The human rights framework has been given a prominent role in what is perhaps today’s most intractable and contentious debate—that which surrounds the ongoing conflict in Gaza. Human rights can be found, explicit or implied, within the foundation and supporting evidence of many arguments on both sides of the debate. Appeals to human rights are passionately and persuasively used to condemn the actions of the opponent and justify the position of the favored side. The appeals are often underscored by heartbreaking narratives and photographs that grace the daily news.
Israel’s supporters decry the impunity with which their enemy regards the humanitarian law of civilian immunity. In turn, Palestine cries foul when heavily populated areas within Gaza are targeted, resulting in major civilian casualties. Proponents of Israel detail the number of rockets fired daily into Israel by Hamas, condemning the violation of the human right to safety and security. On an equally regular basis, Palestinian supporters tally the individuals deprived of the human right to life by Israeli artillery. Palestine mourns the high number of children—the demographic that human rights focuses most on—killed in a given air strike. The other side maintains that the right of the child was already violated through social indoctrination and instructed hate. Palestine paints a stark comparison between the numbers dead on each side—13 Israeli casualties to more than 1,200 Palestinian casualties, and counting. Israel cites statistics to prove the extent to which it protects the sanctity of innocent life—warning phone calls, teaser bombs, and respite hours for humanitarian convoys.
In sum, both sides have employed human rights language to morally justify its position, which calls into question the actual role of human rights in such a situation.
In a given conflict, human rights belongs under the auspices of jus in bello, the rules governing the conduct within war. Central to this body of humanitarian laws are the norms governing the protection of the innocent and the overall minimization of harm. Within the framework of this debate, however, human rights is being employed by all parties in support of arguments pertaining to jus ad bellum—to what extent each side is justified in engaging in war. The human rights abuses inflicted upon Palestine by Israel have been packaged to connote inherent support for Palestinian military action. The human rights violations experienced at the hand of terrorist bombings within Israel, coupled with the humanitarian measures performed by the Israeli Defense Force are used to give moral credence to the Gaza offensive.
In short, the human rights framework is being asked to play a role it was never meant to play—it is being used to justify military action. Human rights are non-retributive—violations thereof cannot rationalize human rights abuses in response. The fundamental tenets of human rights are grounded in the norm of impartiality. They are nonaligned and neutral—they belong to all human beings “without distinction of any kind.”
Thus, as an impartial framework distinct from the normative claims of jus ad bellum, a true human-rights-based argument cannot take sides. It cannot assign rightness or wrongness to a state or to a society’s decision to take military action. This also means that human rights cannot also be mobilized to justify such actions. Human rights protection will never constitute human rights abuse. Gaza represents an immediate humanitarian and human rights crisis. The violations being reported are real, and of international concern. One must be careful, however, not to confuse belief in the fundamental protection of human rights with the promotion of either side of the conflict.
The author is a Barnard College senior majoring in political science and human rights. She is the Urgent Action Coordinator of the Columbia chapter of Amnesty International.