Sweden must investigate Israel for war crimes

  

Debate 

The war between Israel and Hamas  

Sweden must investigate Israel for war crimes  

Lawyers: That's why we report the Israeli state leadership to the police  

This is a debate article. It is the writer who stands for the opinions expressed in the text, not Aftonbladet.  

Published at 06:00  

Sweden's international commitments mean that we have an obligation to investigate and prosecute war crimes, write lawyers Mikael Westerlund and Behrang Eslami, who have reported the Israeli state leadership to the police. In the photo, a child is carried away after an Israeli attack on Gaza on October 24. Photo: TT/AP 

DEBATE 

DEBATE. Last week we reported Israeli government officials for crimes. After we submitted our report to Swedish prosecutors, there have been questions about why we did this article we intend to explain our considerations.

However, let us initially state the obvious, namely Israel's right to self-defense after the horrific attacks carried out by the terrorist organization Hamas against the Israeli civilian population.  

Israel's right to self-defense is specifically expressed in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, from which it follows that no provision restricts the natural right of individual or collective self-defense in the event of an armed attack.  

In contrast, Israel's right to self-defense is not absolute, but must take place within the framework of humanitarian law, that is, the laws of war.  

In  contrast, Israel's  right to self-defense is not absolute, but must take place within the framework of  humanitarian Iaw, that is,the Iaws of war.

According to humanitarian law, it is not permitted, for example, to direct an attack against a military target that leads to the death or injury of civilians, the destruction of civilian property or the serious damage to the natural environment to an extent that is out of proportion to the concrete and immediate overall military advantage that can be expected. 

Anyone who violates this prohibition is quilty of war crimes.

That it is that way is expressed in Swedish domestic law as well as in the Statute of the International Criminal Court. The ban expresses three basic elements of humanitarian law; distinction, military necessity and finally proportionality. 

Based on the UN agency OCHA's reports, we can then state that over 7,000 Palestinians died in Gaza after Israel began its offensive with bombings and the deployment of ground forces. Of these, over 3,000 dead are said to be children and over 1,700 women. Over 18,000 people are reported to be injured.

We can therefore state that this is extensive and devastating suffering.

In addition, Israel has damaged civilian property on a very large scale and urged the population of northern Gaza to leave their homes and move south.  

In a proportionality asscssment, the very large number of children killed should reasonably be particularly troubl. According to save the children, more children have been killed in Gaza in three weeks than have been killed in conflicts throughout the world since 2019.

Gaza is one of the world's most densely populated places and the population is locked in by Israel through walls and fences, which means that they have no opportunity to escape the fighting. The fighting methods and means of warfare that Israel uses are also such that the consequences we are now seeing are highly expected. 

In addition, leading Israeli politicians have expressed that they intend to "level Gaza to the ground". 

Due to this, we have made the assessment that there is reason to assume that leading  representatives in Israel have been guilty  of war crimes  and that there are reasons for national  authorities to secure evidence for future prosecutions as it follows from Sweden's international commitments to investigate and prosecute war crimes. 

In addition, we note that it follows from humanitarian law that anyone who deprives a civilian population of vital necessities through starvation is also guilty of war crimes. 

It follows from the Statute of the International Criminal Court that the prohibition against starvation includes a prohibition against depriving the civilian population of necessities necessary for its survival.  

A typical example is that aid shipments are prevented, and in addition to food and medicine, property that is more indirectly important for the survival of the civilian population can also be covered by the protection that the ban entails, for example necessary equipment for the production, storage and processing of food or for the maintenance of socially important functions.  

We can then state that there is worrying information that the entire civil society inside Gaza is about to collapse. 

 

For example, there are reports of people looting to get food, doctors are forced to operate without anesthesia in hospitals, vital medicine is missing, food and water are in short supply and the electricity grid has been knocked out according to media reports. While Israel maintains the blockade of Gaza and keeps border crossings closed.  

 

There is therefore reason to assume that Israel is guilty of war crimes on these grounds as well.

According to the human rights organizations Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, there is also information that the Israeli military used the substance white phosphorus when they bombed targets in Gaza.

If this information is true, Israel has clearly violated humanitarian law. 

In our police report, we stated that there is reason to assume that Yoav Gallant, Israel's Minister of Defense, and Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's premiärminister, together and in concert with others, committed war crimes.

However, we are aware that there may be immunity issues regarding these named persons as certain heads of state have immunity vis-à-vis national authorities. However, there will come a day when these will no longer have their political offices. 

 

In addition, we can state that they do not have immunity in the International Criminal Court. Therefore, immunity does not constitute sufficient grounds for not initiating a preliminary investigation in Sweden against named persons.  

 

In any case, the suspected crimes have been reasonably organized by a larger circle within the central state and military administration that does not enjoy immunity.  

Under all circumstances, there are reasons for the Swedish authorities to open a so-called structural preliminary investigation.

 

Structural preliminary investigations were first developed in Germany and have been used there since 2011 in the investigation of international crimes. But the method is also applied in France and Sweden and, in short, involves the initiation of a formal, customary preliminary investigation regarding a certain international crime, even if there is no designated suspect or act yet. 

 

Instead, the criminal suspicion is based on an understanding that the crimes presuppose actors who act in a collective structure and the investigation focuses on gathering evidence on a more comprehensive level. For example, Swedish authorities are currently applying the method to the situation in Ukraine.  

 

As stated above, if follows from Sweden's international commitments that we have an obligation to investigate and prosecute war crimes.

 

There is universal jurisdiction and by the fact that Swedish citizens have also been affected, there is sufficient connection to Sweden for national authorities to open a preliminary investigation.  

 

Mikael Westerlund, lawyer   
Behrang Eslami, lawyer