The Israeli Defense Minister and his American counterpart (Al Jazeera)
In previous articles, I discussed some of the ethical and legal concepts that were circulated during the Israeli war on Gaza. As part of the war discourse that attempts to invent political and moral justifications for the ongoing war, despite its enormous and painful humanitarian cost, which has reduced it to the level of genocide crimes, according to the content of the recently issued International Court of Justice decision, even if the court did not have enough courage to state this in text.
If the decision of the International Court of Justice was the result of a lawsuit filed by South Africa against Israeli military actions, there is another legal move that began with a lawsuit against US President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights in the United States, and is being considered by a federal court in California. The content of this lawsuit is that the three defendants colluded in the genocide crimes committed by Israel in the Gaza Strip. In fact, this collusion is based on a strong legal and moral foundation, which I will explain through three things:
Political action, military action, and legal and moral responsibility for the previous two actions.
First: in terms of political action
The Biden administration has provided unconditional political support to Israel, whether in its occupation and siege of Gaza or in the ongoing war on Gaza, and this has created the conditions for the genocide committed by Israel to occur. In terms of military action, the Biden administration provided Israel with generous and unconditional military support - also - in its war on Gaza, in an emergency manner and beyond any oversight or restriction.
From a standpoint of legal and moral responsibility, previous arming - in times of war and in support of it - is a violation of the Genocide Convention signed in 1948; Although it is the responsibility of the United States of America to prevent genocide in accordance with international laws and norms, and the act of arming itself in times of war is a participating act; It was signed in order to support a clear and specific party, without any conditions or restrictions. From the sum of the two previous matters (the political action and the military action), we conclude that the three officials included in the case not only failed to implement their legal and moral obligations, but also contributed to facilitating them and their occurrence.
American officials explained that Israel was provided with different colors of weapons, including bombs with bunker-busting warheads (known as "BLU-109"), which are designed to penetrate concrete before exploding, and this demonstrates their enormous destructive capacity.
Second: The military aspect
It is extremely important here from both a legal and ethical standpoint. Because it is an act that is fixed in terms of its occurrence, apparent, verifiable, and explicit; He articulates intentions and objectives to the point that he acts in their place. Intentions - even if they are hidden - are replaced by the frankness and clarity of the action to indicate the intentions of the actor, which eliminates the need to investigate the justifications and intentions of the actors. Taken together, these characteristics illustrate the fragility of American political claims and statements that have tried - throughout the ongoing war - to avoid legal accountability and political criticism, at times by offering several justifications for Israel’s crimes in the war (such as saying that Israel does not target civilians, or that it has the right to... Self-defense, or that there is no evidence of genocide, etc.), and at other times through the vague and repeated call for the Netanyahu government to adhere to international humanitarian law while at the same time supporting it militarily unconditionally, and at other times through calling on Israel to “ Reducing human losses.
In fact, if we compare the official American political discourse about the war - from its beginning until now - to the American political and military actions, we will conclude that the Biden administration actually contributed to the genocide. It obstructed any attempt to stop the war in the Security Council on the one hand, supplied Israel with tons of weapons during the war on the other hand, and constantly defended and justified the performance of the Israeli army during the war on the third hand. It is true that political action is the foundation of military action, and that military action is a servant of political action, but military action is characterized by basic features that make it more effective and more clear in its legal and moral responsibility, which are summarized in:
It can be controlled and measured.
It is clear in translating the goals and intentions of political actors.
Its harm is direct and decisive.
These three characteristics help us evaluate the American arming of Israel in general, and in the ongoing war in Gaza in particular. We can carry out this ethical and legal evaluation through three aspects:
The first aspect: the act of arming itself
Arming takes place in a special context, which is “wartime,” and with the specific intention of “achieving the political and military goals of war.” We are not, therefore, faced with a commercial act intended to profit, even if that is also morally condemnable. Rather, we are faced with an act intended to provide military support for the war. It is noteworthy that Muslim jurists have discussed - historically - two issues related to the act of arming:
The first: The ruling on selling weapons in times of war (and also in times of strife and oppression).
Second: The ruling on selling what is used as a weapon, such as iron and the like.
The majority of jurists on both issues have concluded that it is forbidden. It is forbidden to sell weapons, or what weapons are made from, to groups of people that include people of war, rebels, and people of sedition. This means that the prohibition of this act is general and includes selling weapons to Muslims and non-Muslims. Because the reason for prohibition blocks the pretext for killing. A weapon is a killing machine, and selling it in times of war, strife, or oppression confirms that it is used for the purpose of killing and that it strengthens one of the warring parties or encourages both parties to wage wars and continue fighting. This action means what is forbidden, and every action that leads to what is forbidden is forbidden.
We can distinguish here between two different levels. The discussion of classical jurists was moving on the horizon of selling weapons for trade, but selling weapons for the purpose of supporting illegal war is a more severe level of prohibition, as is the case in the war on Gaza. There is no doubt that arming at both levels is forbidden. Because the seller’s intention does not justify the intention to trade or military support for war; Because arming enhances the act of killing, and therefore the prohibition was suspended under two specific conditions: selling the killing machine and in times of war.
This prohibition reinforces the idea of not participating in killing or not contributing to sustaining war. This moral jurisprudential perspective is similar to that of Amnesty International, which warned - in a report - that “the United States may be considered to share responsibility for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed by Israel with weapons it has supplied, as all states have a duty not to contribute - Intentionally - in internationally wrongful acts by other countries. This confirms the idea that arming in such a situation is a contribution to war.
The second aspect: the type of weapons sold and used
There has been a firm American commitment to arming Israel since 1948, and this has been strengthened since the 1970s. To ensure its qualitative military superiority over its potential enemies in the region. In the period between 1948 and early 2023, the United States provided Israel with aid worth $158.66 billion. If the inflation rate is added to that, the number will double to $260 billion, according to a study issued by the Congressional Research Service. But let us examine the issue of armament specifically in the case of the ongoing war on Gaza. The Biden administration has provided Israel with emergency weapons twice in just one month (in December 2023), bypassing congressional approval; Under the pretext of “an emergency that requires immediate approval to transfer weapons,” as stated in a statement by the US State Department last December.
In this American armament during the war on Gaza, we can distinguish between smart weapons that can be guided accurately, and stupid ones that do not contain accurate guidance systems. At the level of smart weapons, American officials explained to some American newspapers that Israel had been provided with different colors of weapons, which were detailed in various reports and published by some news sites, including bombs with bunker-piercing warheads (known as “BLU-109”). It is designed to penetrate concrete before it explodes, which explains its enormous destructive capacity. Regarding unguided (or stupid) weapons, America returned some stupid weapons to Israel for use in Gaza, after it had withdrawn them from Israel to support Ukraine. These weapons are - originally - part of the American military reserve stock, including 57 thousand (155 mm) shells. ), according to US officials quoted by Bloomberg News.
Although both types of weapons are highly destructive, stupid weapons are more dangerous. Because it proves the statement of “indiscriminate bombing” that doubled the number of civilian casualties, which Biden acknowledged when he said - recently - that Israel carried out “indiscriminate bombing” in Gaza. About 30 relief organizations had sent a letter to US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin urging him not to send 155 mm shells to Israel in particular. Because it has a great risk of being “undirected,” and the margin of error is large.
These organizations indicated that these shells “usually fall 25 meters from the intended target,” and this makes them extremely dangerous in the Gaza Strip, which is considered one of the most densely populated areas in the world. The matter is further confirmed by the fact that a US intelligence report confirmed that between 40 and 45 percent of the air-to-ground bombs that Israel has used in Gaza since October 7 (a total of 29 thousand bombs) were “stupid bombs,” and CNN had published the contents of this. The report, quoting James Stavridis (a former US military official), said that the US military reserve stock is “full of so-called stupid ammunition such as 155 mm shells and thousands of iron bombs that are simply dropped from the plane and the rest is left to gravity”! In addition, Nir Dinar (the Israeli army spokesman) had refused - in his interview with CNN - to talk about “the type of bombs used” in Gaza.
The third aspect: America’s failure to condemn Israeli extremism
The previous data clarify the extent of American responsibility (whether legal or moral) for genocide on the one hand, and undermine the claim that Israel is trying to reduce civilian casualties on the other hand, and make what is happening in Gaza an actual translation of Israeli statements (whether official political, religious or media). Which talks about the annihilation of the people of Gaza in various forms, starting with the restoration of the “Amalek” speech in the Old Testament, which stipulates the actual extermination of humans and animals (which I discussed in a previous article), through the call to drop a nuclear bomb on Gaza, and the rejection of the distinction between civilian and military (which I discussed). I discussed it in a previous article), up to various humanitarian violations, the bombing of civilian and international facilities, sieges and starvation. However, we found no American condemnation of any of this; Despite America's claim - since the events of September 11, 2001 - to fight terrorism and extremism, the reality is that it only fights extremism that threatens its interests, meaning that we are faced with a political concept of terrorism and not a legal or moral concept.