean Rooney, was killed in action while on patrol as part of UNIFIL and the UN are seemingly reluctant to “engage” with the family of Private Rooney or the 26-county administration. The UN “has failed to reply to a coroner's request for help in examining the circumstances” (ibid) of Private Rooney’s death. Is this a sign that the UN itself are in breach of ‘international law’ putting peace keeping troops in unacceptable danger? The whole concept of ‘international law’ to me is nothing more than a not very funny joke. A more fitting title may be; ‘the international list of guidelines’ because to call this ‘law’ is misleading to say the least. It suggests a police force exists to enforce such law which it does not!
The Israeli armed forces have also recently positioned their tanks and heavy artillery near the UNIFIL base thus making the occupants, including lightly armed Irish troops, ‘human shields.’ When Sadam Hussein did exactly that in the Gulf War’ it was deemed a ‘war crime’ then so where is the difference? It is reported the Israelis have since moved their heavy ordnance further afield but even if this is the case why did they put them there in the first place? Hezbollah said they would “not fire” at the UNIFIL bases in an attempt, no doubt, to claim the moral high ground. Lebanon, unlike Gaza or even the theoretically speaking Palestinian West Bank, is an independent nation state and Israels actions are an act of international war on another country. The Zionists in Tel Aviv would be acutely aware of the political instability Lebanon has been suffering in recent years and, no doubt, calculated that into the equation when they launched their full-scale attack.
The Israeli armed forces have also recently positioned their tanks and heavy artillery near the UNIFIL base thus making the occupants, including lightly armed Irish troops, ‘human shields.’ When Sadam Hussein did exactly that in the Gulf War’ it was deemed a ‘war crime’ then so where is the difference? It is reported the Israelis have since moved their heavy ordnance further afield but even if this is the case why did they put them there in the first place? Hezbollah said they would “not fire” at the UNIFIL bases in an attempt, no doubt, to claim the moral high ground. Lebanon, unlike Gaza or even the theoretically speaking Palestinian West Bank, is an independent nation state and Israels actions are an act of international war on another country. The Zionists in Tel Aviv would be acutely aware of the political instability Lebanon has been suffering in recent years and, no doubt, calculated that into the equation when they launched their full-scale attack.
The Israelis can only prosecute their policy of genocide against civilians because the United Sates continue to supply them with weapons to do so! The US repeatedly ask the Israelis to call a ceasefire but why the fuck should they when the same USA are continuing to give them guns? The US and their puppet state, the UK (certainly as far as foreign policy goes), are the armouries of Israel. These countries supply the Ukraine with weapons to fight against the Russian aggressor yet these same hypocrites continue to arm the Israeli aggressor in the middle-east!
The UN have repeatedly refused requests, orders, by the Israeli army to pull back to safer positions. They have continued not to bow to these demands, after all, why should they? UNIFIL have a UN mandate to be there which the Israelis do not therefore all things being equal (which they are not) it is the Israelis who should be pulling back. Pulling back from a position they have no right to be in in the first place. What happens when another UNIFIL soldier is killed, this time by the Israelis? If another Irish soldier is killed in this conflict and it is the Israeli army who kill him do the 26-county administration break off diplomatic ties with Tel Aviv? Do they expel the Israeli Ambassador from its jurisdiction? Or, on the other hand, do they come up with some wishy-washy explanation as to why it is so ‘difficult’, meaning in real terms we will ask the US what to do?
The third and final key player so far in this bloody conflict and who are also in breach of international law is of course Iran. This country uses Hamas and Hezbollah as proxy forces in the region and are supplying them with arms. So, why did the Israelis not invade Iran instead of politically unstable Lebanon? Cut off the arms supply and starve the beast, seems logical to me from an Israeli point of view. Iran, like Lebanon, is an independent nation state (albeit governed by a religious gang) so why Lebanon and not Iran? The difference is Iran has an army, and airforce both of whom will fight back with a fury. The Israelis would no doubt come out on top eventually but at what cost to themselves and their population. Israel, under such circumstances, would be heavily bombed and the people there would then feel like the populations of Gaza and Lebanon do now. The truth is there is no need for anybody to bomb anybody else. It is in the Israelis, Hamas and Hezbollah’s interests to keep this pot boiling, ensuring a ‘two state solution’ will never come about. Get Netanyahu off the stage and remove both Hamas and Hezbollah from the equation and do it before it’s too late! The truth is the majority of peoples in both Israel and Palestine would, or would once have, preferred a ‘two-state solution’. The events of the last twelve months may have buried that idea for ever, hopefully not but the signs are not good. The next time you switch on your TV set and hear spokespeople from the US, the UN or even the UK calling on Israel to call a ceasefire just listen to the Israeli reply. That reply always is and always will be, roughly translated, Fuck Off And Mind Your Own Sodding Business, but Do keep giving us the guns, after all you make a mint out of the arms sales!
Something to stop this bloodbath must be done before this regional conflict turns into a global escalation and becomes nuclear, when oil is involved, this is always a possibility and the Middle East is soaked in oil wealth. The international nuclear powers, most notably Russia and USA, will strive to defend their own oil interests. Should this happen, it would not matter about a ‘two state solution’ or a 102-state solution and ‘international law, reality or fiction, will be of no relevance whatsoever! Ever heard the saying; “from mighty oaks fall tiny acorns”? This could turn out to be a case; “of tiny acorns grow mighty oaks” as the conflict escalates this is a danger to all of us.
The third and final key player so far in this bloody conflict and who are also in breach of international law is of course Iran. This country uses Hamas and Hezbollah as proxy forces in the region and are supplying them with arms. So, why did the Israelis not invade Iran instead of politically unstable Lebanon? Cut off the arms supply and starve the beast, seems logical to me from an Israeli point of view. Iran, like Lebanon, is an independent nation state (albeit governed by a religious gang) so why Lebanon and not Iran? The difference is Iran has an army, and airforce both of whom will fight back with a fury. The Israelis would no doubt come out on top eventually but at what cost to themselves and their population. Israel, under such circumstances, would be heavily bombed and the people there would then feel like the populations of Gaza and Lebanon do now. The truth is there is no need for anybody to bomb anybody else. It is in the Israelis, Hamas and Hezbollah’s interests to keep this pot boiling, ensuring a ‘two state solution’ will never come about. Get Netanyahu off the stage and remove both Hamas and Hezbollah from the equation and do it before it’s too late! The truth is the majority of peoples in both Israel and Palestine would, or would once have, preferred a ‘two-state solution’. The events of the last twelve months may have buried that idea for ever, hopefully not but the signs are not good. The next time you switch on your TV set and hear spokespeople from the US, the UN or even the UK calling on Israel to call a ceasefire just listen to the Israeli reply. That reply always is and always will be, roughly translated, Fuck Off And Mind Your Own Sodding Business, but Do keep giving us the guns, after all you make a mint out of the arms sales!
Something to stop this bloodbath must be done before this regional conflict turns into a global escalation and becomes nuclear, when oil is involved, this is always a possibility and the Middle East is soaked in oil wealth. The international nuclear powers, most notably Russia and USA, will strive to defend their own oil interests. Should this happen, it would not matter about a ‘two state solution’ or a 102-state solution and ‘international law, reality or fiction, will be of no relevance whatsoever! Ever heard the saying; “from mighty oaks fall tiny acorns”? This could turn out to be a case; “of tiny acorns grow mighty oaks” as the conflict escalates this is a danger to all of us.
 |
| Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent Socialist Republican and Marxist. |
No comments