The exchange is emblematic of the diplomatic choreography that has been unfolding since October 7, the date of Hamas’s attacks against Israel. In the House of Commons on Monday, NDP MP Heather McPherson called on Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland to criticize the government for its silence on violations of international law in Gaza, and to demand that Canada call for a ceasefire. -immediate fire.
The Deputy Prime Minister’s response, a statement read literally, summed up the order of Canada’s priorities in this conflict. First, the statement of the cardinal value, unshakeable despite two weeks of ferocious bombardment of Gaza: “Our government is clear, we support the State of Israel and we recognize Israel’s right to defend itself in accordance with international law. » Then, a secondary concern: “We are very worried about the terrible humanitarian situation in Gaza. International law must be respected and Canada will continue to support the civilian populations of Gaza. […] »
In the last week, calls to respect international law have become a safe haven. Faced with the maddening escalation of violence, the unbearable images of children, women and men trapped in the Gaza enclave, faced with the feeling that is increasingly difficult to suppress that there is an obscene disproportion in the response, civil society and humanitarian organizations are turning to the norms meant to frame the horror of war, as an instrument to sound a dissonant note in the choir singing the legitimacy of an unlimited Israeli counter-offensive.
It is not very original to emphasize it, but international law has the binding force that the political actors present deign to give it. However, here, the game of alliances seems to have sealed the fate of Gaza. In recent days, on the diplomatic scene, calls for respect for international humanitarian law have acquired an incantatory value. The good liberal conscience is relieved by multiplying calls for legality, but these calls are always forward-looking, blind to what is already happening, here and now, in front of the cameras of the whole world.
This week, 800 academics in international law, genocide studies and conflict studies signed a declaration in which they sounded the alarm about the risk of genocide in Gaza. “We do not issue this warning lightly,” they write, “we recognize the weight of this crime, but the seriousness of the situation demands it. »
Their statement underlines that the military offensive of recent days clarifies, and accelerates, an intention that goes beyond self-defense. Placing the Israeli response to the most recent (of course criminal) abuses by Hamas in the long history of the marginalization, uprooting and enclavement of the Palestinian people by the State of Israel, the signatories say they fear that the present conflict serves as a pretext for the realization of a “potential genocidal intention”.
The demonstration is careful and meticulous. It underlines, of course, the completely illegal nature of the total embargo imposed on Gaza, as well as the forced evacuation of a million people towards the south of the enclave on October 12, the bombings carried out in densely populated areas, targeting ambulance vehicles and civilians on the move. All of this is clearly illegal, within the meaning of international humanitarian law. But even more, the signatories of the declaration are concerned about the genocidal intentions displayed in the discourse of the Israeli state since October 7.
The quote went around the world. Announcing the establishment of the total embargo against Gaza on October 9, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant declared that “we are fighting human animals [human animals], and we act accordingly,” before concluding: “Gaza will never be the same again. We will eliminate everything. » This figure of the animal was taken up the next day by General Ghassan Alian, in a statement targeting both Hamas fighters and Gaza residents.
This is a subtle example, but one that says a lot. The use of words, in this context, is far from trivial. Animalization is a tool of choice in the genocidal arsenal, because it is by denying the humanity of the members of a group that we justify its eradication. This is certainly not new, but it is in light of this that we must observe the incessant bombings and the asphyxiation of the population trapped in Gaza. Everything indicates that the fury unleashed by Hamas’s attacks on Israel will not end with the potential release of the Israeli hostages.
The texture of these remarks, however, seems to escape entirely from the Western powers, who are content to increase their encouragement of legality and promise to send a few humanitarian convoys. The situation is tragic, since the denunciation of war crimes and the reminder of the law are, all things considered, the only tools available to civil society organizations and citizens to call for an end to the massacre of a population.
We must now insist that these calls be translated into concrete political demands from States which, today, turn a blind eye to a humanitarian catastrophe: demand a ceasefire on Gaza, and ensure sufficient and immediate supplies for civilians.
Columnist specializing in environmental justice issues, Aurélie Lanctôt is a doctoral student in law at McGill University.