A Year of Violence: A Tragedy for Palestine

For over a year, the Israeli occupation authorities have pursued increasingly aggressive military operations in Gaza and the West Bank. Thousands of Palestinian civilians have been killed, with entire neighborhoods razed, hospitals bombed, and essential infrastructure destroyed. The blockade of Gaza has deepened, leaving millions without access to necessities such as adequate water, food, and medical care. This is not just warfare; it is the systematic destruction of a people -— genocide, according to many scholars and human rights organizations.

What is perhaps most disheartening is the international community’s response — or lack thereof. Despite widespread documentation of war crimes, including targeting civilians, collective punishment, and disproportionate use of force, there has been no meaningful intervention. Israel’s actions flagrantly violate international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits the deliberate targeting of civilians and calls for the protection of those in occupied territories. Yet, condemnation from global institutions has been largely symbolic, devoid of enforcement or consequences.

Lebanon: The Conflict Expands

Now, as Israel extends its military campaign into Lebanon, targeting Hezbollah, the crisis has escalated into a regional conflict. The Lebanese civilian population, already struggling under economic collapse and political instability, now faces the terrifying prospect of attacks. As with Gaza and the West Bank, civilians are caught in the crossfire, and international law once again appears impotent in the face of aggression.

The expansion of conflict raises broader geopolitical concerns. The Middle East has long been a powder keg, and Israel’s unchecked military actions risk pulling the region into greater chaos. Yet, despite these dire consequences, the international community remains largely passive, offering only calls for restraint and diplomacy, which ring hollow in the absence of real accountability.

The Collapse of International Law

This ongoing crisis exposes the deep flaws within the international legal system. Israel’s continued breaches of international humanitarian law, from illegal settlements to disproportionate military force, challenge the very foundation of the post-World War II order. International law is designed to prevent such atrocities, yet when its mechanisms fail to hold powerful actors accountable, it becomes a dead letter.

The role of international organizations, particularly the United Nations, is central to this failure. The UN, founded to prevent the horrors of war and promote human rights, has become a symbol of ineffectiveness. UN resolutions condemning Israeli actions have been met with vetoes by powerful member states, most notably the United States, rendering the institution powerless. Year after year, the Security Council has been paralyzed, and while the UN General Assembly passes resolutions condemning the violence, these carry no legal weight.

The UN Secretary-General’s recent statements, calling for ceasefires and peace negotiations, are admirable but fall far short of addressing the root problem: the lack of enforcement. If international law cannot be enforced against powerful states, particularly when geopolitical interests are involved, it loses credibility in the eyes of the world. On the one hand, Israel has declared the UN Secretary-General as “persona non grata.” Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz claimed that Guterres, whom he described as anti-Israel, ‘supports terrorists, rapists, and murderers.’

In a written statement released by the Foreign Ministry, it was reported that Guterres was declared ‘persona non grata’ for not explicitly condemning the Iranian missile attack on Israel. ‘No one who cannot unequivocally condemn Iran’s vile attack on Israel deserves to set foot on Israeli soil,’ Foreign Minister Israel Katz said in a statement, claiming that Guterres, whom he described as anti-Israel, ‘supports terrorists, rapists, and murderers.’ Katz also argued that Guterres stands with Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and now Iran, which he described as ‘the mother of global terrorism,’ and said that Guterres will go down in UN history as a ‘black stain.’ As we can see, Israel demands not only substantial support from individual states but also knee-jerk support from international organizations.

The Failure of Political Will

The problem, however, extends beyond institutional failures. At its core, the crisis reflects a lack of political will among world leaders to prioritize human rights and justice over strategic alliances and national interests. Israel’s position as a close ally of the United States and other Western powers shields it from meaningful consequences. This political reality undermines international law, creating a world where rules apply only to the weak, while the powerful operate with impunity. As public trust in international organizations erodes, so does the belief in the effectiveness of international law. This erosion has long-term consequences, not only for the Palestinian people but for global stability. If the world allows the precedent of unchecked violence and lawlessness to continue, other conflicts may follow, and other authoritarian regimes may exploit the international system’s weaknesses.
Where Do We Go from Here?

The current situation demands more than empty rhetoric and non-binding resolutions. If international law is to remain a force for justice, it must be enforced consistently, without regard to political alliances. This requires a fundamental overhaul of global institutions like the UN, which must become more democratic and less beholden to the vetoes of powerful nations. International courts, such as the International Criminal Court (ICC), must be empowered to investigate and prosecute war crimes without political interference. The world cannot afford to stand idly by while a humanitarian catastrophe unfolds in Palestine and now threatens to engulf Lebanon. Global leaders must rise above their national interests and act in the name of justice, not only for the sake of the Palestinian people but for the integrity of international law itself. The time for decisive action is now, and the world must not let another year of violence and impunity pass.

Erosion of Public Trust

International law, particularly humanitarian law, is designed to protect human rights, prevent atrocities, and promote peace and justice on a global scale. Organizations like the United Nations (UN), the International Criminal Court (ICC), and various international treaties are supposed to provide mechanisms for accountability. However, when these institutions are unable—or unwilling—to enforce their rules, public trust in them erodes.

That Israel can attack Palestinians, routinely violating international law without consequence, sends a message to the global public that these laws are impotent. The inability to hold powerful states accountable creates the perception that international law is applied selectively, undermining its legitimacy. People lose faith in these institutions when they see that global powers can act with impunity, leading to cynicism about the entire international order. This erosion of trust can be deeply damaging. Citizens around the world may start to believe that international organizations are incapable of protecting human rights or negotiating an end to wars. The loss of confidence in these bodies weakens their authority, making it harder for them to mediate future conflicts, provide humanitarian aid, or broker peace agreements.

A Global Crisis for Humanity

When international law fails, it is not just the immediate victims of conflict who suffer. The breakdown of these systems can lead to a broader global crisis for humanity. The unchecked violation of human rights and international humanitarian law contributes to a cycle of violence, displacement, and instability that affects millions. Refugee crises, for example, often stem from conflicts where international law is disregarded, forcing entire populations to flee their homes in search of safety. Moreover, when international organizations are unable to intervene effectively, it emboldens other states or actors to disregard international norms, setting a dangerous precedent. This can lead to a proliferation of conflicts and human rights abuses, as countries see that there are no real consequences for violating international law. The result is a global jungle where might makes right, and the rules meant to protect the vulnerable are ignored.

“Lawless,” Digital, Dream / Dreamland v3 / PS Express, 2024

In the long term, this instability can contribute to global crises, such as the rise of extremism, the collapse of states, and increased poverty and suffering. When people no longer believe that international law can protect them, they may turn to other, often more violent, forms of resistance or support authoritarian regimes that promise stability over justice. This creates a vicious cycle where international organizations lose their ability to intervene meaningfully, further eroding trust and exacerbating global instability.

Beyond the undeniable failure of institutions, courts, and international law, this situation sends a stark message to the world: if what is happening in Gaza and Lebanon were to happen to us, there would be no mechanism or institution to protect us. Perhaps this is the intended outcome — to make us feel utter despair, to break our spirit, and to compel us to bow to power. But it is precisely for this reason that we will continue to resist, to fight, and to defend human rights with as much resolve as the people of Gaza.

(The Conversation) – The prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Karim Khan, has been a prominent figure in the news in recent years. In 2023, he requested – and was granted – a warrant for the arrest of Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin.

He then dived into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in May 2024, requesting arrest warrants for the leaders of Hamas and Israel in response to the ongoing violence in the Middle East. The ICC is expected to make a decision on whether to accept Khan’s request in the coming days.

The prosecutor is responsible for initiating investigations when there are reasonable grounds to believe that one of the four international crimes within the ICC’s jurisdiction has been committed. These crimes are war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and the crime of aggression.

The prosecutor may initiate an investigation if it is requested by either the UN Security Council or one of the ICC’s 124 member states. But they can also open an investigation on their own initiative, as has happened in the Israel-Hamas case and on several occasions before.

Khan’s predecessor, Fatou Bensouda, opened an investigation against Israel in 2021. And the current events were, somewhat controversially, addressed as part of this case. The US and others have argued that, given the events of October 7, Khan should have opened a new investigation, and that the failure to do so raises concerns about due process.

When determining whether to proceed with an investigation, the prosecutor must consider various factors. These include the ability and willingness of the relevant state to conduct its own investigation into the alleged crimes.

If the prosecutor is satisfied that the state is genuinely investigating the suspected crimes, then they will defer to the state and refrain from further action. This act of deference is known in international law as the principle of complementarity.

It is this element – the state’s ability and willingness to investigate alleged crimes on its own – that has drawn the ire of certain politicians regarding Khan’s decision to request arrest warrants.

The US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, commented in a press statement that the prosecutor “rush[ed] to seek these arrest warrants rather than allowing the Israeli legal system a full and timely opportunity to proceed”.

Germany, which intervened in the case in support of Israel, made a similar remark. It stated that, as Israel is currently at war, it should have been “given an appropriate and genuine opportunity to put its accountability mechanisms into action”.

Whether the court accepts that the prosecutor acted too hastily will be clarified in its imminent decision.

Another unique element in the process leading to the request for arrest warrants was the prosecutor’s appointment of an independent panel of legal advisers. The task of this panel was to assist Khan with “evidence review and legal analysis”.

The panel’s appointment and its work, however, has attracted some criticism. Certain legal experts have argued that the selection process for panel members was flawed, that the panel’s experts lacked the necessary expertise to evaluate controversial facts, and that the panel did not cite its evidential sources.

Some also accused certain members of impartiality, referencing previous public comments on the Israel-Hamas dispute. These critical remarks gained media attention and were echoed by various outlets.

“Butcher in Chains,” Digital, Dream / Dreamland v3/ Clip2Comic, 2024.

It is important to clarify that the panel’s mandate was only to advise Khan on his decision to request arrest warrants. Ultimately, it is Khan’s work and his evaluation of the facts – not the panel’s – that will be reviewed by the court. Thus, the controversies surrounding the panel’s role are possibly overstated.

Serious consequences

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, what will happen next should the court accept Khan’s request and issue arrest warrants? The ICC’s history of issuing arrest warrants is mixed, with well-known defendants such as Vladimir Putin, Omar al-Bashir, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi and Joseph Kony still at large.

The warrants are also unlikely to lead to arrests in the current case. It is hard to imagine Israel handing over its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, or its defence minister, Yoav Gallant, to the Hague. And it is just as unlikely that Palestine will hand over Yahya Sinwar, the leader of Hamas.

However, these warrants are expected to have significant consequences, particularly for Israel. To begin with, Israeli leaders will probably avoid travelling to any of the ICC’s member states, as these countries are obligated to arrest them upon entry.

The same faith is less likely to harm Palestine’s foreign affairs given that these are led by the Palestinian Authority and not by Hamas.

Should the ICC determine that Israel’s leaders are responsible for committing war crimes and crimes against humanity, this decision will probably lead to increased political isolation and sanctions.

Since the start of the war in Gaza, several countries have suspended the sale of weapons to Israel. The UK followed suit in early September, announcing that it would suspend 30 out of 350 arms export licenses to Israel. This decision could easily be expanded in scope.

The economic impact of an ICC decision to issue arrest warrants would also be severe. It may lead certain investors and funds to disengage and divest from Israel. Many funds have ethical policies that prevent them from engaging in activities that support or contribute to the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The effect of the decision could reverberate through the ICC, too. In June, the US House of Representatives passed legislation to sanction the ICC and its officials for requesting arrest warrants against Israeli leaders.

This legislation is unlikely to be accepted by the US Senate and become law. But the upcoming US elections, and the prospect of a Republican administration, may not bode well for Khan and his staff.

During his previous term in the White House, Donald Trump imposed personal sanctions on Bensouda in response to her investigations into alleged crimes committed in Afghanistan and Palestine.

There is no doubt that the arrest warrants for the leaders of Israel and Hamas, if issued, will have significant implications. But the extent to which they will affect this decades-old conflict, and whether they will help enforce the international rule of law, is not yet clear.

Avidan Kent, Professor of Law, University of East Anglia

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

(The Conversation) – It has been 75 years since the adoption of the Geneva Conventions on August 12 1949. In theory, these rules of war are universally agreed by every nation. In practice, they are routinely violated everywhere.

With an estimated 120 armed conflicts worldwide, more than 450 armed groups and 195 million people living in areas under their control, the protection of the vulnerable is as vitally important as ever.

As the news headlines remind us daily, however, international humanitarian law can seem like too little, too late when faced with military might and political indifference.

This year also marks other, less hopeful, anniversaries: ten years since the genocide against the Yazidi by ISIS in Syria, and ten years of war in Ukraine. Geopolitical tensions are escalating in the Middle East and the South China Sea.

Given the modern technologies used on today’s battlefields (and in cyberspace), and the violation of even basic humanitarian protections, is there much to celebrate in 2024? Are the Geneva Conventions still fit for purpose for today’s wars – and tomorrow’s?

Humanitarian values

All societies have cultural, religious or legal rules of some kind around war. But in the aftermath of World War II’s extreme horrors, the world agreed to a detailed set of codified rules governing armed conflict.

Despite differing political views and experiences of war, countries agreed to the Geneva Convention rules by striking a balance between military need and humanitarian ideals for the treatment of civilians, captured enemy soldiers and the dead.

The 1949 Conventions remain the core of international humanitarian law, or the laws of armed conflict. This body of law has been expanded over the years by other treaties and protocols dealing with civil war, chemical weapons, antipersonnel landmines, torture and enforced disappearances.

Designed to help prevent a spiral of tit-for-tat atrocities, many of the rules work due to reciprocal respect between combatants: treat our soldiers well when captured and we will do likewise.

But they also demand the humane treatment of people caught up in war, even if one warring party has breached those rules or started the war in violation of the United Nations Charter that prohibits aggression.

Four conventions, 400 articles

The Geneva Conventions include more than 400 articles, setting out detailed rules for the treatment of prisoners, protecting hospitals and medical staff, allowing humanitarian aid, and prohibiting torture, rape and sexual violence.

In fact, four conventions were adopted in 1949. The first three’s provisions built on existing laws protecting wounded soldiers on the battlefield, at sea and when captured as prisoners.

The key fourth convention sought to protect civilians living under the power of an adversary, such as in occupied territory.

A single article provided fundamental rules about the humane treatment of people during a civil war – the first time international law had dared to regulate violence occurring within a country rather than between two or more.

War and peace

Some say international humanitarian law took the wrong approach back in the 1860s when the very first Geneva Convention was adopted, because it accepted war and gave up on insisting on peace.

As the scholar Samuel Moyn has argued, this has forced us to choose between the ideal of opposing war in the first place and opposing the crimes that take place within it.

Humanitarian law also accepts a minimum level of harm to civilians as “collateral damage” during an attack on a military target. In other words, not all civilian deaths are war crimes.

And some articles in the conventions seem old-fashioned today – tobacco is mentioned together with food and water for prisoners of war, for example.

But in my own experience working with the International Committee of the Red Cross, I have seen international humanitarian law in action. When respected, it can save and improve lives.

Eternal vigilance

Warring parties everywhere still allow the Red Cross to visit thousands of detained people, and to negotiate about improving their treatment.

Combatants make agreements for prisoner swaps, hostage release, return of the dead, and the provision of medical care to wounded enemy soldiers.

Sometimes, countries investigate war crimes allegations. And the conventions make it possible for warring parties to make other agreements for even greater protections.

And while the Geneva Conventions, and international humanitarian law more generally, are far from perfect, the rules seek a basic limit on the worst humanity has to offer, insisting on some fundamental human dignity.

To ensure they are at least not actively breached, and ideally their protections extended, countries must do three key things:

• focus on collective responsibility, comply with the law themselves, and ensure respect by others

• stop using technical legal arguments to legitimise large-scale devastation in ways that ignore the fundamental humanitarian purpose of the rules

• and resist any claim by a nation state that exceptional national security threats (including terrorism, insurgency or new technologies) justify the rules being abandoned.

It is precisely in the gravest situations, when politics and other laws have failed to prevent war, that these rules are most needed. Greater respect for them would go a long way to saving lives and preventing the horrors we see in today’s conflicts.

Marnie Lloydd, Senior Lecturer in Law and Co-Director New Zealand Centre for Public Law, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

——-

American Red Cross: “The Geneva Conventions at 75: How do they stay relevant?”

“US officials are well aware of the mounting evidence that Israeli forces have committed war crimes in Gaza, including most likely with US weapons,” said Tirana Hassan, executive director at Human Rights Watch. “US lawmakers should be seriously concerned about the liability risks of continuing to provide arms and intelligence based on Israel’s flimsy assurances that it’s abiding by the laws of war.” 

In 2023, the Biden administration introduced a revised conventional arms export policy that adjusted its approach, reducing “the level of certainty required to deny an arms transfer” from “actual knowledge to a more likely than not determination that the arms will be used to commit, facilitate the commission of, or aggravate the risk of international law violations.” Domestic laws also require a risk assessment before providing security assistance and establish red lines for when assistance is not allowed.

Yet the Biden administration reported to Congress in May that Israeli forces were complying with US domestic policies and laws on arms transfers. In March, Human Rights Watch and Oxfam warned that the Israeli government’s assurances to the Biden administration that it is meeting US legal requirements were not credible. The two organizations jointly submitted a dossier to the State Department showing Israeli forces’ violations of international humanitarian law, including blocking humanitarian assistance and carrying out unlawful strikes that killed civilians. 

Israeli forces have unlawfully attacked residential buildings, medical facilities, and aid workers, restricted medical evacuations, and used starvation as a weapon of war in the Gaza Strip, where nearly 500,000 people are experiencing a “catastrophic” lack of food in famine-like conditions. A staggering more than 38,600 Palestinians have been killed, according to the Gaza Health Ministry. 

Israeli authorities have detained and mistreated thousands of Palestinians, with persistent reports of torture. In the occupied West Bank, where Israeli forces have killed over 500 Palestinians since October 7, settlers and soldiers have displaced entire Palestinian communities, destroying every home, with the apparent backing of higher Israeli authorities and effectively confiscating Palestinians’ lands.

Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and dozens of media reports, including by CNN, NPR, the New York Times, and AFP, have identified US weapons being used in unlawful Israeli attacks that killed scores of civilians and aid workers. 

In May, President Biden announced that the US would pause at least one shipment of weapons containing 2,000-pound bombs, 500-pound bombs, and artillery projectiles to Israel. In July, the administration clarified that it was only holding back the 2,000-pound bombs and that it would be releasing the 500-pound bombs to Israel. It said that its “concern” was about “the end-use of the 2,000-lb bombs, particularly for Israel’s Rafah campaign, which they have announced they are concluding.” 

In recent years, legal scholars and US lawmakers warned that US support – including through weapons sales – to Saudi Arabia’s military campaign in Yemen could expose US officials to legal liability for war crimes. 

In 2016, according to media reports, State Department officials reviewing weapons sales to Saudi Arabia expressed concerns that jurisprudence from international tribunals could offer precedent for their own liability. In an unsent draft letter to the secretary of state, a State Department lawyer concluded that US officials could potentially be charged with war crimes for the Saudi-led coalition’s conduct in Yemen. 

In 2020, when discussing the risk presented by continued arms sales to Saudi Arabia, Oona Hathaway, a Yale Law School professor and a Defense Department lawyer in the Obama administration, told the New York Times, “If I were in the State Department, I would be freaking out about my potential for liability. I think anyone who’s involved in this program should get themselves a lawyer. It’s very dangerous territory the US is in, continuing to provide support given the number of civilians who have been killed.”

In 2022, US Senators Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Mike Lee sent letters to the Defense and State Departments, calling for “thorough investigations into possible US complicity to civilian harm in Yemen.”

A state assisting another state or a nonstate armed group may be complicit in war crimes and other wrongdoing if their assistance knowingly and significantly contributes to the wrongful act. Individuals can be found complicit for “aiding and abetting” in war crimes under international law. 

The United States and other weapons suppliers should suspend military assistance and arms sales to Israel, Human Rights Watch said. The Biden administration should use its leverage with Israel to save lives, including by military aid and the imposition of targeted sanctions, to press Israeli authorities to enable the provision of humanitarian aid and basic services, and cease committing grave abuses in Gaza.

Via Human Rights Watch

Bonus video added by Informed Comment:

TRT Video: “One on One | Interview with Former American Diplomat Hala Rharrit: Ex-US diplomat says US complicit in Gaza genocide”

On Wednesday, the Chair of the Commission, Navi Pillay and fellow Commissioner Chris Sidoti held a news conference on the occasion of their formal presentation of the report to the HRC.

Navi Pillay is a former High Court justice from South Africa and has served in key positions at the United Nations, having been initially nominated by Nelson Mandela, including that of High Commissioner for Human Rights (2008-2014). As an attorney in her native land, she litigated against detention without trial in the Apartheid period; her own husband suffered such unlawful imprisonment.

Chris Sidoti, a prominent attorney, was Australian Human Rights Commissioner and has adjunct positions at several Australian universities.

The Commission examined thousands of open source reports, including satellite imagery and forensic medical reports, and interviewed hundreds of people but Israel prevented them from speaking to victims of October 7 or released hostages in Israel and they were blocked from going into Gaza, apparently by Hamas. They were able to interview Palestinians who lived through the Israeli military campaign in Gaza who had managed to get out to Cairo, Istanbul and other cities.

I ran the YouTube transcript of the press conference through ChatGPT to clean it up and am quoting excerpts from that text below.

Pillay observed, “In the eight months since October 7, tens of thousands of children, women, and men have been killed and injured. Palestinians, Israelis, and citizens of other states have been affected. Thousands of Palestinians have been detained and are being held incommunicado, and 120 Israeli hostages are still held in Gaza. So, the enormity of this tragedy overwhelms us, and we are deeply disturbed by the immense human suffering.”

Sidoti then said for his part, “It’s completely understandable how deeply traumatic the events on and since October 7 have been for Jewish people in Israel and the diaspora around the world and for Palestinian people and the diaspora. Palestinians have experienced 70 or 80 years of dispossession, occupation, and human rights violations, and this has now come on top of that. For Jewish people, the experience of millennia of persecution is immediate and direct. Although I’m neither Palestinian nor Jewish and have not had those experiences, I try to understand how deep and traumatizing what has occurred is not only for those directly affected but for all from the communities that have been affected.”

Sidoti underlined how stressful the work was for the Commissioners and their staff: “It’s been a difficult assignment to deal with the overwhelming nature of the events, not just the statistics, although they themselves lead to a sense of despair, but also the personal stories.”

Pillay said in reply to a question from Reuters about the implications of the report for the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court, “I’m particularly concerned about issues that do not receive focus, such as the 8,500 people being held in detention, just picked up and held incommunicado. I grew up in apartheid South Africa, and that’s what I did as a defense lawyer, and brought out the issue of torture that happens in incommunicado, indefinite detention. My husband was also detained, so there is a personal experience there. I agree with Chris that we are independent information gatherers. We want to be very fair and address all issues, but we fully appreciate the impact on victims in any conflict. That’s the importance of this work.”

She added, “I am hopeful, and it’s true I was at the ICJ yesterday in another capacity. Fulfilling hope—for the first time, the General Assembly has asked the International Court of Justice for its opinion on whether the occupation itself is unlawful and whether occupation is the root cause of the conflict because that’s what we’re hearing from people on the ground. Something that had not happened in about 70 years has now happened because of the recommendations made by this commission.”

She said, “I am fairly certain that our reports will be relied on, particularly by the International Criminal Court. They need evidence. The authorities in Israel have declared as terrorist groups some of the NGOs that had announced they would be providing information and cooperating with the ICC. Just for that statement, some of them have now been rendered out of action.”

She explained, “We have a memorandum of understanding with the prosecutor of the ICC. We’ve furnished them with many tranches of information. As of May 28, the commission has shared more than 7,000 open-source items with the office of the prosecutor at the International Criminal Court. This information has been verified and geolocated. We link one video piece to another—great effort. We’ve also shared more than 2,000 open-source items with the government of South Africa because that’s the channel to bring it before the ICJ proceedings. We will continue to furnish further information to them as we gather more information.”

Asked about the killing of aid and medical workers, Ms. Pillay replied, “we are stuck with this word limit that the UN fixes, of 10,000 words. I assure you that we care about those issues, we have the statistics and we will definitely address them. 19 hospitals out of service, 17 hospitals partially functional. I’m also concerned about universities because at one time I spent a week in one of those universities at Al-Haq in Palestine and now that’s razed to the ground. So thank you for drawing our attention to that, we are not going to leave it. It’s how to fit this in into our big themes but it definitely falls there, we will be doing that.”

She noted that “these statistics on the number of killed are crucial for us and for the IC to determine the element of ‘widespread and systematic,’ if you want to reach a conclusion that crimes against humanity have been violated. We said that in the Rwanda tribunal.”

She continued, “Statistics then count even though we said in the ICT decision that a single murder could constitute genocide depending on the context and the intention. Is the special intent fulfilled on the evidence? The special intention is to destroy in whole or in part a particular group, that’s genocide. Crimes against humanity, it has to be widespread and systematic. The information, the details we have on the numbers that are killed, to me they appear to fit the definition of widespread and systematic that has been found by international courts so far.”

Asked about the responsibility of third parties for the long-term Israeli occupation of Gaza and the bombing of its people, Pillay said, “Again and again, thousands of people are telling us that had it not been for the help of powerful countries, Israel would not have been able to carry out this perpetual occupation”.

That assertion came at the end of a longer statement: “We have included that in our first report to the general assembly where that was October of 2023, where we identified as the root cause of the conflict that’s part of our mandate, identify what’s the root cause of the mandate. And we just based on all the evidence we gathered and the law that we analyzed, international law, said the root cause is the occupation because it’s been there in perpetuity and it must be, in our view, it’s unlawful. And we also said an opinion should be sought from the International Court of Justice on the legality, lawfulness of the occupation and secondly the responsibility of States who support that endeavor. So I’m happy that our recommendation has been turned into a resolution and now before the ICJ. So we be very much aware that again and again thousands of people are telling us that had it not been for the help of powerful countries, Israel would not have been able to carry out this perpetual occupation as aggressively as it has.”

The commissioners rejected charges of a double standard or of neglecting the Israeli hostages, pointing out that the Israeli government actively obstructed their access to that side of the story and that they did interview Israeli victims who were abroad. Ms. Pillay said, “We could not yet investigate the 124 hostages in Gaza or the condition of the 8 to 10,000 prisoners in Israeli prisons . . . We reached out to medical staff involved with the injured people and bodies after October 7 and wanted to speak with them. However, the Israeli government issued a directive that they were not to speak with us. It’s been a difficult assignment, but we are collecting evidence and hope that we can have further contact with the families of hostages and those that have been released.”

In answer to a question about genocide, Pillay explained that “We have constraints in that our mandate comes from the Human Rights Council and they have not put genocide into our mandate. But we will work closely with our team to follow whether the elements of genocide are present in this conflict.”

Pillay dismissed justifications for the October 7 behavior of Hamas: “The argument from Palestinians is that they’ve suffered so long they have to react, with your back against the wall, you have to react. The commission’s task is different, we’ve been mandated to see who’s to see if there’s any violations of international law. So you cannot commit an unlawful act and injure and kill civilians or take hostages, so we’re very clear that those were violations and they’re committing crimes and they must be prosecuted.” She admitted that Mandela was also branded a terrorist, but she insisted on the judgment of the law: “So one person’s freedom fighter could be another terrorist, but we adhere to the law, you cannot kill civilians, you have to protect them.”

As for Israeli war crimes, she added, “With this occupation based on all the information we’re gathering, it’s pretty stark to us. There is a very clear intention of forcible dislocation of people, just to force them out. And we read those instructions, people from the north of Gaza move south and suddenly they get attacked in the south. We read all those contrary instructions as pointing to an attitude of not caring for the lives, destruction, and dislocation. That’s what I would say there, that this particular conflict has brought out sharply the issue of occupation itself as the root cause.”

Asked about whether Israel’s army is the most moral in the world, Sidoti replied that he was not in a position to make judgments about morality as opposed to the law, saying, “what I do have expertise in and what I do have authority to do is make assessments of criminal conduct. And we’ve done that in relation to the recent events and you can see that in the report. And the only conclusion you can draw is that the Israeli army is one of the most criminal armies in the world.”

Sidoti also weighed in on the difference between understanding why October 7 happened and justifying it. He said there can be no justification for Hamas’s war crimes. Sidoti said, “Chris, I’d like to focus on your phrase “specific act.” International criminal law is based upon accountability for specific acts, so each war crime is a specific act, each crime against humanity has to be widespread or systematic but it is made up of specific acts, and so criminal responsibility is based on specific acts. But trying to say that starting and finishing is based on a specific act is an impossible task. The Secretary-General famously said last October that what had occurred on the 7th of October did not occur in a vacuum, and that’s something that in our report we have tried to understand. This is a war that’s been going on for almost a century, there has never been a time of complete peace during that century, there is only been variations in the level of violence. What we have seen from the 7th of October is an increase in the level of violence, a more intensive period of hostilities, and we have to understand that context to understand the specific acts that have occurred. But understanding is not justification, understanding doesn’t mean that the commission of a war crime or the commission of a crime against humanity is under any circumstances justifiable. But we’ve got to understand why this has occurred if we are interested in stopping it from happening again, and that to me is the key point here, this has happened time and time and time again and this is the worst ever, this is the highest death toll ever in this protracted period of warfare, and there must be accountability for every specific act of criminality. But if we’re going to stop it in the future, we also have to address the question of the context in which it has occurred.”

Sidoti also thought it was possibly significant that an Israeli representative attended the presentation Wednesday morning, and hoped it was a sign that the Israelis might change their minds about freezing out the Commission.

Asked about sharing information with South Africa, Pillay said, “So firstly, we only shared with South Africa material concerning Gaza because that’s the essence of their application. We shared as much as we could but with all the protection issues in place. We have to protect witnesses’ identity, so although we are in a position to share names not only with South Africa but if the IC requests that and they follow all the measures we put in place to protect the identity of witnesses, we could do that. But this far we haven’t,”

Sidoti added, “I’d just add a brief note relating to the different nature of the processes in the ICC and the ICJ. The International Criminal Court deals with individual criminal accountability, and the prosecutor is the investigator, has an investigative wing, the material we provide to the ICC is supplementary to their own investigations. And most of the, well I think at this stage all the material we have provided is open source material, we have absolutely fantastic expertise in digital forensic analysis, and it seems the ICC doesn’t and so it’s that kind of material, these thousands of pieces of evidence that Navi referred to, and that’s essentially what we’re sharing as well with South Africa under a request from South Africa. It’s non identifying information, it doesn’t place people at risk. The International Court of Justice is not concerned with individual criminal accountability, it deals with state responsibility, in this case under the Genocide Convention.”

In his remarks on Trump’s guilty verdict on Friday, Biden said,

“I just want to say a few words about what happened yesterday in New York City. The American principle that no one is above the law was reaffirmed. Donald Trump was given every opportunity to defend himself. This was a state case, not a federal case, and it was heard by a jury of 12 citizens—-Americans, 12 people like you, like the millions of Americans who have served on juries. This jury was chosen the same way every jury in America is chosen, and it was a process that Donald Trump’s attorney was part of.

“The jury heard five weeks of evidence, and after careful deliberation, they reached a unanimous verdict. They found Donald Trump guilty on all 34 felony counts. He will be given the opportunity, as he should be, to appeal that decision, just like everyone else has that opportunity. That’s how the American system of justice works.

“It is reckless, dangerous, and irresponsible for anyone to say this was rigged just because they don’t like the verdict. Our justice system has endured for nearly 250 years and it literally is the cornerstone of America, our justice system. The justice system should be respected and we should never allow anyone to tear it down. It’s as simple as that. That’s America, that’s who we are, and that’s who we’ll always be, God willing.”

Those are noble sentiments. Biden was pushing back against Trump’s unhinged rants against the court that convicted him.

Trump alleges that Judge Juan Merchan had “conflicts” though he refuses to specify them. He says he didn’t testify because; “The theory is you never testify because as soon as you testify — anybody, if it were George Washington, don’t testify because they’ll get you on something that you said slightly wrong, and then they sue you for perjury.”

Actually, if you don’t commit perjury then you won’t be charged with perjury.

He said of the New York County District court and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, “They are in total conjunction with the White House and the DOJ. Just so you understand, this is all done by Biden and his people.”

This allegation is entirely untrue. Biden has no authority over a state court.

Trump also asserted that he is innocent of the charges and said he never shtupped that porn star.

But Biden contradicted himself on every single point when it came to his reaction, and that of his spokesmen, to the request for warrants by the International Criminal Court for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.

When ICC prosecutor Karim Khan announced the warrant request, Biden immediately said, “Let me be clear, we reject the ICC’s application for arrest warrants against Israeli leaders.”

He went on to parrot a talking point circulated by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee lobbyists, who work closely with Israel’s “Ministry of Strategic Affairs” psy-op outfit, saying that there is no equivalence between Israel and Hamas. But Karim Khan’s warrant request, which also targeted three Hamas leaders, charged them with different crimes than it did Netanyahu and Gallant. It made no equivalence between the two. Biden’s purloined talking point is without substance.

Biden said he did not believe that Israel is guilty of genocide in Gaza. But the ICC did not charge Israel with genocide in the warrant request, but rather with war crimes and crimes against humanity. So that assertion was a mere red herring.

Biden challenged the jurisdiction of the ICC over Israeli war crimes in Gaza: “We don’t recognize their jurisdiction, the way it’s been exercised, and it’s that simple.”

But by the rules of the Rome Statute, signed by 124 of the world’s nations, including several key NATO countries that are close US allies, the court does indeed have jurisdiction. Palestine became a non-member observer state of the UN in 2012 and signed the Rome Statute in 2015. In 2018 the Palestine Authority, which was created by Bill Clinton’s Oslo Peace Treaty, asked the ICC to take up war crimes in Palestine, and in 2021 the court concluded that it had jurisdiction.

Biden’s rejection of jurisdiction is anyway hypocritical, because his administration jumped up and down for joy when in 2023 the ICC indicted Russian strongman Vladimir Putin for war crimes in Ukraine. Neither Russia nor Ukraine are signatories to the Rome Statute and so ICC jurisdiction there is far less well grounded than its jurisdiction over the Palestinian territories.

Biden’s State Department was ordered, likely by Biden, to falsify a report “to absolve Israel of responsibility for blocking humanitarian aid flows into Gaza, overruling the advice of its own experts, according to a former senior US official who resigned this week.”

Just as Trump rejected the right of the Manhattan district attorney to prosecute him, Biden dismissed the right of the ICC to take up Netanyahu’s obvious war crimes.

Just as Trump thinks he’s above the law, Biden thinks Netanyahu is above the law.

Just as Trump falsifies his business records, Biden falsifies government reports on Israel.

Biden ultimately does not respect the rule of law when it comes to Israeli actions and policies any more than Trump respects the rule of law when it comes to Trump.

It is the first time the ICC has sought warrants against leaders of a parliamentary government. Most of the officials indicted have been from African dictatorial regimes. If the warrants are approved, in a process that may take several months, Netanyahu and Gallant will join a rogues gallery featuring deposed Libyan strongman Moammar Gaddafi, deposed Sudanese dictator Omar al-Bashir, and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

In March, 2023, just a year ago, Secretary of State Antony Blinken asked all countries that are parties to the ICC to detain Vladimir Putin if they could, after the court issued an arrest warrant for him. Russia is not a signatory to the Rome Statute that authorizes the court, but in 2015 Ukraine (also not a signatory) granted jurisdiction to the court over Ukrainian territory. It was for crimes committed in Ukraine that Putin was indicted.

The reaction in Washington to the warrant request for Netanyahu and Gallant has been the opposite. This reaction shows that the Biden administration does not respect international law and does not care that Putin committed crimes under it, but just wants to stick it to Putin. It is personalistic, not a matter of law. Because if the law was at issue, it should apply to everyone, including (especially) Benjamin Netanyahu, the Butcher of Gaza.

Everything Washington officials said in response to the request for warrants was wrong. I mean, incorrect. It isn’t a matter of opinion or a difference in values. They are spewing falsehoods. It is as though they have all contracted Trumpitis and now keep compulsively telling serial lies.

President Biden, apparently now the chief defense attorney for Netanyahu, denounced any “equivalence” between Hamas and the Israeli leadership and said that he rejects charges of genocide against it.

Biden’s spokespeople questioned whether the ICC has jurisdiction to charge the Israeli leaders.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken condemned the announcement as “outrageous” and said that it threatened the success of negotiations toward a ceasefire and a hostage release. Mr. Blinken did not explain why the ICC request for warrants should should delay a ceasefire. The Biden administration vetoed 3 ceasefire calls at the UN Security Council earlier this year, and abstained on a fourth, which it undercut by falsely damning it as “non-binding.”

Speaker of the House of Representatives Mike Johnson said he and his colleagues would look into the possibility of placing sanctions on the ICC judges and their families.

The 18 judges are elected to nine-year terms by an assembly of the 124 states that are signatories to the Rome Statute, finalized in 2002, which authorizes the court and lays out International Humanitarian Law. The ICC therefore represents nearly two thirds of the countries in the world. Mike Johnson represents a district in Louisiana.

The parties to the International Criminal Court include Britain, Canada, France, Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Ireland, Switzerland, Japan, Spain, Sweden, as well as the State of Palestine and large numbers of countries in Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Pacific. It took some courage to sign the Rome Statute, since the officials of the signatory country place themselves under the authority of the judges. It is not a courage that the United States, Israel or Russia displayed, and it is disgraceful that the United States has not signed the major human rights instrument of the twenty-first century.

Al Jazeera English Video: “World reacts to ICC prosecutor seeking Israel, Hamas arrest warrants”

So why is everything Washington is saying about the decision of Karim Khan wrong?

First, the request for warrants does not make an equivalence between Israel and Hamas. The court does not judge countries, it judges individual officials.

These are the charges against the three Hamas leaders, aside from just killing a lot of innocents:

Taking hostages as a war crime, contrary to article 8(2)(c)(iii);
Rape and other acts of sexual violence as crimes against humanity, contrary to article 7(1)(g), and also as war crimes pursuant to article 8(2)(e)(vi) in the context of captivity;
Torture as a crime against humanity, contrary to article 7(1)(f), and also as a war crime, contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i), in the context of captivity;
Other inhumane acts as a crime against humanity, contrary to article 7(l)(k), in the context of captivity;
Cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i), in the context of captivity; and
Outrages upon personal dignity as a war crime, contrary to article 8(2)(c)(ii), in the context of captivity.

Rape, torture, hostage taking all bulk large here.

These are the charges against Netanyahu and Gallant:

Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Statute;
Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health contrary to article 8(2)(a)(iii), or cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
Wilful killing contrary to article 8(2)(a)(i), or Murder as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
Intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population as a war crime contrary to articles 8(2)(b)(i), or 8(2)(e)(i);
Extermination and/or murder contrary to articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(a), including in the context of deaths caused by starvation, as a crime against humanity;
Persecution as a crime against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(h);
Other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(k).

The charges aren’t the same, or equivalent, at all. The Israeli officials are charged with starving the civilian population, blowing up the civilian population, exterminating the civilian population. There is no mention of rape or torture or hostage taking. In each case the officials are being charged for their specific actions.

The Israeli officials are not charged with genocide by the ICC, contrary to what Mr. Biden alleged.

The reason that the ICC has jurisdiction is that the State of Palestine has very doggedly and brilliantly arranged for that jurisdiction. First, Palestine sought to be admitted as a non-member observer state of the United Nations, the same status that the Vatican has. The UN General Assembly voted Palestine in some 12 years ago. As an observer state, it gained the right to become a signatory to the Rome Statute, which it did in 2015. Then Palestine asked the ICC to exercise jurisdiction over the Occupied Palestinian Territories, which had de jure been granted to the State of Palestine by the 1993 Oslo Peace Treaty, signed by Bill Clinton, Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat.

On February 5, 2021, the ICC concluded that it does have jurisdiction over actions taken in the Occupied Territories. Gaza is included in that jurisdiction.

Hence, the ICC can issue the request for warrants against Hamas war criminals as well as against Israeli officials who commit war crimes or crimes against humanity in the Occupied Territories. It most definitely has jurisdiction. In fact, since Palestine is a party to the ICC, the case for jurisdiction here is much stronger than for Ukraine and Putin.

Prime Minister Netanyahu has repeatedly rejected the whole notion of a ceasefire and contrary to Mr. Blinken’s flagrant toadying there is no prospect of any such ceasefire. Hamas offered a hostage deal on the eve of the invasion of Rafah, and Netanyahu invaded precisely in order to torpedo any deal. That is why Israelis are demonstrating in the tens of thousands against Netanyahu. If Blinken had any shame he’d fly to Tel Aviv and join them. The ICC decision is completely irrelevant to negotiations, which have in any case collapsed and are not ongoing. Blinken is trying to blame Karim Khan for his own egregious failure as a diplomat. Unlike Khan, Blinken has done nothing practical to hold Netanyahu to account for repeatedly violating the Biden administration’s toothless red lines.

As for Mike Johnson and his merry band of GOP troglodytes, he should be careful if he’d ever like to vacation in Rio or in most of Europe.

Article 70 of the Rome Statute has these paragraphs prohibiting:

d) Impeding, intimidating or corruptly influencing an official of the Court for the purpose of forcing or persuading the official not to perform, or to perform improperly, his or her duties;

(e) Retaliating against an official of the Court on account of duties performed by that or another official;

The Court should play hardball with politicians who try to sanction its judges, and should issue warrants against them. Wouldn’t it be lovely to see Mike Johnson arrested while on vacation at the Copacabana Beach in Rio de Janeiro and unceremoniously flown to the Hague in handcuffs? And Mike Pompeo and Trump, who did sanction ICC judges, should also have warrants out. Though with Trump the ICC would have to get in line behind a whole gaggle of prosecutors waving warrants for an endless list of crimes.

The ICC is chartered by the Rome Statute, which came into effect in 2002, to which 124 countries are signatories. Although Israel is not a signatory, the State of Palestine, a non-member observer state at the United Nations, has signed. Therefore, the ICC has jurisdiction over war crimes committed in Gaza and the West Bank, of which the Israeli government has committed a great number. Hamas, of course, is also guilty of a series of war crimes, which the ICC is also deliberating.

Times of India Video: “Big Blow To Netanyahu: ICJ Arrest Warrant Against Israel PM | Top Officials ‘Secret’ Meeting”

The International Criminal Court does not judge governments but rather government officials. Its finding in the spring of 2011 that Moammar Gaddafi was guilty of crimes against humanity for his attempt to crush the peaceful protests that broke out that year paved the way to the UNSC-authorized no-fly zone that doomed Gaddafi’s ability to use fighter jets and helicopter gunships to put down the revolution against him. ICC judgments have therefore sometimes been consequential.

The ICC also indicted Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir in 2009 for crimes against humanity in Darfur. Al-Bashir was overthrown by a popular revolution in 2019, and in 2020 the provisional government agreed to send him to the Hague for trial. That still has not happened, but this chain of events shows how an ICC indictment can deeply weaken and imperil a leader.

On the other hand, Russian dictator Vladimir Putin has thumbed his nose at the court since it indicted him last year. His movements, however, have been affected, since when he travels abroad he risks arrest. He had to cancel a trip to South Africa last summer because Pretoria is an ICC signatory and may have been constrained to arrest him.

Netanyahu engaged in bluster this week against the court, saying its rulings would do nothing to restrain him — which I interpret as an assertion that they would not make him cease committing any crimes for which he was indicted. Netanyahu may in any case go to jail in Israel for corruption, for which he is presently on trial.

That Netanyahu is alarmed at this possible development shows the triumph of the State of Palestine, which was created in 1993 by the Oslo Peace Accords, and formally termed the “Palestine Authority.” The PA has for the past 15 years pursued a strategy of legal action against Israel for repeated violations of international law in the occupied Palestinian territories. First, the state of Palestine sought observer status at the UN, which could be granted by the General Assembly and which could not be blocked by the passionately anti-Palestinian US. Then the state of Palestine signed the Rome Statute and acceded to the International Criminal Court.

The ICC has no jurisdiction over non-signatory states, and so ordinarily would not be able to issue rulings against Israeli officials. But because the state of Palestine gave the ICC jurisdiction in the Palestinian West Bank and in Gaza, it can issue indictments for war crimes committed by Israelis in those occupied territories. It has been a brilliant legal strategy on the part of the Palestine Authority, and potentially far more consequential than the horrid terrorism to which Hamas has resorted. In fact, Hamas officials may well also be indicted soon.

The ICC case against Israeli officials is different from the proceedings brought by South Africa against Israel at the International Court of Justice accusing Tel Aviv of committing genocide. The ICJ is a judicial body established by the UN to adjudicate disputes between member states.

Defending itself from Iran’s drones and missiles cost the Israelis alone an estimated 4-5 billion shekels ($1.08-1.35billion). This does not include the cost to US citizens of $1 billion in countering Houthi and Iranian missiles and drones targeted at Israel. Israel’s initial limited response on April 19 through a drone attack on a military base in Isfahan leaves room for de-escalation of tension over a full-scale war.

Iran’s first direct attack on Israel hit the Nevatim airbase, a mere 40 miles south of Jerusalem, practically implying an Iranian credible deterrence capability if the potency of the deterrence is questioned. Prospects for a wider conflict in the region involving Russia and China remain, risking an ultimate nuclear exchange that should remain ‘unthinkable.’ Strategic partners Russia and China have Tehran’s back, and their role in West Asia’s conflict will only grow if the US doesn’t keep Israel in check. Whilst the war in Gaza and the Lebanon-Israel border continues. Israel’s unrelenting assault on Gaza, killing over 34000 Palestinians, most of them civilians, with the vast majority women and children, has turned public opinion against Israel. And, Israel’s attempts to destroy UNRWA — the backbone of relief efforts in Gaza — with its slow, meticulous, and often arbitrary inspection of trucks have further complicated aid delivery.

What indelibly marks these events, aside from the military and political calculations and implications for the region, is that they have occurred in violation of provisions of international law, including, but not exclusively, the breach of sovereignty, international humanitarian laws, laws of war,  crimes against humanity, wars of aggression, and according to a preliminary ICJ ruling, possibly the articles of 1948 genocide convention. Israel’s ‘ironclad’ supporter, the United States, is construed, therefore, as an accomplice in the crime of genocide through its arms transfers to Israel, and vetoes in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to end Israel’s almost seven-month-old military operation in Gaza. 

Al Jazeera English Video: “Nearly 200 bodies found in mass grave at hospital in Gaza’s Khan Younis”

A closer look at the post-Cold war period since 1990 reveals persistent US violations of international law, generally related to the 75-year-old Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The United States has paid a heavy financial and political, and now explicit moral, price for its protection of the state of Israel. But the biggest victim of this ‘special relation’ has been the very foundation of the liberal international order. The United States’ (along with its Western allies in NATO) double-standard views and application of provisions of international law have been detrimental to an orderly global governance, A major culprit for such liberal/illiberal dichotomy in rhetoric and practice is the US blind commitment to the state of Israel.  

The end of the Cold War promised the End of History and the beginning of a ‘New World Order.’ It promised that globalization of trade and finance and the technological revolution in information technology, transportation, and communication means the falsity of a looming ‘Clash of Civilizations.’ 

The United States experienced almost unprecedented economic prosperity in the 1990s and the European allies celebrated the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. The Eastern European countries abandoned communism and joined the ranks of capitalist countries and the European Union. China continued with its miraculous economic performance welcomed Western investments and traded and cooperated in the Security Council curtailing the Iranian nuclear program. Boris Yeltsin of the Russian Federation similarly welcomed privatization. But,   structural adjustment policies resulted in a defunct privatization of state-owned properties, and with inadequate legal and institutional mechanisms to prevent the rise of the new oligarchs and ‘parasitic capitalism.’ 

Ironically, the new world order was to emerge on the ruins of Iraq after the 1990-91 first Persian Gulf war. The United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 on 29 November 1990 authorized the first UNSC collective security action against an aggressor since the 1950-53 Korean War. The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990 triggered the first Persian Gulf war, but we also witnessed 30 scud missiles hitting Israel as Saddam Hussein attempted to expand the war and turn it into another Arab-Palestinian-Israeli war. The Iran-Iraq war (1980-88) was a bloody confrontation between two Muslim countries with opposing views on Islam, power politics, and what constitutes national interest. Yet, the revolutionary state in Iran saw the liberation of al-Quds (Jerusalem) to follow the liberation of Shia holy sites in Kerbala and Najaf in Iraq. Iran’s anti-Israel rhetoric and actions have remained steadfast since the advent of the revolution. 

The US Mideast policy immediately after WWII focused primarily on countering communism and securing the flow of cheap oil from the region which demanded dealing with authoritarian Arab regimes fearful of both the threat of communism and radical ideas that may threaten the status quo on the resource power parameters in the state-society relations. Still, the thorny Palestinian issue was two-pronged, and the Arab states fought against and cooperated with Israel to contain Palestinian nationalism. The Arab Israeli wars have always involved competing Arab, Israeli, and Palestinian nationalisms, compounded with inter-Arab states’ political rivalries, sectarianism, and US (and Israeli) interventions during and after the Cold War. Recall, the Arab-Israel-Palestinian wars with such hallmarks, including 1948, 1956, 1967-70, 1973, and 1982-85 (Lebanon) wars.

Regional wars bearing similar traits and related to the wider Palestinian nationalism include the first Persian Gulf War (1990-91), Intifada I (1987-1990), Intifada II (2000-2005), Lebanon (2006), and 15 wars involving Gaza alone since 1948, including the Gazan wars of 2008-09, 2014, 2018-19, and now the ongoing 2023-24 war. No wonder, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the mother of all wars in the region. The conflict over the years has fed the radicalization of politics in the region. The Islamic movements have rallied around the issue of the liberation of Palestine and al-Quds (Jerusalem) to mobilize popular support in advancing political and religious legitimacy in the absence of a viable democratic rule. The 22 authoritarian Arab states, the Islamic Republic of Iran and Türkiye have also been intimately involved with the Palestinian issue.   

The United States has relied on its hard and soft power to lead a liberal global order since World War II. The Cold War preoccupation with polarity and deterrence based on a doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) complicated the plans for a liberal international system, beginning with the creation of the Bretton-Woods gold-based, fixed-rate exchange system and its institutions—the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB). The principle behind the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) eventually developed into the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995, as the Europeans’ attempts at integration since 1951 progressed into the creation of the European Union in 1993. Other rule-based regional economic integration also appeared in Asia, Africa, South and North America. Contrary to the unstable interwar period that saw the rise of Nazism and Fascism, the post-WWII ‘peaceful’ international system witnessed 51 founding members of the UN in 1945 increase to 193 countries today. 

The United States’ commitment to the security of the state of Israel has been a dominant theme in its Middle Eastern policy since its creation in 1948 but also at the expense of its advocacy for a liberal-based international law and order. The US has over decades dispensed billions of dollars in economic and military aid premising it on Israel as a strategic ally in countering communism, helping the flow of oil, and keeping Arab radicalism at bay. Israel has been the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid since its founding, collecting about $300 billion (adjusted for inflation) in total economic and military assistance. The US diplomatic coverage of Israel also is unconstructive; the UN data shows it has vetoed dozens of United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions critical of Israel, including at least 53 since 1972.

A review of debates in Congress and data analysis also shows, “Members of Congress have consistently debated and passed resolutions in support of Israel and in repudiation of its foes, showing strong bipartisan support for Israel.” The US’s unequivocal support of Israel has seen it prevent resolutions condemning, among others, violence against protesters, illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank built since 1967. The US meanwhile has obliged its NATO allies, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the UAE, Qatar, Turkey, and Jordan in its quest to protect Israel and in support of authoritarian Arab states!

The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is the ‘mother of all conflicts’ in the MENA region that has intimately influenced or been influenced by Arab nationalism, the Islamic movements, the radicalization of politics, and overall governance in the region. To the neglect of elsewhere in Africa, the Sahel region has experienced five military coups in Mali, Burkina Faso, Guinea, Niger, and Gabon. Whilst, Tunisia, Chad, and Sudan have experienced constitutional coups and widespread violence in the case of Sudan. The US Africa Command since 2008  has been involved in military training of African states to counter the Russian and Chinese military and economic inroads in the Continent.  

The restoration of a global liberal order necessitates a uniform and unbiased application of the expectations, norms, and laws of international law. Since Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attack on Israel from Gaza, the world has witnessed the continuing degradation of the norms and laws and the expectations of behavior in the so-called international liberal order. The Israeli overreaction to the Hamas attack resembles the United States’ initial response to the terrorist attack on its soil on September 11, 2001. In that instance, the United States, for the sake of revenge, self-defense, or the restoration of international order, took measures that violated the very norms, laws, and expectations of the international system which Washington had championed for decades. The United States in less than a month began bombing Afghanistan and quickly overthrew the ruling Taliban regime and chased al Qaeda fighters across the border into Pakistan and elsewhere in the Middle East and beyond. This story, however, did not end there. The US declared a ‘War on Terror’ resulting in a policy of regime change beginning with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq, Moammar Qaddafi in Libya, and unsuccessful attempts in Syria and Yemen.  

Estimates of direct civilians killed due to American military intervention totals stand at least 400,000 since 9/11. The number of people killed indirectly in post-9/11 war zones, including in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, is estimated at 3.6-3.8 million, though the precise figure remains unknown. This brings the estimated total of direct and indirect deaths to 4.5-4.7 million. Similarly, the Israeli overreaction after the tragic events of October 7, 2023, resulting in 1200 Israelis killed, has already led to 34,000 Palestinian dead, with women and children accounting for the majority, not accounting for thousands injured, maimed, traumatized, and remain unaccounted for. The deadly Israeli assault on Gaza has also led to the death of many journalists, members of the NGOs, and the destruction of hospitals and mosques. 

International law today remains incomplete and in need of drastic structural changes, e.g., a reform of the UNSC membership and power structure, a revisiting of the adjudication power of the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) and its ‘compulsory’ jurisdiction, the World Trade’s provisions for labor and environmental protection, and a serious re-commitment to empower UN and its functional agencies with necessary resources. The United States unconditional support for Israel and its lack of attention to the welfare of peoples in the MENA region, as well as elsewhere in the developing world, in pursuit of peace, human security, and good governance, is detrimental to the universal compliance and voluntary adherence to the norms and rules of international law.