This 2024 - Let's Win the Battle of Headlines
Opinion

Israeli counterterrorism is not ‘arbitrary’

The U.N.’s “Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967” does not appear to understand the English language.

Press briefing by Francesca Albanese, special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian Territories at the United Nations in New York City, Oct. 27, 2022. Credit: Lev Radin/Shutterstock.
Press briefing by Francesca Albanese, special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian Territories at the United Nations in New York City, Oct. 27, 2022. Credit: Lev Radin/Shutterstock.
A.J. Caschetta
A.J. Caschetta
A.J. Caschetta is a principal lecturer at the Rochester Institute of Technology and a fellow at Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum, where he is a Ginsburg-Ingerman fellow.

Francesca Albanese, the “Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967,” issued a new U.N. Human Rights Council (UNHRC) report on alleged Israeli crimes against Palestinians last week.

Critics have been withering in response, but perhaps most remarkably, Albanese does not appear to understand what the word “arbitrary” means.

It is certainly the most abused word in the 21-page report, appearing an astonishing 32 times.

Albanese accuses Israel of “arbitrary deprivation of liberty,” “arbitrary arrest” and “arbitrary exercise of power.” Israel “arbitrarily and severely restricts Palestinians’ movement,” she complains. “Arbitrary detention” is commonplace, she states.

Each iteration of the word is egregiously inaccurate. For example, the report’s opening sentence states that it presents “concerns related to the widespread and systematic arbitrary deprivation of liberty in the occupied Palestinian territory” (emphasis mine). This is an oxymoron. Something cannot be both “systematic” and “arbitrary” simultaneously.

The word “arbitrary” comes from the Latin word arbiter or “judge.” In Middle English, it meant “of or pertaining to the judgment of an arbitrator.” By the mid-17th century, the word had acquired its current meaning of “random, irrational, capricious, injudicious.”

Of course, Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians is the opposite of arbitrary. It is consistent, logical, circumspect and judicious. For example, when Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) launch missiles at Israel, Israel’s response is calibrated to target only the combatants and their infrastructure in Gaza. The terror groups’ poorly-made and wildly inaccurate missiles, on the other hand, are quite arbitrary, often killing more Palestinians than Israelis.

Palestinian suicide bombers, car-rammers and stabbers are in many ways “arbitrary” in their selection of targets, relying on chance and opportunity in order to attack shoppers, pedestrians, commuters and others. For Hamas, a dead Israeli child or old woman is the same as an able-bodied man. Israel, in contrast, devotes time and resources to sparing innocent Palestinians.

If Israel wanted to act in a genuinely arbitrary fashion, it could kill Palestinians wholesale, efficiently and quickly eliminating threats. It could make no discrimination between combatants and civilians. It could have chosen not to spend eight decades offering peace deals to implacable enemies who deny its right to exist.

But Israel has decided not to be arbitrary. Thus, it faces the very difficult task of determining which Palestinians plan to kill Israelis and which do not. This requires counterterrorism measures, surveillance and, when suspects are detected, prosecution and incarceration. To Francesca Albanese, all such measures, especially incarceration, are war crimes.

Speaking of “incarceration,” the second most abused word in Albanese’s report is “carceral.” It appears 18 times in various forms, sometimes in conjunction with “arbitrary,” such as “arbitrariness of the occupation’s carceral regime.”

“Palestinian life,” Albanese argues, exists on “a carceral continuum.” Israel, a “carceral state,” has created a “carceral landscape” by employing “physical carcerality,” “bureaucratic carcerality” and “digital carcerality.” Israel treats “Palestinians as a collective, incarcerable threat” and has turned Judea and Samaria into a prison through its “carceral architecture.”

If one sentence summarizes the entire 10,700-word report, it is this one: “The widespread and systemic arbitrariness of the occupation’s carceral regime is yet another manifestation of Israel’s inherently illegal occupation.”

All Palestinians “constantly risk imprisonment” including “farmers working their land, children going to school … political leaders exercising their mandates and civil society advocating for human rights,” she claims.

Albanese imagines a dreamworld in which Palestinian “civil society” is free to “resist the occupation” in pursuit of social justice. Unfortunately, she says, “The Israeli regime has turned the occupied territory into a ‘panopticon’ where Palestinians are constantly surveilled and disciplined.”

Nowhere is Albanese’s social justice fantasy more wrong-headed than in her treatment of Palestinian children. She sees Israel’s occasional detention of child soldiers as a grievous crime, but the real crime is obvious: Palestinians turn their children into soldiers. The entire Palestinian educational system inculcates children to embrace terrorism, filling their heads with dreams of martyrdom. Hamas and PIJ have devoted a great deal of energy to recruiting, training and deploying children as killers, training them in firearms and explosives use, hand-to-hand combat and other military tactics at their summer camps.

Albanese ignores these facts, complaining instead that children are sometimes arrested and treated “like dangerous criminals.” Some of them, despite their tender age, are in fact dangerous, but Albanese sees any Israeli attempt to counter this danger as an unacceptable repression of Palestinian “civil society.”

“The term ‘juvenile military court’ is an oxymoron,” she huffs. One could respond by pointing out that the term “Palestinian civil society” is an oxymoron.

Of course, not everyone criticized Albanese’s report. Hamas officials loved it. “We hail the speech of Francesca Albanese,” the terrorist organization wrote in a statement. Hamas’ affinity for Albanese is understandable, but she doesn’t return the favor in her report. In fact, she takes great pains to avoid mentioning the word “Hamas,” preferring to refer to it as “the de facto authorities in Gaza.”

Given all this, it seems long past time to ignore every report the UNHRC issues on Israel. The U.N. should instead concentrate on real abuses in countries like China, Pakistan, Cuba and Russia—all of which, not surprisingly, currently serve on the Human Rights Council. 

The opinions and facts presented in this article are those of the author, and neither JNS nor its partners assume any responsibility for them.
You have read 3 articles this month.
Register to receive full access to JNS.

Israel is at war - Support JNS

JNS is combating the barrage of misinformation with factual reporting. We depend on your support.

Support JNS
Topics
Comments
Thank you. You are a loyal JNS Reader.
You have read more than 10 articles this month.
Please register for full access to continue reading and post comments.
Never miss a thing
Get the best stories faster with JNS breaking news updates