OPINION:
The secretary-general of the United Nations, Antonio Guterres, shocked much of the civilized world on Oct. 24 when, in response to the massacre by Hamas terrorists of over 1,200 civilians in Israel, he said: “It is important to also recognize the [Oct. 7] attacks by Hamas did not happen in a vacuum. … The Palestinian people have been subjected to 56 years of suffocating occupation.”
Maybe people have been too harsh on Mr. Guterres. After all, he ascended to the highest spot at the U.N. without ever studying law.
Can he really be faulted for not knowing that the intentional targeting of civilians (sometimes called “noncombatants”) is a war crime? Can he really be expected to know that kidnapping civilians is a war crime? Maybe he thought that there was an “occupation objection exception” to those internationally recognized prohibitions.
Notwithstanding the anger and disgust felt by people in Israel and elsewhere, Mr. Guterres’ statement was music to some people’s ears. They are, of course, the people who live under real occupation, not in a territory conquered in a war of self-defense — namely, Ukrainians, Cypriots, Tibetans and Kashmiris.
Let’s start in Israel’s “neighborhood,” the Mediterranean Sea.
In 1974, Turkey invaded Northern Cyprus. To this day, Turkey maintains tens of thousands of troops in the northern third of Cyprus.
In U.N. Security Council Resolutions 353, 365, 367, 541 and 550, the Security Council called for the withdrawal of all Turkish forces from Cyprus and objected to any attempts by non-Cypriots to “settle” any part of Cyprus under the control of Turkish forces.
With all those resolutions, it sounds to me like the kind of situation that most of the world would call an illegal occupation.
Yet before Oct. 24, the people of Cyprus demonstrated restraint: They did not massacre Turkish civilians. But now that Mr. Guterres has told the world that context matters when judging a massacre of civilians, it seems that those Cypriots who make it their business to listen to the U.N. might start sharpening their knives. They now know that the secretary-general will not label them terrorists without first considering the fault of the Turkish armed forces — which have been occupying Cypriot territory for almost half a century.
How many Turkish civilians would have to be murdered to get the attention of the U.N. secretary-general? The answer is obvious: Simply apply the Israel-bashers’ preferred term: proportionality.
Turkey’s population is over 85 million. That is more than nine times the population of Israel. Hamas slaughtered over 1,200 civilians in Israel on Oct. 7. So, 1,200 dead Israeli civilians would be equivalent to over 11,000 Turkish civilians. In other words, because the Turkish army occupies part of Cyprus, if Cypriot terrorists were to slaughter about 11,000 Turkish civilians in their homes, the U.N. secretary-general could be expected to insist that the world consider the illegal occupation of Cypriot territory by Turkey before deciding whether to condemn such murders.
And Northern Cyprus is not the only example of a real occupation.
Before 1950, most of the world considered Tibet independent of China. But that did not stop the Chinese military from invading in late 1950. After the Chinese forces overpowered the Tibetan army, the leadership of Tibet was forced to sign an “agreement” with China to end Tibet’s independence.
The human rights abuses by the Chinese in Tibet have been a subject of condemnation around the world for decades, and many organizations have called Tibet “occupied” territory. Several years ago, the government of Lithuania went on record, declaring Tibet “occupied” by China.
Presumably, the trepidation of Chinese citizens is greater than that of the Turks. Unlike the Turks, who do not share any border with Cyprus, China does share a border with Tibet. Before Oct. 24, Chinese civilians did not go to sleep particularly worried that Tibetans would invade in the morning. Chinese parents did not worry that, out of anger for the human rights abuses inflicted on Tibet by the occupying Chinese forces, Tibetan terrorists would go on a murder rampage, including decapitating Chinese babies.
But that changed late last month, when the U.N. secretary-general told the world that the victims of terrorism and those who sympathize with those victims must, when judging the actions of people who burn people to death, understand the “suffocation” suffered by people living under “occupation.”
Chinese civilians presumably understand that the human rights abuses that the Tibetans have endured at the hands of Chinese armed forces clearly fall within the definition of a “suffocating occupation” as outlined recently by Mr. Guterres.
The population of China is 1.5 billion people — about 166 times the population of Israel. Therefore, under the analysis articulated by the secretary-general and the “proportionalists,” if a group of hypothetical Tibetan terrorists were to cross the border and slaughter, let’s say, 232,000 Chinese civilians in their homes, there would be no unconditional condemnation of such an atrocity.
And there is Russia, which has been occupying Crimea unlawfully for nine years. Russia’s population is about 16 times that of Israel. In another hypothetical scenario, that means that Mr. Guterres might “understand” the slaughter of 22,400 Russian civilians by Ukrainians in protest against the occupation of Crimea.
Finally, there is Kashmir. Since 1947, Pakistan has considered India an occupying power of Kashmir. According to a report by Human Rights Watch, Indian security forces have engaged in widespread human rights abuses in Indian-controlled Kashmir.
More specifically, the report notes that Indian security forces have used arbitrary arrest and collective punishments of entire neighborhoods as well as “the summary execution of detainees.” The report concludes that the Indian security forces employed “brutal tactics” to repress and suppress Kashmiri opposition.
That description sounds as though it falls within Mr. Guterres’ description of a “suffocating occupation.”
Therefore, post-Oct. 24, Indian civilians in Amritsar and Barmer — two towns near the border with Pakistan — presumably have been beefing up their home security systems in anticipation of an assault by land and by air from Pakistani terrorists.
India’s population is about 155 times the population of Israel. Therefore, under the criteria suggested by the secretary-general, at least 217,000 Indian civilians are at risk of being slaughtered by Pakistanis who oppose the Indian “occupation.”
In total, Mr. Guterres’ ill-advised comment puts at risk the lives of about half a million non-Israelis (Turks, Chinese, Russians and Indians). When he made his “not in a vacuum” comment, did he not realize that he was putting at risk the lives of so many civilians around the globe? Of course not, because Mr. Guterres applies a double standard and presumes that the rest of the world also applies a double standard.
Mr. Guterres’ worldview is that opposition to an “occupation” is not a justification for violence, but the exception to that rule is when the victims of the violence are Israelis. Because it never crossed Mr. Guterres’ mind that opposition to “occupation” might justify violence against civilians in Turkey, China, Russia or India, the consequences of his “vacuum” comment did not cross his mind.
In other words, logic is irrelevant when applying a double standard. If you apply a double standard to Israel, you don’t worry that the rest of the world might suffer the consequences of your “logic.”
A common criticism of politicians — both on the left and on the right — is that “words matter.” Secretary-General Guterres was actually reading from a printed text when he uttered his horrible “no vacuum” comment on Oct. 24. He had time to prepare, to choose his words, and to consider their consequences. His utterance was indefensible.
All who oppose the application of double standards — whether on the left or on the right — should demand that Mr. Guterres resign immediately.
• Eric Sherby is an American Israeli lawyer based in Ramat Gan, Israel. He serves as vice chair of the American Bar Association’s International Litigation Committee and has held other positions with the association.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.