«A culture of impunity in the region has existed for too long»

Esattamente il 21 settembre in un interessante articolo sul quotidiano israeliano Haaretz, Jonathan Freedland si chiede coraggiosamente se «Isn't it possible to acknowledge someone's pain without promising to turn back the clock and undo the events that led to it? Surely we know from our personal lives that sometimes it is simply the acknowledgment itself - the admission of responsibility - that has a healing effect.» Ci si riferisce ai tragici avvenimenti nel 1948/49 dove Israele è stato fondato accanto alla guerra che ha prodotto più di 700.000 rifugiati arabi palestinesi. Sono convinto che un sincero riconoscimento della responsabilità, più o meno direttamente, da parte di Israele delle sofferenze patite dalla popolazione araba in quegli anni sarà un pre-requisito fondamentale di una futura pace tra i due popoli. Il 1948, non lo dimentichiamo, rimane alla radice del conflitto arabo-israeliano.

Prendo spunto da questo tema per collegarmi alla dichiarazione di Richard Goldstone davanti al Consiglio dei diritti umani, durante il dibattito sul rapporto di Gaza da lui stesso diretto:

«It has been my experience in many regions of the world, including my own country, South Africa, that peace and reconciliation depend, to a great extent, upon public acknowledgement of what victims suffer. That applies no less in the Middle East. It is a pre-requisite to the beginning of the healing and meaningful peace process. ...The truth and accountability are also essential to prevent ascribing collective guilt to a people. ... People of the region should not be demonized. Rather their common humanity should be emphasized.» E' un principio centrale che deve essere ben tenuto a mente.

Il rapporto Gaza è stato oggetto di critiche al vetriolo da parte del governo israleliano e dei suoi sostenitori ma Goldstone ha ribadito la sostanza delle sue indagini e conclusioni. Eccone altri stralci:

«Since the release of the advance version of the report two weeks ago, we have witnessed many attestations of support, but also a barrage of criticism towards our findings as well as public attacks against the Members of the Mission. We will not address these attacks as we believe that the answers to those who have criticised us are in the findings of the report. I have, however, to strongly reject one major accusation levelled against the Mission; the one that portrays our efforts as being politically motivated. Let me repeat before this Council what I have already stated on many occasions: We accepted this Mission because we believe deeply in the rule of law, humanitarian law, human rights, and the principle that in armed conflict civilians should to the greatest extent possible be protected from harm. We accepted with the conviction that pursuing justice is essential and that no state or armed group should be above the law. Failing to pursue justice for serious violations during any conflict will have a deeply corrosive effect on international justice. ...

The Mission investigated in some detail the effects on the civilian population in Southern Israel of the sustained rocket and mortar attacks from Palestinian armed groups in Gaza. We detail the suffering of victims and the highly prejudicial effects of these acts on the towns and cities that fall within the range of the rockets and mortars. The Mission decided that in order to understand the effect of the Israeli military operations on the infrastructure and economy of Gaza, and especially its food supplies, it was necessary to have regard to the effects of the blockade that Israel has imposed on the Gaza Strip for some years and has been tightened since Hamas became the controlling authority of Gaza. The Mission found that the attack on the only remaining flour producing factory, the destruction of a large part of the Gaza egg production, the bulldozing of huge tracts of agricultural land, and the bombing of some two hundred industrial facilities, could not on any basis be justified on military grounds. Those attacks had nothing whatever to do with the firing of rockets and mortars at Israel. The Mission looked closely and sets out in the Report statements made by Israeli political and military leaders in which they stated in clear terms that they would hit at the “Hamas infrastructure”. If “infrastructure” were to be understood in that way and become a justifiable military objective, it would completely subvert the whole purpose of IHL built up over the last 100 years and more. It would make civilians and civilian buildings justifiable targets. These attacks amounted to reprisals and collective punishment and constitute war crimes. The Government of Israel has a duty to protect its citizens. That in no way justifies a policy of collective punishment of a people under effective occupation, destroying their means to live a dignified life and the trauma caused by the kind of military intervention the Israeli Government called Operation Cast Lead. This contributes to a situation where young people grow up in a culture of hatred and violence, with little hope for change in the future. ...

The Mission is highly critical of the pusillanimous efforts by Israel to investigate alleged violations of international law and the complete failure by the Gaza authorities to do so in respect of the armed groups. That notwithstanding the Mission came to the conclusion that both Israel and the Gaza Authorities have the ability to conduct open and transparent investigations and launch appropriate prosecutions if they decide to do so. ...

In both cases, if within the six month period there are no good faith investigations conforming to international standards, the Security Council should refer the situation or situations to the ICC Prosecutor. ...

A culture of impunity in the region has existed for too long.

The lack of accountability for war crimes and possible crimes against humanity has reached a crisis point; the ongoing lack of justice is undermining any hope for a successful peace process and reinforcing an environment that fosters violence. Time and again, experience has taught us that overlooking justice only leads to increased conflict and violence».

Proprio nelle ultime pagine il Rapporto affrontava il problema e la necessità di giudicare i responsabili da ambo le parti:

"The Mission is firmly convinced that justice and respect for the rule of law are the indispensable basis for peace. The prolonged situation of impunity has created a justice crisis in the OPT that warrants action. ...

The Mission notes that the responsibility to investigate violations of international human rights and humanitarian law, prosecute if appropriate and try perpetrators belongs in the first place to domestic authorities and institutions. This is a legal obligation incumbent on States and state-like entities. However, where domestic authorities are unable or unwilling to comply withthis obligation, international justice mechanisms must be activated to prevent impunity.

The Mission believes that, in the circumstances, there is little potential for accountability for serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law through domestic institutions in Israel and even less in Gaza. The Mission is of the view that longstanding impunity has been a key factor in the perpetuation of violence in the region and in the reoccurrence of violations, as well as in the erosion of confidence among Palestinians and many Israelis concerning prospects for justice and a peaceful solution to the conflict. The Mission considers that several of the violations referred to in this report amount to grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

It notes that there is a duty imposed by the Geneva Conventions on all High Contracting Parties to search for and bring before their courts those responsible for the alleged violations. The Mission considers that the serious violations of International Humanitarian Law recounted in this report fall within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Mission notes that the United Nations Security Council has long recognized the impact of the situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question, on international peace and security and that it regularly considers and reviews this situation. The Mission is persuaded that, in the light of the long standing nature of the conflict, the frequent and consistent allegations of violations of international humanitarian law against all parties, the apparent increase in intensity of such violations in the recent military operations, and the regrettable possibility of a return to further violence, meaningful and practical steps to end impunity for such violations would offer an effective way to deter such violations recurring in the future. The Mission is of the view that the prosecution of persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law would contribute to ending such violations, to the protection of civilians and to the restoration and maintenance of peace."

A Gaza l'inferno e la persecuzione

Siamo arrivati a un ennesimo rapporto su un'altra guerra, svoltasi a Gaza e nel sud d'Israele dal 27 dicembre 2008 al 18 gennaio 2009. Ma questa volta il risultato a cui sono giunti i quattro componenti brucia assai per Israele, sia per il fatto che il rapporto (A/HRC/12/48) accusa senza mezzi termini lo stato ebraico con una sfilza di violazioni del diritto internazionale dove per la maggiore parte equivalgono a crimini di guerra, e perché a capo della commissione d'inchiesta c'e un illustre giurista sudafricano ebreo Richard Goldstone, un posto scomodo poiché impedisce ai sostenitori di Israele di tacciare di punto in bianco il rapporto come antisemita. Infatti, interpellata dalla radio dell'esercito israeliano, la figlia lo ha definito come «He is a Zionist, my dad loves Israel and it wasn't easy for him to see and hear what happened. I think he heard and saw things he didn't expect to see and hear».

Dicevo "ennesimo rapporto" ricordando come tutte le varie inchieste non sono state seguite, per vari motivi e ostacoli politici, da una rispondenza sul piano concreto della giustizia per le vittime: nelle conclusioni

"The Mission was struck by the repeated comment of Palestinian victims, human rights defenders, civil society interlocutors and officials that they hoped that this would be the last investigative mission of its kind, because action for justice would follow from it. It was struck, as well, by the comment that every time a report is published and no action follows, this “emboldens Israel and her conviction of being untouchable”. To deny modes of accountability reinforces impunity and impacts negatively on the credibility of the United Nations, and of the international community. The Mission believes these comments ought to be at the forefront in the consideration by Members States and United Nations bodies of its findings and recommendations and action consequent upon them."

Basta osservare i numeri delle sole vittime da ambo la parti per constatare che la "guerra" è stata a senso unico: in appena tre settimane di conflitto ci sono stati più di 1400 morti tra i palestinesi di cui per la maggior parte "persone protette", incluse più di 300 persone sotto i diciotto anni; 3 civili e 10 militari israeliani di cui quattro da fuoco amico. Questo verdetto sul campo con tanti civili uccisi non lasciava scampo dall'essere confermata da questa Missione investigativa del Consiglio dei diritti umani che aveva il compito di "to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law that might have been committed at any time in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza during the period from 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, whether before, during or after."

Tuttavia, è evidente che gruppi armati palestinesi con il lancio di missili nel sud d'Israele abbiano commesso crimini di guerra che "may amount to crimes against humanity", con l'intento di diffondere terrore fra la popolazione. Il rapporto non ha trovato, invece, prove convincenti sulle azioni armate che questi hanno intrapreso nelle vicinanze di centri abitati o di obiettivi civili:

"The conduct of hostilities in built-up areas does not, of itself, constitute a violation of international law. However, launching attacks - whether of rockets and mortars at the population of southern Israel or at the Israeli armed forces inside Gaza - close to civilian or protected buildings constitutes a failure to take all feasible precautions. In cases where this occurred, the Palestinian armed groups would have unnecessarily exposed the civilian population of Gaza to the inherent dangers of the military operations taking place around them. The Mission found no evidence to suggest that Palestinian armed groups either directed civilians to areas where attacks were being launched or that they forced civilians to remain within the vicinity of the attacks. The Mission also found no evidence that members of Palestinian armed groups engaged in combat in civilian dress. Although in the one incident of an Israeli attack on a mosque it investigated the Mission found that there was no indication that that mosque was used for military purposes or to shield military activities, the Mission cannot exclude that this might have occurred in other cases."

Analizzando più da vicino la condotta e i mezzi impiegati dall'esercito israeliano a Gaza possiamo scorgere il perché questo rapporto abbia alzato un polverone in Israele e nella diaspora: confuta palesemente lo scopo politico del governo che a suo tempo aveva cercato di giustificare la massiccia impresa militare. Nelle dure parole del rapporto:

"The Gaza military operations were, according to the Israeli Government, thoroughly and extensively planned. While the Israeli Government has sought to portray its operations as essentially a response to rocket attacks in the exercise of its right to self defence, the Mission considers the plan to have been directed, at least in part, at a different target: the people of Gaza as a whole. In this respect, the operations were in furtherance of an overall policy aimed at punishing the Gaza population for its resilience and for its apparent support for Hamas, and possibly with the intent of forcing a change in such support. The Mission considers this position to be firmly based in fact, bearing in mind what it saw and heard on the ground, what it read in the accounts of soldiers who served in the campaign, and what it heard and read from current and former military officers and political leaders whom the Mission considers to be representative of the thinking that informed the policy and strategy of the military operations." Quindi "the destruction of food supply installations, water sanitation systems, concrete factories and residential houses was the result of a deliberate and systematic policy by the Israeli armed forces. It was not carried out because those objects presented a military threat or opportunity but to make the daily process of living, and dignified living, more difficult for the civilian population... what occurred in just over three weeks at the end of 2008 and the beginning of 2009 was a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population".

Sono accuse gravi e pesanti che non devono minimizzare il fatto che "the concept of “normalcy” in the Gaza Strip has long been redefined due to the protracted situation of abuse and lack of protection deriving from the decades-long occupation."

La commissione sottolinea inoltre che "the Israeli armed forces, like any army attempting to act within the parameters of international law, must avoid taking undue risks with their soldiers’ lives, but neither can they transfer that risk onto the lives of civilian men, women and children. The fundamental principles of distinction and proportionality apply on the battlefield, whether that battlefield is a built up urban area or an open field. The repeated failure to distinguish between combatants and civilians appears to the Mission to have been the result of deliberate guidance issued to soldiers, as described by some of them, and not the result of occasional lapses."

Si parla anche dell'impatto della disumanizzazione che causa ogni guerra: "as in many conflicts, one of the features of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is the dehumanization of the other, and of victims in particular. Palestinian psychiatrist Dr Iyad Sarraj explained the cycle of aggression and victimization through which “the Palestinian in the eyes of the Israeli soldier is not an equal human being. Sometimes […] even becomes a demon [… ]” This “culture of demonization and dehumanization” adds to a state of paranoia. “Paranoia has two sides, the side of victimization, I am a victim of this world, the whole world is against me and on the other side, I am superior to this world and I can oppress it. This leads to what is called the arrogance of power.” As Palestinians, “we look in general to the Israelis as demons and that we can hate them, that what we do is a reaction, and we say that the Israelis can only understand the language of power. The same thing that we say about the Israelis they say about us, that we only understand the language of violence or force. There we see the arrogance of power and [the Israeli] uses it without thinking of humanity at all. In my view we are seeing not only a state of war but also a state that is cultural and psychological"... Israeli college teacher Ofer Shinar offered a similar analysis: “Israeli society’s problem is that because of the conflict, Israeli society feels itself to be a victim and to a large extent that’s justified and it’s very difficult for Israeli society to move and to feel that it can also see the other side and to understand that the other side is also a victim. This I think is the greatest tragedy of the conflict and it’s terribly difficult to overcome it".

Ancora accuse contro l'esercito israeliano ("the most moral army in the world"):

"The Mission found numerous instances of deliberate attacks on civilians and civilian objects (individuals, whole families, houses, mosques) in violation of the fundamental international humanitarian law principle of distinction, resulting in deaths and serious injuries. In these cases the Mission found that the protected status of civilians was not respected and the attacks were intentional, in clear violation of customary law reflected in article 51(2) and 75 of the First AP, article 27 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and articles 6 and 7 of ICCPR. In some cases the Mission additionally concluded that the attack was also launched with the intention of spreading terror among the civilian population. Moreover, in several of the incidents investigated the Israeli armed forces not only did not use their best efforts to permit humanitarian organisations access to the wounded and medical relief, as required by customary international law reflected in Article 10(2) of Additional Protocol 1, but they arbitrarily withheld such access."

In conclusione del rapporto, "the conditions resulting from deliberate actions of the Israeli forces and the declared policies of the Government with regard to the Gaza Strip before, during and after the military operation cumulatively indicate the intention to inflict collective punishment on the people of the Gaza Strip. The mission, therefore, finds a violation of the provisions of Articles 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention."

Fino alla possibilità di catalogare le azioni militari israeliane come possibile crimine di persecuzione, rientrante nel più ampio crimine contro l'umanità: "The Mission further considers that the series of acts that deprive Palestinians in the Gaza Strip of their means of subsistence, employment, housing and water, that deny their freedom of movement and their right to leave and enter their own country, that limit their rights to access a court of law and an effective remedy, could lead a competent court to find that the crime of persecution, a crime against humanity, has been committed."

I risultati della commissione d'inchiesta sono veramente severi per entrambe e parti ma vorrei mettere in risalto due punti di fondamentale importanza: la costante negazione del diritto di autodeterminazione del popolo palestinese ("Insofar as movement and access restrictions, the settlements and their infrastructure, demographic policies vis-à-vis Jerusalem and Area C of the West bank, as well as the separation of Gaza from the West Bank, prevent a viable, contiguous and sovereign Palestinian state from arising, they are in violation of the ius cogens right to self-determination.") e l'estrema diseguaglianza delle condizioni di partenza fra le parti in conflitto, benché giuridicamente uguali nei diritti e nei doveri di fronte alla jus in bello ("In carrying out its mandate, the Mission had regard, as its only guides, for general international law, international human rights and humanitarian law, and the obligations they place on States, the obligations they place on non-state actors and, above all, the rights and entitlements they bestow on individuals. This in no way implies equating the position of Israel as the Occupying Power with that of the occupied Palestinian population or entities representing it. The differences with regard to the power and capacity to inflict harm or to protect, including by securing justice when violations occur, are obvious and a comparison is neither possible nor necessary. What requires equal attention and effort, however, is the protection of all victims in accordance with international law.")

E all'improvviso... gli insediamenti!

Bisogna dare il giusto merito alla nuova Amministrazione americana se oggi unanimamente sentiamo il grido accorato per un "semplice" congelamento della colonizzazione israeliana nei territori occupati. Di punto in bianco, gli insediamenti israeliani sono apparsi alla ribalta nei grandi giornali occidentali e nelle priorità internazionali dei loro governi. Mi chiedo, questi ultimi cosa hanno fatto di attivo negli ultimi 40 anni per risolvere lo stallo mediorientale?! Più recentemente, dagli Accordi di Oslo del 1993 che piano condiviso è stato approntato? Niente di niente. Anzi, la situazione sul campo si è gravemente deteriorata con un aumento dei coloni a più di mezzo milione (compresa Gerusalemme Est), la confisca di terre e la costruzione (illegale) del muro di sicurezza.

Ed è giocoforza che il tutto ha provocato maggiore violenza perchè non esiste quel minimo di giustiza che lascia acceso il lumicino della speranza. In quasi tutti gli anni passati l'onere nel dimostrare la volontà nel compromesso pacifico veniva scaricato sui palestinesi (occupati): la volontà di sradicare il terrorismo, la richiesta di riconscere il diritto all'esistenza di Israele come stato o, come ultimamente reclamato, come stato ebraico (Jewish State), ... .

Quindi, oltre a subire e convivere quotidianamente con un'occupazione militare da oltre 40 anni fatta di incursioni, arresti, demolizioni, confische, i palestinesi hanno dovuto affrontare queste pre-condizioni lasciando le questioni fondamentali sine die mentre dall'altra parte ci si sforzava per il controllo delle terra.

Con l'insediamento di Barak Obama c'e' stato un cambiamento sostanziale perchè il modello diplomatico che ho appena descritto è mutato e il presidente americano ha preteso in modo chiaro da Israele lo stop alla costruzione di tutti gli insediamenti, eccetto forse nella parte est di Gerusalemme dove per gli israeliani non rientra fra i territori "controversi". Una richiesta, lungi dall'essere ancora eseguita e forse neanche in futuro lo sarà (è di oggi che il ministro della difesa Barak ha autorizzato la costruzione di 455 unità abitative), che all'atto pratico sarà quasi del tutto inutile perchè a mio parere sarà impossibile una "pausa" della colonizzazione, per non parlare della rimozione. A meno che Obama volesse usare altri strumenti (ma può?) per costringere al suo volere il recalcitrante governo israeliano ma se così fosse incrinerebbe i "legami infrangibili", come recentemente li ha definiti.

Dovrebbe essere evidente l'altra vittima di questa dannosa politica: la società israeliana stessa, incapace di esercitare autorità e legalità nei territori occupati dove i coloni sono i veri padroni e, allo stesso tempo, esacerbata dalle troppe diversità e tensioni.

Senza concreti cambiamenti, predire una guerra civile all'interno di Israele non è utopia, purtroppo.