An inquiry by the United Nations into the 2014 Gaza war has accused the Israeli and Palestinian factions of potential violations of international law including suspected war crimes. The commission, chaired by a former New York supreme court judge, Mary McGowan Davis says “Those responsible for suspected violations of international law at all levels of the political and military establishments must be brought to justice”.
Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, said: “The report is biased. The commission that wrote it is under a committee that does everything but protect human rights.”
Hamas also rejected the findings stating that its rockets and mortars were aimed at Israeli military sites, not at civilians.
The UN commission says that it has gathered “substantial information pointing to serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law” by both sides.
The report’s authors say that, “The use of rockets in the possession of Palestinian armed groups, indiscriminate in nature and any targeted mortar attack against civilians constitute violations of international humanitarian law, in particular of the fundamental principle of distinction, which may amount to a war crime.”
“The commission recognises that the general warnings issued by the Israel Defense Forces saved lives. At the same time, these warnings were often used in a context where people fleeing were unable to identify a safe place to go owing to the unpredictability of many attacks over a lengthy period of time,” it said.
The report notes: “Many of the incidents took place in the evening or at dawn, when families gathered for iftar and suhhur, the Ramadan meals or at night, when people were asleep. The timing of the attacks increased the likelihood that many people, often entire families, would be at home. Attacking residential buildings rendered women, particularly vulnerable to death and injury.”
“In six of the cases examined by the commission, and in most cases reported on by non-governmental organisations, there is little or no information available to explain why residential buildings, which are prima facie civilian objects immune from attack, were considered to be legitimate military objectives,” it noted.
The report concludes, “In many incidents, however, the weapons used, the timing of attacks and the fact that the targets were located in densely populated areas indicate that the Israel Defense Forces may not have done everything feasible to avoid or limit civilian casualties.”
“Israel should provide specific information on the effective contribution of a given house or inhabitant to military action and the clear advantage to be gained by the attack. Should a strike directly and intentionally targets a house in the absence of a specific military objective, this would amount to a violation of the principle of distinction. It may also constitute a direct attack against civilian objects or civilians, a war crime under international criminal law.”
By Premji
