UNICEF

There are polite ways to describe the civilian death toll in Gaza from Israel’s war against Hamas. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken described it as a ‘gap’; ‘between…the intent to protect civilians and the actual results.’ Throughout Israel’s retaliatory operation, international humanitarian law has been tested, with Gazan children shouldering the heaviest burden of the war.

By Aftab Ahmed

December 21, 2023

In early November, an extraordinary scene unfolded at Gaza’s Al-Shifa Hospital: a group of Palestinian children held a press conference. A young boy, with remarkable poise and clarity, stood front and centre, addressing the media with a sense of purpose that could best be described as admirable, and using the English language to express an emotional clarion call: he invited the international community to save Gaza from total annihilation.

He spoke not only for the 20 other children standing behind him, but for all Gazans, articulating demands for the protection of sacrosanct rights often taken for granted: shelter, food, education, and the right to live in peace without the fear of extermination, killing, or bombings. His plea was for a life similar to that of children elsewhere. At that moment, today’s reality was laid bare: 21st-century civilization, with its collective consciousness and in the presence of frameworks governing the rules of war, may profess to value human rights. Yet, in the name of self-defence, foreign policymaking, and strategic foresight, it is equally adept at crushing the hopes, dreams, and, to a large extent, the existential viability of Gazan children.

The attacks by Hamas on Israelis, including Israeli children, on October 7 were abhorrent. Plain and simple. Since October 7, Al-Shifa has become a manifestation of a recurring issue in wartime: the juxtaposition between the need to protect the sanctity, universality, indispensability, and inalienability of human rights, especially those of vulnerable non-combatants such as children and the elderly, versus the national security objectives of a democracy treaty-bound to uphold international humanitarian law. Delving into both issues is important for understanding how human rights principles overlap in the context of Gaza’s children: first, the specific stipulations of international humanitarian law regarding the rights of children in combat zones, and second, the actual realities that are being faced by Gazan children today.

International humanitarian law is clear: First, it requires combatants, in this case both the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) and Hamas, to bear legal responsibility for the protection of children in situations of armed conflict. The Geneva Conventions, and the 1977 Additional Protocols, extend protective coverage to children similarly to other civilians during war. This coverage includes special provisions for those under 18, categorizing children as recipients of “special respect” in such times.

Israel’s codified commitment to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child also imposes a specific set of responsibilities – responsibilities which the Netanyahu Government has seemingly sidelined. This Convention, comprising54 articles, aims to ensure the safety and wellbeing of children, including during periods of armed conflict. It establishes specific duties for sovereign entities such as Israel to protect children from violence, abuse, and neglect at both civil and political levels. Article 38, in particular, obligates and reinforces the Israeli government’s duty to respect and ensure compliance with all, not just some, aspects of international humanitarian law. This requirement is especially pertinent given Israel’s status as a UN member state, a democracy, and a strategic ally of those who claim to be leaders of a rights-based world order.

The bottom line is that Israel cannot cherry-pick which aspects of international humanitarian law it follows. In theory, Israel should be taking proactive measures, rather than merely reactive ones, for the protection and care of children affected by armed conflict.

Readers can make their own judgment on whether Israel’s defence measures in Gaza are consistent with the human rights principles, norms, and treaties it has signed onto. Credible allegations of breaches of international humanitarian law have surfaced, indicating a combination of consistent, overt, and latent violations of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The bottom line is that Israel cannot cherry-pick which aspects of international humanitarian law it follows. In theory, Israel should be taking proactive measures, rather than merely reactive ones, for the protection and care of children affected by armed conflict.

As things stand, democracies, akin to the combatant parties, have been unsuccessful in securing the Palestinian children’s right to life, much less a life of peace or one that upholds the rights enshrined in international humanitarian law.

And the unfortunate part is that global actors, who have the ability but choose not to make a difference in de-escalating tensions between Israelis and Palestinians, will never be held accountable in a court of law for not opposing the defense policy tactics undertaken by the Netanyahu Government. Child rights have been relegated to the realm of humanitarian agencies and their unheard calls for dying children to be protected – as was the case during the Cold War era in Bangladesh and East Timor, and in more recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Disappointingly, the fact that Gaza has become a graveyard for thousands of children does not resonate enough with those who believe that a permanent ceasefire would be a strategic blunder for Israel.

What continues to frustrate people, particularly the pro-Palestinian supporters who have taken to the streets of Canada – predominantly younger individuals from diasporic backgrounds, many of whom are immigrants from the Middle East, South Asia, and Latin America, regions that have endured legitimate criticism from the West for failing to uphold human rights – is not the inability, but the unwillingness, of those in power to acknowledge that the killing of innocents, and particularly children, is much more than a moral catastrophe: it is a violation of international humanitarian principles developed and championed by liberal democracies.

Think about this for a second: that child who led the press conference from Al-Shifa hospital, if he somehow gets lucky and lives through this ordeal — an ordeal not of his choosing — and grows up, will he be more sympathetic to the cause of a two-state solution, or will he empathize more with a violent brand of seeking liberation? Generations before him were provided a few basic assurances: the right to live in peace in their homeland, and a homeland recognized by international actors as a legitimate state, like its neighbor, Israel.

Reducing this to an issue between Muslims and Jews, debating whether it is anti-Semitic to criticize the Israeli government, or Islamophobic to call out Hamas, and conducting comparative thought experiments on the unbearable plight of Palestinians to the unparalleled suffering of Jewish people during the Holocaust misses the bigger picture. Do we, whether supporters of Israel or Palestine, want to leave a better world for the next generation of both Israelis and Palestinians? Or do we want vengeance to drive us toward killing thousands more, with the potential to compromise the future of both peoples, and take us to a position of no-return? A permanent ceasefire is not only a matter of morality; it is a strategic imperative to ensure there is any room at all for peace down the line.

Policy Contributing Writer Aftab Ahmed recently graduated with a Master of Public Policy degree from the Max Bell School at McGill University. He is a columnist for the Bangladeshi newspapers The Daily Star and Dhaka Tribune. He is currently an Urban Fellow Researcher with the City of Toronto.

The views expressed in this article are personal opinions and do not reflect the views or opinions of any organization, institution, or entity associated with the author.