If Israel was Zimbabwe

What do you think would happen if an African country decided to bomb a smaller and weaker one to smithereens over a territorial disagreement? Think about it. The army and air force of the stronger country do not only target military bases but zoom in on densely populated urban areas as their chosen theatre of war. Schools, homes and places of religious worship are said to be legitimate targets and the unleashing of unbridled military fury is not limited to armed men but equally meted upon innocent women, the aged and even babies and youngsters that are not prescient enough to know what is happening or why everyone is falling asleep in pools of red water and not waking up.

Entire families are wiped out.

Children watch their parents and siblings die, and parents watch their children and neighbours being shred apart by shrapnel or combusting in plumes of phosphorous smoke. The smell of death and fear pervades like a swarm of locusts. The streets are littered with rows of corpses. The hospitals are overwhelmed with the battle to save lives, limbs and loved ones. Families and communities are shattered, as grating wails of pain, loss, misery and rage rise into the air like a cacophonic symphony of inconsolable grief.

The aggressors remain intransigent, dogged and undeterred in their bloodlust. In the military onslaught, they use weapons proscribed by the Geneva Convention and ignore UN Security Council resolutions or international calls for an end to the hostilities. As if to flaunt their invincibility and the depth of their disregard for international opinion, they even bomb a couple of UN buildings for good measure.

The weaker country in not without blame, it harbours fundamentalist militants who engage in terrorists activities and shoot rockets at civilians in the neighbouring stronger country, killing the innocent and maiming the neutral. It and its leaders should be held accountable for these crimes but should the innocent serve the sentence of the guilty? The stronger country has a legal right to its security but the weaker country also has some legitimate claims which it is too weak - financially, militarily and politically - to claim and defend. So it fights back with feeble attempts that make them seem like Lilliputians trying to punch Gulliver in the nose, while in actuality, they can't even see above his ankle.

It's hard to believe, as we watched this carnage, that the most powerful countries in the world who preach the global gospel of human rights, multilateralism, Rule of Law and good governance are reduced to muted bystanders, as the innocent and the guilty are maimed and killed alike without discrimination. Impunity, I am learning, is the privilege of wealthy nations with powerful friends. We hear nothing about sanctions. There are only few scripted 'tough' words, no threats of invasion or punitive measures. Just platitudes. By saying little or saying nothing at all, the message they are sending to the world seems to be: 'It's ok to break international law and kill your neighbours when you are a rich and powerful nation. But if you are a poor country with few friends , the full weight and wrath of the almighty International Community will come up you like a tonne of bricks.'

You think I am taking this too far? Well, let me ask you, what if this stronger aggressor country was Zimbabwe under President Mugabe? What would the reaction of the powerful players in the international community be? Would they turn a blind eye or talk about Zimbabwe's right to protect itself through pre-emptive strikes? Would they say they are committed to Zimbabwe's security? Would they embark on an international back-patting exercise before the global media? Would they sit back and watch Zimbabwe pulverise and decimate the citizens of a neighbouring country? Or, as they did when Iraq invaded Kuwait, would they march in and 'protect the sovereignty and democracy' of the weaker state? Well, I guess that depends on if the weaker state has oil. But seriously, if this same scenario had played out in Africa, what would have happened?

I am not saying Israel is anything like Zimbabwe, politically speaking, but I am using this as an analogy to highlight how the international community can be brazenly duplicitous and to be frank, hypocritical, depending on which country is involved. This article is not primarily about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, it's about international justice, equity and fairness.

All countries are said to be equal before international law, but from what we saw in the recent war in Gaza, some countries are apparently more equal than others. As I reflect on the situation in Gaza and see how the international community has lost its moral authority and how powerless the UN has become, though it remains the sole legitimate mechanism for global governance, I see ripple effects even here in Africa.

For example, I see a bespectacled 'Uncle Bob' slurping tea in his baroque Victorian study in Zimbabwe, gleefully clearing his throat and leafing through his dictionary as he prepares an arsenal of phosphorus verbal bombs for the next Western country that dares to lecture him on human rights. He picks his diamond studded pen and writes the punch line of his next speech: If you can't save innocent people from Israeli bombs in Gaza, don't bother my baton wielding 'war veterans' in Zimbabwe.

'Dapo Oyewole is a Yale 2008 World Fellow and Director of CAPPS, an Africa focused think tank.
E-mail [e-mail]

Comments

[JakeRedd]

Send not to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.