The West's two-tier international law doesn't harm just Israel

A recent joint statement by three European Foreign Ministers decried the humanitarian situation in Gaza and laid the blame entirely at Israel’s doorstep.

The second paragraph of the text reiterates three core conditions that have been part of the diplomatic consensus since the war first broke out 18 months ago: Israel “must allow unhindered passage of humanitarian aid,” “Palestinian territory must not be reduced,” nor can it be “subjected to demographic change.”

Amidst all the noise made by anti-Israel activists and intellectuals and some of the more obscene gestures made by hostile governments and international organisations, it might seem otiose to focus on the more modest claims made by governments that are largely friendly to Israel.

But the insistence on these three principles – on opening supply lines, maintaining pre-war land demarcations, and keeping civilians inside a war zone – has had a greater effect on the course of the war than the ravings of campus protesters and the polished nonsense of some of the more august NGOs.

International law is usually cited as the reason for insisting on these principles, but as in so many other cases where Israel is involved, the policy demanded has little or nothing to do with the black letter of the law.

Nowhere in international law are belligerent parties in a war obligated to ensure supplies and logistics for their enemies. In most wars, the opposite is the case.

https://www.thejc.com/opinion/the-wests-two-tier-international-law-doesnt-harm-just-israel-rn074p4m