Defeat in wars and the responsibilities of states

The issue of declaring surrender is one of the responsibilities of states in the event of defeat in wars. This comes within the obligations of states under international humanitarian law, as the formal declaration of surrender contributes to the cessation of hostilities and aims to protect the lives of soldiers and civilians and reduce casualties.

Usually, the declaration of surrender comes after formal or informal negotiations between the warring parties, and sometimes includes terms agreed upon by the parties concerned regarding the future of relations and post-war procedures.

The continuation of hostilities after the defeat is clear can lead to significant human losses, which can be avoided if a surrender agreement is reached. Avoiding these losses is one of the most important goals of the declaration of surrender, as it protects soldiers and civilians alike from the horrors of continued fighting, and contributes to preserving infrastructure and avoiding further economic and social damage.

In such cases, the declaration of surrender is seen as a responsible humanitarian decision, aimed at stopping the conflict in a timely manner, reducing suffering, and enhancing efforts to rebuild peace after the end of the conflict.

In the case of war between an occupying state and resistance groups, the declaration of surrender becomes a more complex concept. In this case, the resistance groups are often not affiliated with a formal state and do not represent a traditional government, but rather seek to defend their rights or liberate their land, and therefore are not subject to the same political or legal dynamics that states are bound by.

For the resistance, surrender may be out of the question because it considers itself in a position of legitimate defense against the occupation, and seeks to achieve liberation goals rather than hostile ones. International law also recognizes the right of peoples under occupation to defend themselves and resist the occupation, which gives them a legitimacy that is different from traditional wars between states.

When these wars are prolonged, it becomes important for both parties (the occupier and the resistance) to find peaceful settlements or solutions, because continuing the fighting often leads to great losses, especially among civilians.

The occupying state must abide by international humanitarian law, which imposes a set of obligations on it towards the civilian population in the occupied territories. This includes its duty to protect civilians and avoid any acts of war that may lead to mass human losses, including genocide.

According to the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols, the occupying state is prohibited from carrying out acts that would cause widespread or wanton harm to civilians, and it is prohibited from transferring its population into the occupied territories, manipulating the natural resources of the area, or destroying the infrastructure without justification.

Failure of the occupying state to abide by these laws could be considered a war crime, and may lead to its being held accountable before international courts such as the International Court of Justice or the International Criminal Court.

In the case of war in Gaza, it is illogical for Israel to demand the surrender of the resistance there, but it must appreciate that the continuation of hostilities will only lead to genocide.

In the case of war in Gaza, it becomes unrealistic for Israel to demand the surrender of the Palestinian resistance; because this resistance stems from the context of a long-term occupation and the suffering of the Palestinian people, who see resistance as a means to defend their rights and liberate their land. Continuing hostilities in this context usually leads to heavy losses among civilians and severe damage to infrastructure, which approaches the level of genocide. International law requires the occupying power to avoid targeting civilians and destroying vital facilities, which means the need to stop hostilities that cause civilian suffering, and to find peaceful and just solutions that end the causes of the conflict.

Instead of demanding the surrender of the resistance, it is the duty of the international community to call for a comprehensive calm that guarantees the cessation of violence and guarantees the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and protection from military actions that threaten their existence.

The current situation in Gaza is considered complex and allows the Israeli occupation to continue military operations without supervision or accountability due to the absence of a representative authority that can request a truce or negotiate the terms of surrender, because the Palestinian resistance is not a state with a conventional army, but rather groups defending their rights and existence against the occupation. This political vacuum increases the suffering of civilians and places them in unsafe situations, as there are no clear mechanisms to protect them from continued escalation.

The absence of effective international pressure also puts Israel in a position where it can justify military operations under the pretext of self-defense, despite the fact that these operations lead to heavy losses among Palestinian civilians and destroy vital facilities, which is a flagrant violation of international laws. This situation requires the international community and human rights organizations to play a greater role in demanding a halt to military operations, protecting civilians, and working to find permanent and just solutions that provide protection for the Palestinian people and pave the way for a comprehensive political solution.

The Palestinian Authority may have an important role in leading the political scene and taking the initiative to stop the war through international pressure. This move could provide a diplomatic outlet that contributes to protecting civilians and reducing the escalation, while seeking to put an end to military operations in Gaza.

If the Palestinian Authority employs its international relations, it can increase pressure on Israel to stop military operations, especially if it focuses on humanitarian solutions that are not linked to political considerations between the various Palestinian parties. The Palestinian Authority can also rely on international law to encourage the international community to intervene effectively to protect civilians, and open the door to negotiating humanitarian terms to stop the war.

However, the success of this move will depend on strong internal coordination between the Palestinian factions, even if there is no complete consensus.

The PA’s declaration of surrender, if it happens, will be a very complicated step and may not achieve success or lead to an end to military operations. The main reason is that the PA does not represent all the factions on the ground, especially in Gaza, where Hamas and other resistance factions are in control. This disparity in representation will make the declaration of surrender non-binding for these factions, and thus may not stop the fighting or lead to a comprehensive calm.

In addition, such a declaration will be seen as a concession of the Palestinian people’s rights to resistance and liberation from the occupation, which may create negative internal reactions and weaken the PA’s position among the Palestinian people.

Instead of declaring surrender, it may be more appropriate for the PA to exploit its position to pressure internationally for a ceasefire, focusing on the humanitarian aspect and protecting civilians.

However, if the PA obtains a strong mandate from the international community, this may contribute to the success of its efforts to stop the hostilities. International mandate can strengthen the PA’s position and increase its ability to pressure Israel to reach a truce or an agreement to stop the fighting.

This mandate could include:

1. Strong international support: This could come from the United Nations, major countries, or international organizations that support Palestinian rights. This support could strengthen the position of the Palestinian Authority and give it greater legitimacy in negotiations.

2. Monitoring mechanisms: Establishing international mechanisms to monitor compliance with the ceasefire could be an important factor in building confidence between the parties involved.

3. Emphasis on peaceful solutions: Emphasis on the need to return to peaceful negotiations to resolve the conflict permanently, which could achieve long-term stability.

4. Coordination with other factions: Communicating and coordinating with other factions in Gaza to ensure their support for the efforts made by the Palestinian Authority.

If these matters are managed effectively, the international mandate could succeed in enabling the Palestinian Authority to play a central role in ending the escalation and achieving the interests of the Palestinian people.