Assessing Israel's performance in terms of international human rights standards

Summary

The emergence of Israel and its continuing livelihood in one of the most important regions of the world have contributed to a lot of debate, as the regime's performance toward the Palestinians and neighboring countries has been widely investigated. In the present article, the performance of Israel has been analyzed and evaluated according to international human rights standards and criteria. According to its authors, the internal and external actions of this regime are in contradiction with many of the conventions accepted by the international community. The authors of the article, with raising materials from the Geneva Conventions, their annexed protocols, and the Rio de Janeiro Non-Violation Treaty, have shown that these materials have been subject to clear indications by the Israeli authorities, as the Palestinians have not been able to exercise their natural rights, including the right to determine their fate and the right to liberty and personal security in an appropriate manner. From this perspective, it is possible to find a suitable solution to guarantee the rights of Palestinians and to prevent violent acts of Israel, based on some of the principles accepted by the international community such as "humanitarian intervention" and in the light of concepts such as "international crime."

Introduction

The appearance of Israel with all its violent behaviors, along with the sometimes different and sometimes conflicting reactions of the world community, is a reflection of the contradictory face of our world today. "Endless Justice" facing the brutality of the authorities and the militants of some countries suddenly ends and it all closes its eye on all unacceptable treatments. The silence of the most powerful and, at the same time, the most advanced states in the world, which has based its foreign policy on "human rights", is a worthwhile point of view, because in practice it has resulted in nothing but the killing and uprising of the Palestinians who have no sin other than resistance to occupation and occupiers. On the other hand, the condemnation of the state of Israel by many non-state governments and institutions, especially the powerful institutions such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, along with the positive positions of the United Nations pillars, is another aspect of our global community today ; A process that encourages the identification of the International Criminal Court in the world based on unequal relations of forces (governments). From this perspective, the conduct of the state of Israel and the support of some of the most important Western governments represent the traditional central government assumptions that with disdain and sometimes even face to face with human values and human-biological requirements in the field of international relations, are based on a policy of power seeking to achieve the benefits. In contrast, the positive stance of many states, especially non-governmental international bodies, in the condemnation of Israel and the protection of the rights of the people of Palestine relies on the assumptions of the "civil society of the world", which is emerging, which refers global normative structural changes with a wide range of human activities beyond the geographical boundaries and indicates the globalization of human activities, social problems and needs which finds meaning in the field of cultural values, welfare, goodness and common interests in the realm beyond the boundaries and political spheres. In this process, the new social system and society are regarded as worthy and necessary, which confronts the mode of government and the exercise of traditional sovereignty with an empirical and valuable challenge, and forces the power of the ruler, despite the use of higher authority, to observe the principles and rules formed on the international level and imposes it on governments through the international mechanisms of monitoring and implementation. From this perspective, not only the sovereign do not have the ability to rely solely on internal systems to regulate and maintain legal control and security and internal order, but also in their hostile relations with the opponent cannot apply any means or tools. What has found objective representation in all these developments is very important, and it is the issue of "man" and "human dignity" that should not be affected by the relations between the government and the people in the time of peace or in the sphere of hostile relations between the hostages. On this basis, "global citizenship" finds meaning and concept in which one should be protected as a citizen; respected as a human; and if was not like that, as a citizen of the world, he would be supported by international institutions.
Developments in international law and the behavior of governments
Recent developments in the field of international law in light of the emergence of humanitarian intervention, the International Criminal Tribunal for the War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity, the rejection of the traditional principle of the immunity of the heads of state against trial and punishment, reflect the normative and structural developments on the international level, from which the degree of legitimacy of the regimes and their performance on the justice scale can be viewed, and at the same time, the degree of dignity and validity of the various positions towards them can be evaluated; an issue which is in fact the main purpose of this article regarding the state of Israel. Prior to entering the main discussions one thing is needed to be mentioned that although "International law is a realistic legal system that focuses on how are relations of existing powers in the international scene and seeks to ensure that the rules of law are translated from those powers," and although international law, like any other legal system, has been arisen mostly to regulate links and ties and to establish order, again as any other legal system, as much as it goes beyond specific rules for specific cases and goes beyond the scope of the law, it becomes closer to justice and fairness. Hence, the logical and empirical result of any legal system is ultimately the tendency and the desire to exercise justice; justice without which stability of security and order is impossible, and permanent peace between humans cannot be realized. In this way, it can be said that international law seeks justice and human rights protection, contrary to the past, which was a concern for order and sought to safeguard the interests of states. By relying on the concepts, principles and norms of international law and through minimum human rights standards, we also try to show how a political unit like Israel addresses the human standards of the present world. Given the complexity of the legal status of occupied territories and formal positions of world community regarding the existence of Israel on the one hand and its different treatment with Arab and non-Arab residents of the Palestinian Territory, it can be argued that essentially two categories of international legal rules the current status of the occupied territories: firstly the Zionist regime is considered an "occupier" based on criteria of international laws, However, there are conflicts in those countries, and the international humanitarian regime recognizes obligations and rights for Israel and considers benefits to the Palestinians. Secondly, Israel, regardless of any armed conflict in dealing with the inhabitants and nationals of the territory, in general and in the course of restoration and maintenance of order and security against unrest and turmoil, has a duty in terms of international human rights standards, and no excuse can justify disobey of them and based on them, they are not only responsible to indigenous residents but also to the international community. The study of the performance of the State of Israel in the framework of these two categories of rights forms the next section of this paper. In addition, the study of the behavior of Zionist regime officials in the light of new developments in international law through "criminalization" of major human rights violations and the response of the community compared to similar cases in the field of "humanitarian intervention" includes other parts of the present paper.
Penalization of violations of human rights and humanitarian law
International laws principles and especially principles related to human rights and humanitarian laws have been always exposed the critics that they do not have practical guarantee, but today, after acceptance of international responsibility of states in accordance to intensification and weakness of wrong actions, the international crimes of states and criminal responsibility have the needed objectivity. In new international rights order, in the light of concepts such as "commitments" and "international laws", the state officials who have committed crimes shall be punished. Therefore, we observe that Britain's courts peruses and wish to arrest General Augusto Pinochet due to committing crimes while ruling Chilean government and at the same time, several other European states also asked to arrest him as well. General Pinochet was meant to be arrested by Spain Court for charges of murder, torture, cooperation in murder and captivity. Finally Britain Supreme Assembly announced that Pinochet cannot be safe. The importance of Pinochet issue is because the intense violation of human rights –even in a territory under kingdom- is considered crimes against humanity by governmental officials and it means changing attitude towards the rule of states and the principle of lack of interruption.

Conclusion

What has been learned from the preceding discussion is that the Government of Israel has consistently committed violent acts throughout its history in order to consolidate its foundations and can be condemned in international law. The international standards, which have been established since the adoption of the Geneva Conventions in 1949, and even earlier, since the Universal Declaration of the 1907 Hague Conventions, and in two decades by more stringent mechanisms became such as the various international trials of enforcement, were acting as the community's vigilant conscience that condemns the government and military and security forces' bad behavior of the state of Israel, and consider the legal effects attribute to them void and ineffective. The international human rights regime also made a strong support for the people of Palestine with respect to the rights of the people of Palestine as a nation. However, the international community, according to the customary practice of recent years, expects that mechanisms such as humanitarian intervention will prevent Israel from continuing its actions and restore the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. In addition, the international community's expectations are met by trial and punishment of the Israeli Government and its military and security authorities for violating human rights standards, in establishing and enforcing justice, and preventing those who did any action by resorting to political and military power and under the rule of sovereignty and immunity.