Israel is pushing many to ask is international law really law?

One of the more interesting – and depressing – LBC talk radio discussions led by James O’Brien emerged from Israel’s rejection of criticism by 28 countries over its tragic and lamentable actions in Gaza.

For context, a joint statement has been issued, which begins by declaring that “the war in Gaza must end now”. It goes on to say: “The suffering of civilians in Gaza has reached new depths. The Israeli government’s aid delivery model is dangerous, fuels instability and deprives Gazans of human dignity”.

The reference is to this reality: Palestinians who go to food-distribution centres have increasingly been in the firing line since Israel and private US security contractors joined together late May to construct a new system of aid delivery. Palestinian health authorities and international aid organisations claim that more than 800 people have been killed by Israeli fire. Israel denies these numbers.

Anyway, signatories to the new statement include Britain, France, Canada and Japan.

While there have been many international statements criticising Israel’s 21-month collective punishment of Gaza, the newest one is particularly strongly worded. It sounds horrified. In artistic terms, it is the political equivalent of Edvard Munch’s The Scream.

It has had no discernible effect on Israel, its behaviour and intentions.

Unsurprisingly then, caller after caller to Mr O’Brien’s popular show rang in to say they didn’t think there was anything called international law.

What point is there in talking about international law, they asked, when a country can choose not to be bound by it?

Why even speak of international law, they said, when Israel can act with impunity?

Mr O’Brien, one of Britain’s most incisive, insightful and balanced journalists, acknowledged that it felt like “international law has no meaning”.

I would argue that he and his listeners are both right and wrong.

There IS something called international law, even if it is observed in the breach.

J L Brierly, the late scholar of international law, was one of several to address the issue. In a 1944 paper titled ‘International Law: Its Actual Part in World Affairs’, he wrote that international law “began to be treated as a subject of systematic study about four hundred years ago” and while its rules have never been collected into any formal code, “they derive their authority from unwritten custom”.

Quite.

Without any enforcement mechanism, international law is an act of faith, a hope, a prayer for reasonable and responsible behaviour by countries.

It is an aspiration.