Law, Narrative, War and Revolution

[Dr Nada Ali is a full-time lecturer at SOAS school of Law, Gender and Media.]

Since the start of the Israeli assault against Gaza and Palestinians in October 2023, Israeli officials attempted repeatedly (and rather unsuccessfully) to draw parallels between the events of October 7^th and the attack of 9/11 on US soil. This is hardly surprising given Israel’s incessant utilization of the language of counter-terrorism and self-defence to justify its repeated military campaigns in Palestinian territories and in other countries in the region. As stated in paragraph 138 of the Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), Israel  invoked the right to self-defence under the UN Charter and the provisions of UNSC Resolutions 1368 (2001) and 1373 (2001) issued in response to the attack on 9/11 in order to argue it had a right to defend itself against terrorist attacks waged by non-state actors. A quick reading of these resolutions will show, however, that they have not established new norms that extend the right to self-defence beyond that enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter. Article 51 envisages action between two states. These resolutions in fact specifically refer to state responsibility in relation to suppressing terrorist activities within a state’s own borders. To add to this, the US campaign in Afghanistan, as susceptible to criticism as it may in any event be, was based on the assumption of Afghanistan’s complicity and/or acquiescence in the attacks. In relation to Israel, the ICJ has already rejected the existence of a right to self-defence for an occupier against an occupied population under its jurisdiction.

However, Israel’s use of the language of counter-terrorism in relation to its recent assault on Gaza and ongoing aggression in the region is not merely aimed at laying the groundwork for raising self-defence as justification for its ongoing war against its enemies. The revival of the narrative of 9/11 and the re-enactment of a play in which a civilized West valiantly resists a cultural threat creeping in from a backward, violent and irrational Muslim world is essential for Israel’s self-image in relation to its occupation of Palestine. As Nesiah points out in her article Resistance in the Age of Empire, the relegation of armed resistance groups to the ranks of terrorists ensures the obfuscation of their political claims for the right to self-determination and implicates the legitimacy of their cause by centering their crimes instead. This may perhaps explain the incessant framing of the conflict as a non-international armed conflict between Hamas and the State of Israel despite the fact of occupation. On this point, consider John Quigley’s EJIL blog post on Karim Khan’s Dubious Characterization of the Gaza Hostilities.

Given the recent determination of the occupation’s illegality by the ICJ in its Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Policies and Practices of Israel on the Occupied Palestinian Territory and its finding that Israeli policies amount to breach of its obligations under Article 3 of the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination, it is not entirely clear how the struggle in which armed Palestinian groups are engaged can be understood as anything other than a fight “against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes in their exercise of the right to self determination.” In paragraph 36 of his Separate Declaration to the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion, Judge Taldi interpreted the findings of the ICJ in relation to CERD as “an acceptance that the policies and practices of Israel constitute a breach on the prohibition of apartheid.”

While the exercise of the right to self-determination raises issues of representation, I posit that these are easily overcome in relation to the events of October 7^th. Contrary to the framing of the events in mainstream media, the operation was manned not just by Hamas but by a broad coalition of Palestinian armed groups with different ideological leanings from secular to Islamist. Furthermore, and in addition to Hamas’ claim to legitimacy based on the last free and fair elections in Gaza in 2006, the recently brokered national unity and reconciliation agreement between Hamas, Fatah and twelve other Palestinian groups point to the existence of a Palestinian consensus over the events of October 7^th and what followed. As such, and regardless of the fact that civilians were targeted during the attack, these Palestinian armed groups must not be written off as terrorist. Furthermore, the 9/11 story hardly maps onto the October 7^th events seamlessly.

Al-Qaeda’s attacks against the US were a reactionary response to American military presence in Arab states and its political and economic influence over decision making in countries such as Saudi Arabia. In the perception of Al-Qaeda, the failure of Arab countries to respond to the needs of their populations and to prioritize their interests over the interests of foreign nationals was entirely due to the evilness of empire as represented by the US. Note also that this is not Al-Qaeda’s first brush with empire. It has been propped up in Afghanistan to initially defeat Russian influence with the help and blessings of the US. And while this perception is not entirely unfounded, Al-Qaeda’s grievance against the US seems to be somewhat ill-conceived and at least theoretically and politically incoherent. This is in addition to the fact that their chosen mode of resistance – targeting civilians – is neither legally, nor morally justifiable. As such, rather than their Islamism, Al-Qaeda was an easy group to shun because of their unchecked zeal and irrational rejection of human interconnectedness.

Contrast this with the long-standing Palestinian resistance against the Israeli occupation. To begin with, Palestinians are the direct victims of the 76-year long occupation of their land. To add to this, the history of the occupation is a history of violence, suppression and disenfranchisement of the indigenous Palestinian population much like the history of numerous other settler colonial projects. As such, the construction of an innocent victim versus savage villain narrative in relation to the attacks of October 7^th is not an easy feat given Israel’s consistent and continuous violations of Palestinian rights. Having said that, what was fatal to Israel’s attempt to invoke the 9/11 narrative was ultimately its own frenzied military campaign on the Gaza strip.

Given the long history of unchecked Israeli aggression against its captive Palestinian population in Gaza and the West Bank, it is hardly surprising that it thought it justified and forgivable (if not commendable) to launch a genocidal campaign against Gaza in response to the attacks of October 7^th. While the use of violence by Israel in the past fulfilled the functional goal of keeping its occupied population passive, its unchecked belief that “everything is possible and is permitted” in relation to its treatment of Palestinians eventually led to its descent into genocidal territory. As such, it is not just Netanyahu’s unbridled political ambition or arrogance or the fact that Israel is being led by an extreme right-wing government that explains the events of 2023-2024 in the region. It is rather the totalitarianism of the Zionist project in Palestine that ultimately brought about the inhumanity of the moment.

Hannah Arendt theorized that the totalitarianism of the Third Reich in Germany was the product of a combination of ideological indoctrination and dehumanization. The ideological indoctrination in Nazi Germany that enabled the abrogation of the rights of its Jewish citizens and minorities and led to the horrors of the Holocaust was aimed at the German elite and citizenry . In the context of Palestine, a similar process of indoctrination was required for the pacification and inculturation of western audiences to accept the persistent violations of Palestinian rights as a necessary requirement for Israel’s security. This inculturation is reflected in law and even in judicial determinations on the Question of Palestine. For an example of this, consider the dissenting opinion of UK’s own Judge Higgins in the Wall Decision; where she seems to prioritize the security of Israel over the rights of its captive population. That the security concerns of an abstract construct has for this long been conceptualized in international law to trump the most basic human rights of a captive and dispossessed population should be alarming enough without also raising the necessary question of “What about the security of Palestinians?”

The weaponization of anti-semitism to stave off any criticism aimed at upholding Palestinian rights is a dangerous ode to totalitarianism. The prevailing effect of this silencing has created an authoritarian plane on which the Palestinian Question is dealt with and where only the Israeli narrative is upheld and debated. This narrative has long since colored international law and international relations literature on the topic with a pro-Israeli bias that often saw Israel’s excesses in the West Bank and Gaza as disproportionate but never outright illegal or immoral. In short, the narrative on security has effectively turned Palestinians into mere devices for the achievement of a secure Israel regardless of the cost to their own security and safety.

Even though Israel prides itself in being the only functional democracy in the Middle East, it in fact operates as a totalitarian regime in relation to its treatment of Palestinian people. Shielded from Western censure and protected by international norms developed to advantage powerful and militarized states, it has come to expect impunity for its crimes against Palestinians. Not just because of its constructed self-image as a strong dignified and improbable Western nation in the Middle East, but also because it has successfully painted its captive population as backward, uncivilized and terrorist in order to defeat their decolonial aspirations. In his discussion of Netanyahu’s edited volume on Terrorism published in 1986, Edward Said explains how the terrorism narrative was essential for the marginalization of Palestinian nationalist aspirations in the face of the corresponding disproportionate violence of the Israeli state. The insidiousness of this narrative is that it frames state violence as necessary for the protection of life and limb while simultaneously redefining the essence of liberation struggles as the mere infliction of gratuitous violence. Given Israel’s own dilemma as an unwanted presence on Arab land, its construction of the essential terrorist needed to reflect its own prejudice against Muslim, Arab and Palestinian populations.

Israel’s apparent obsession with dragging Iran into the conflict and demonising the country as a pit of “tyranny and terror” despite Israel’s own history on these fronts is not accidental. An essential aspect of totalitarianism in relation to a distinctive other is the dehumanisation of the victim. Prior to October 7^th, the dehumanisation of Palestinians and their resistance was almost near-complete and as such guaranteed that the abrogation of their most fundamental rights went without so much as a whimper from the international community and the public. Kept away from the eyes and ears of Western audiences, the routine violation of the rights and bodies of Palestinians occurred in an isolated and dark realm that guaranteed their unreality continued unabated. What changed with October 7^th was that activists brought a decolonial lens to the conversation. By refusing to engage with framings of October 7^th demarcated along clear lines of victimhood and villainy, they managed to subvert the conversation to become one about the Israeli occupation and its litany of violations against Palestinians. This, in turn, necessitated the creation of a new villain for which Israel can remain victim and using which it can continue to wage an unending war in the region.

The above may go some way towards explaining why Netanyahu’s Speech at the UN General Assembly in its 79^th session sounded rather removed from reality and somewhat unhinged. From delusions of grandeur and invincibility to open violent threats against members of the United Nations, Netanyahu checked all the boxes of dictator speech. Unintentionally perhaps, and while attempting to impose his will on an incredulous and evidently critical international community, he managed to make Iran look rather peaceful!

Even as Israeli bombs fell on Lebanon, Netanyahu decried Iranian aggression in the region. In fact, and while Israel wreaked havoc in Gaza, the West Bank and now Lebanon, Iran has so far exercised admirable restraint in relation to Israel’s military aggression. Following an illegal attack on Iran’s embassy in Syria in April of this year, Iran responded with a measured attack that showed off its capability. The attack was in line with international law including in relation to specifically targeting military objectives and avoiding civilian damage. By contrast, Israel’s attack on the embassy was in violation of the law on the use of force as well as international humanitarian law.

The absurdities in Netanyahu’s speech do not stop there. With Israel’s genocidal campaign in Gaza mired in the right-wing extremism of ultranationalists, fascists and Jewish fundamentalists, Netanyahu proclaimed that the real seat of racist extremism was not his apartheid state but was in fact the UN General Assembly itself for daring to criticise Israel! According to Netanyahu, not acquiescing to the mass murder of Palestinians following October 7^th amounts to antisemitism and makes the UN General Assembly a “house of darkness” and a “swamp of anti-semitic bile.” This form of self-estrangement is not uncommon in dictators. The assumption that the entire world should be agreeable to the mass slaughter of Palestinians so Israel can survive as a nation points to a dangerous stage of despotism where the despot has come to believe his own lies and reject any form of reality existing outside the “atmosphere of madness and unreality” he had created.

Unbeknownst to most people, the defeat of Nazi Germany in World War II by a coalition of willing states was not instigated by Germany’s violations of the rights of its Jewish citizens and minorities. It came about as a result of German expansionist aggression in the region. While the propagation of anti-Arab and anti-Muslim rhetoric from the podiums of the United Nations is worrying enough, for this to be accompanied by the unconditional support of Western media and Western governments in relation to Israel’s unbridled military aggression is completely irrational. It has become quite clear following the General Assembly meeting this September that as far as the Global South is concerned, Israel is the aggressor.

If there were any point in time when the Iranian nuclear weapons program seemed reasonable, it is now given Israel’s unhinged military activism in the region and the corresponding calm of Iranian foreign policy. Deterrence has long since been touted as justification for nuclear armament and nuclear stock piling. With the Western world firmly behind Israel despite the numerous violations of international law it committed and despite its unrepentant abrogation of the most basic human rights of Palestinians since October 7^th, it is not unreasonable for Iran to insist on acquiring nuclear weapons to keep Israel’s aggression in the region at bay. Lest we forget, the United States of America’s own acquisition of nuclear weapons was in response to German aggression in Europe and the belief that Germany had in fact managed to manufacture a nuclear bomb. With Israel’s inflamed rhetoric on Iran, the development of a nuclear weapons program by Iran is perhaps the only logical defensive strategy given the events of the previous year. Curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions while allowing Israel’s aggressive expansionism leaves the peace and security of the Middle East and its inhabitants in the hands of an unsympathetic West and at the mercy of the ambitions of a rogue actor.

Reigning in Israel’s military campaign thus makes both geo-political and legal sense. Until then, Netanyahu’s search for a peace predicated on violence or normalisation with Arab countries following the genocide of  Palestinians should be dismissed as the ravings of a mad despot or the wishes of a war criminal hoping to escape the long hand of international criminal justice. A war with Iran is not likely to stop the conversation on Palestinian liberation which Israel has itself started with its manic response to the events of October 7^th.