Safeguarding hegemonic discourse at the expense of Palestinians

Recent international rhetoric of condemnation and recommendation has once again exhibited the intent to allow Israel to continue with its extrajudicial killings of Palestinians.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's recorded address removed the distinction between the oppressor and the oppressed, effectively ruling out the existence of colonialism from the political and humanitarian narrative.

The same tactics have been intentionally used by the rest of the international community.

Leaders are content to subscribe to a farce - alleging concern for Palestinians and seeking further ties with the settler-colonial entity.

Belated condemnations

Enter human rights groups such as Amnesty International, whose rhetoric is always meticulously chosen in order to remain within the confines of hegemonic discourse.

In a recent statement, Amnesty International's Middle East and North Africa Director Philip Luther declared: "There is mounting evidence that, as tensions have risen dramatically, in some cases Israeli forces appear to have ripped up the rulebook and resorted to extreme and unlawful measures."

Luther insisted that Israel was using "intentional lethal force" against Palestinian civilians: "We are increasingly seeing Israeli forces recklessly flouting international standards by shooting to kill in situations where it is completely unjustified."

Like many other international entities, including diplomatic organisations such as the UN and mainstream media corporations, Amnesty International's input is not only too late - it is also biased and exhibits the traits of willing complicity as well as dependence.

Amnesty International's input is not only too late - it is also biased and exhibits the traits of willing complicity

Luther's statement does not reflect the Palestinian reality. Rather, it is a recapitulation of the conjectures that the international community, through the UN, have enforced upon the indigenous population. Israel has not "ripped up the rulebook".

The only rulebook followed by Israel is its infamous Plan Dalet, which paved the way for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in order to declare the existence of a colonial state.

Since 1948, Israel has, with the approval of the international community, perfected and legalised its extermination methods - the latest being the authorised use of sniper fire against Palestinians actively resisting Israeli violence. The convenient authorisation of this macabre practice is one of the contributing factors characterising the current trend of brutality sanctioned at state level.

If, by reference to "the rulebook", Amnesty International is referring to international law and conventions, it seems that the organisation is conveniently making no distinction between the available legislation and its manipulation.

Neither does it acknowledge that the international community, specifically through the UN, has authorised the manipulation of international law to promote human rights violations. In this case, one must also question the applicability of the so-called rulebook - namely the differentiation regarding impunity and condemnation.

Israel's very existence contravenes international law. Hence, Israel's actions are a derivative of its manifestation.

Distorting history

Since the implementation of the Zionist colonial project, Palestinians have endured every form of human rights violation. Accusing Israel of defying international law in its actions against the current Palestinian resistance is not satisfactory.

However, the rhetoric used by Amnesty International and other human rights and international organisations is replete with dissociation, which in turn generates further impunity for Israel.

Given the dissemination of material through social media - in this case Israeli state and settler violence against Palestinians, it is a fact that the masses are informed of human rights violations at an earlier stage.

Official statements amount to nothing other than a confirmation of material that has already been viewed and shared, hence Amnesty International's rhetoric, in this case, is a restatement of the obvious, disguised by carefully chosen words.

The absence of context from reports and statements condemning Israel is dangerous

Even worse, Luther's statement disregards the historical context of Israel's colonial violence which, for mere concordance, should be persistently alluded to. The absence of context from reports and statements condemning Israel is dangerous, as it allows politically influential organisations to abscond from responsibility in branding Israel a settler-colonial state, as well as become participants in efforts to distort and alter Palestinian narrative and memory.

In this case, the bias and dependency are carefully expressed and can be extracted through an analysis of "demands", as well as the observations leading to such demands.

Like other organisations, Amnesty International has "demanded" that Israel stops "unlawful killings" in the West Bank. It is a known fact that Israel will not refrain from additional bloodbaths. The demand is justified upon the current extrajudicial killings.

However, the dissociation between the current violence and past violence will once again create the illusion of sporadic outbursts of human rights violations, rather than acknowledging that premeditated colonial violence is an inherent part of Israel's foundations.

Like other assertions, Amnesty International's statement will, for a few days, provide a tame reference for criticism of Israel - only to be forgotten as further atrocities materialise and other diplomatic means of condemnation emerge.

Hence, the statement should not be perceived as a valid criticism of Israel. Rather it is an extension of an international rhetoric which depicts the organisation as subservient to furthering Israel's community through supporting statements that have already failed to instigate any proper accountability.

Ramona Wadi is an independent researcher, freelance journalist, book reviewer and blogger specialising in the struggle for memory in Chile and Palestine, colonial violence and the manipulation of international law.

Opinions expressed in this article remain those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of al-Araby al-Jadeed, its editorial board or staff.