Deconstruction and Reconstruction of Human Rights Discourse in the New Century: A Perspective from the Gaza Conflict

The sudden outbreak of the Gaza conflict at the end of 2023 marks the most intense surge in the wave of violence between Palestine and Israel in recent years. Both sides have intensified their violent tactics, resulting in a peak of civilian casualties not seen since the year 2000. Israel, supported by its Western allies, continues to assert its dominance in the narrative, suppressing alternative voices and distorting the reality of the situation. They turn a blind eye to the suffering of the Palestinian people, labeling their struggle and the international efforts to support Palestinian justice as “anti-Semitism” and “terrorism”. However, there is a growing force advocating for justice for the disadvantaged in discussions about basic human rights in conflict zones. This force is challenging the traditional human rights discourse, which is heavily influenced by Western values and interests, and striving to construct a new human rights discourse centered around the concept of a global community with a shared future.

1. The Rules of Engagement and Basic Human Rights Protection

The battle of “the children of light against the children of darkness”?

In October 2023, the Gaza conflict was ignited by a Hamas attack on Israel, leading to the bombing of numerous non-military targets in Israel and the kidnapping of Israeli civilians to areas controlled by Hamas. Israel quickly mobilized its armed forces for a counterattack and attempted hostage rescue. The Israeli Prime Minister’s official Twitter account described the situation as a “struggle between the children of light and the children of darkness, a struggle between human nature and the law of the jungle”. The international community, while maintaining a stance of fairness and objectivity, showed reserved support for Israel’s response. By any standard, such indiscriminate attacks on civilian targets are considered acts of terrorism and are unacceptable in the international legal order. Nonetheless, the international community also recognizes the special circumstances of the Gazan people and hopes for an expedited end to the conflict to minimize further civilian casualties.

During the prolonged conflict, millions of urban residents were forced to flee due to the actions of the Israeli military. A large number of civilians, including a significant proportion of women and children, died in indiscriminate bombings. Hospitals, mosques, and residential buildings were reduced to ruins under Israeli artillery. On December 11th, China’s Ambassador to the United Nations, Zhang Jun, after surveying the humanitarian situation in Gaza, condemned Israel’s actions as a “humanitarian disaster,” asserting they had crossed the limits of human conscience. Facing the severe humanitarian crisis created by Israel, it has become increasingly difficult to recognize its self-proclaimed role as the “children of light” and the “representatives of humanity”.

Violation of the Rules of Engagement and the Duty to Protect Civilians

The modern international war law, exemplified by the Geneva Conventions, has always strictly limited unnecessary collateral damage in armed conflicts. Particularly emphasized is the ultimate taboo in the use of force: the prohibition against indiscriminately affecting civilians, hospitals, and women and children. What differentiates the armed forces of a modern civilized nation from the “children of darkness”, or barbaric militants, is their conscious adherence to the rules of engagement (Rules of Engagement), limiting the scope of their force and making every effort to protect the basic human rights of civilians in the conflict zone. For example, the U.S. Department of Defense’s rules of engagement for its forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, issued in 2003, explicitly state: “Combatants and non-combatants must be clearly identified and strictly distinguished”; “Attacks on civilians, hospitals, mosques, cultural and historical relics are prohibited, except for necessary self-defense”; “Firing at civilian-populated areas or buildings is prohibited unless they have been used for military purposes by the enemy”, and so on.

However, the Israeli military repeatedly carried out bombings and artillery strikes in densely populated civilian areas of Gaza. On October 17th, they even directly bombed the Gaza Baptist Hospital, causing significant civilian casualties, including numerous children. Regardless of how Israeli officials justify their actions, the bloody reality remains: in the current Gaza conflict, the actions of the Israeli military have resulted in an abnormally high number of civilian casualties, including an alarmingly high number of children. This indicates that in carrying out attacks, the Israeli military blatantly disregarded the traditional international law of armed conflict, showing indifference to the basic rights of civilians in the conflict zone, and directly violating the core principles of human rights protection in warfare.

From Victim to Perpetrator: When the Dragon Slayer Turns Into the Dragon

Recently, Israeli delegation to the United Nations staged a bizarre drama. Each member wore a yellow Star of David, symbolizing the Nazi persecution of Jews, as if to suggest that anyone not siding with Israel was akin to the Nazis of World War II. Since the outbreak of the Gaza conflict, Israel has likened the attacks it faces to the Holocaust and branded all criticism as “anti-Semitism”. This comparison is undoubtedly absurd. As Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi stated, all actions harming civilians should be condemned. While Israel has the right to exist and the Israeli people have the right to live securely, the Palestinian people also have the right to return to their homeland and establish their state, as well as the right to survival. Yet, the rights of the Palestinians have been continuously trampled upon, with little concern shown for their plight.

In fact, a deeper examination of history reveals that many find striking similarities between Israel’s actions towards the people of Gaza today and the Nazi persecution of Jews. This raises a thought-provoking question: When did the young dragon slayer, who once fought against tyranny, turn into the dragon itself?

A closer examination of history reveals striking similarities between Israel’s current treatment of the people of Gaza and the Nazi persecution of Jews during World War II, raising profound questions: When did the young dragon slayer turn into the dragon itself? During World War II, the Nazis implemented a policy of racial extermination against Jews, forcibly herding large numbers of them into Jewish ghettos, the most infamous being the Warsaw Ghetto. Enclosed by a 10-foot-high, 11-mile-long wall, the cramped ghetto housed up to half a million Jews struggling to survive amidst hunger and cold. From July 1942, the Nazi occupation authorities began mass deportations of ghetto residents to extermination centers and concentration camps. Within a few months, the population of the Warsaw Ghetto plummeted to less than 100,000. In 1943, in a desperate uprising, the Jews fought against the German army, but the revolt ended in failure, leading to the brutal massacre of about 13,000 Jews, with tens of thousands more sent to concentration camps for execution. The Jewish community in Warsaw ceased to exist thereafter.

Following the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, the continuous encroachment on Arab lands led to a shrinking of the Palestinian-controlled areas, eventually confined to the small regions of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The Gaza Strip, named for its narrow shape, spans only 365 square kilometers and originally had a population of only 340,000. Since its occupation by Israel in 1967, it has become home to around 3 million displaced Palestinians, making it one of the most densely populated areas in the world. In 2001, Israel destroyed the Gaza International Airport, effectively cutting off Gaza from the outside world. The region is enclosed by a barrier of concrete walls and barbed wire, with only two heavily controlled crossing points. Over 90% of Gaza’s water and all its electricity are supplied by Israel, with more than half the population struggling with food supply and an unemployment rate exceeding 40%, leading to economic stagnation. For the Palestinians in Gaza, this is a form of racial segregation. In 1987, oppressed Palestinians in the Jabalia refugee camp in Gaza sparked the First Intifada, followed by a Second Intifada in 2000. These uprisings were brutally suppressed by Israel, leading to significant Palestinian civilian casualties: in 2008, over 1,440 Palestinians were killed in Israeli operations; in 2012, 167 Palestinian civilians, including 35 children and 14 women, were killed during an eight-day military offensive by Israel; and in 2014, Israeli soldiers killed 2,100 Palestinians in attacks on Gaza. In this latest Gaza conflict, the Israeli military has been even more relentless, with reports of 22,400 Palestinian civilian deaths, including over 3,000 children, as of the end of November. Some say today’s Gaza Strip is the world’s largest concentration camp, and ironically, its creators are the very survivors of the Nazi concentration camps.

The tragic experience of the Nazi policy of exterminating Jews led Israel to place a high emphasis on building its armed forces. However, the Israel Defense Forces, intended for self-defense, have become a tool for hegemonic expansion and the brutal trampling of basic human rights. It is lamentable that the spirit of resilience and strength of the Israeli people has transformed into regional hegemonism and oppression of the weak. The young dragon slayer of the past has tragically become the dragon of today.

2. The Plight of Free Speech and the Dusk of Hegemonic Discourse

The Dilemma of University Presidents: The Sorrow of Free Speech

On December 5th, the U.S. Congress, citing rampant “anti-Semitism” on university campuses, summoned the presidents of prestigious academic institutions to Washington D.C. for a hearing. Claudine Gay of Harvard University, Liz Magill of the University of Pennsylvania, and Sally Kornbluth of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology were called to provide explanations. The Congress members leading the hearing conflated the issue, interpreting the students’ chants supporting the Palestinian people, “Globalize Intifada,” as genocidal rhetoric, and questioned why the universities did not punish these students. Faced with the politicians’ overpowering narrative of political correctness, the university presidents seemed at a loss, striving to reframe the issue to its original complexity and delicately balance between free speech, moral boundaries, and ethnic rights. Their commendable courage to stand by their principles, however, came at a heavy cost: both Claudine Gay of Harvard and Liz Magill of Penn were forced to resign within a month following the hearing.

On one hand, Israeli military actions, involving real bullets and bombs, transformed Palestinian homes into a living hell, yet these actions largely escaped scrutiny. On the other hand, a few impassioned slogans on campuses, which had negligible impact on the living environment of American Jews, were blown out of proportion, leading to a modern-day witch hunt and relentless suppression. This exposed the blatant double standards in the American public opinion environment, where only the government’s actions were tolerated, but not the people’s dissent. Consequently, even the academic freedom of university campuses fell victim to this hegemonic discourse. The freedom of speech, once a proud hallmark of the United States, was thus deflated and discarded, trampled underfoot with disregard.

The Struggle and Frustration of Hegemonic Discourse of Major Powers

Under the indulgence of Western powers, Israel’s behavior on various international platforms is also filled with paranoia and aggression. The Israeli permanent representative to the United Nations, Gilad Erdan, even demanded an apology from UN Secretary-General António Guterres for not unconditionally supporting Israel, an attitude that defied diplomatic etiquette and was astonishing in its arrogance.

Of course, justice resides in the hearts of the people. On November 22nd, representatives of UN Women, UNICEF, and the UNFPA were invited to report on the humanitarian situation in Gaza at a UN Security Council meeting. They highlighted the bleak situation of women and children’s rights due to the ongoing conflict. When the Israeli representative Erdan made another disrespectful comment, calling the UN Women’s agency “shameful”, he was immediately interrupted and sternly admonished by the rotating chairman, Chinese Ambassador to the UN Zhang Jun, who insisted on maintaining basic respect for the speakers at the meeting. Zhang further condemned the inhumane acts occurring in the Gaza Strip.

Although a Security Council resolution urging a ceasefire in Gaza was delayed due to U.S. obstruction, the UN General Assembly convened an emergency meeting on December 12th, passing a special resolution calling for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in the Gaza Strip by an overwhelming majority. This clearly demonstrated the international community’s unequivocal stance on the situation. At the beginning of 2024, South Africa filed a lengthy 84-page complaint with the International Court of Justice, directly accusing Israel of committing “genocide” in Gaza. Confronted with the international community’s united condemnation, even U.S. President Joe Biden had to acknowledge that Israel, by blatantly violating human rights in Gaza, is losing the support of the international community.

3. Conclusion

As we move into the third decade of the 21st century, the international human rights discourse is undergoing a significant transformation. The repeated display of moral double standards by Western countries has led to a severe credibility crisis. Increasingly, developing countries are asserting their voices independently, challenging the human rights discourse dominated by a few major powers. It is becoming evident that the international human rights discourse system, once monopolized by Western developed countries, is inevitably deconstructing. A new, multilateral international human rights protection discourse is emerging and gaining substantial influence. We believe that only a human rights discourse centered on justice, equality, independence, dialogue, and mutual respect can construct an international order that leads to genuine national reconciliation and enduring regional peace and stability.