# data[].attributes.body
1) Make a copy of the padlet to your own padlet account.

2) Connect each of the articles we've looked at to one of the questions and explain the connection.

3) For any unanswered questions, find an article - link it, and explain the connection. Make sure your sources are legitimate.

4) Submit a link to your padlet to the assignment folder on Teams

# data[].attributes.headline
How has this conflict shown the challenges of power in global politics?

# data[].attributes.subject
How has this conflict shown the challenges of power in global politics?

# data[].attributes.body
This conflict has shown that the lack of hard power (as seen in Palestine’s case) has proven to significantly made the outcome for Gazans worse and when compared to the state of Israel (as mentioned in the article “The Two-State Mirage” by Marc Lynch and Shibley Telhami) is completely different. The support of bigger countries like the US completely changes the tide of a conflict like this and shows that influence in the global stage is important in order to take control of a conflict.

# data[].attributes.headline
What are the hard power considerations here? IDF vs. Hamas? 

# data[].attributes.subject
What are the hard power considerations here? IDF vs. Hamas? 

# data[].attributes.body
In the article “What Gazans Want” by Scott Atran, it was mentioned that hard power (that the IDF has more of) weakens Hamas, which is evident since Israel gets so much support from the US in terms of military power because they are being provided with weapons, tanks, etc. that Hamas doesn’t have, and certainly does not have any military support from the US.

# data[].attributes.headline
How does the conflict relate to the importance of Hard Power?

# data[].attributes.subject
How does the conflict relate to the importance of Hard Power?

# data[].attributes.body
In the article “Peace Between Israelis and Palestinians Remains Possible” by Natan Sachs, he mentions that hard power that Israel uses against Palestinians i.e. restriction of food, bombing, sanctions, etc. has put Palestinians (not just in Gaza) in such a bad outcome that they are unable to fight back to what Israel has been doing because not only don’t they have as much military power as the IDF, they are being starved and being deprived of their homes unlike the state in which Israel is in.

# data[].attributes.headline
How does the conflict show the importance of soft power? For both Israel and Palestine.

# data[].attributes.subject
How does the conflict show the importance of soft power? For both Israel and Palestine.

# data[].attributes.body
In the article “What Palestinians Really Think of Hamas” it was mentioned that whenever Israel used sanctions and blockades (an example of hard power), Gazans’ approval of Hamas increases which leads to worse relations between the two. Jamal and Robbins (who are the authors of the article) suggested that Israel should instead use soft and structural power.

# data[].attributes.headline
Importance of structural/relational power: What role do Israel's alliances play?

# data[].attributes.subject
Importance of structural/relational power: What role do Israel's alliances play?

# data[].attributes.body
Israel's alliances, particularly with Western powers like the United States, significantly enhance its structural and relational power regarding Palestine. These alliances provide military, economic, and diplomatic support, enabling Israel to maintain its security policies and territorial claims while often sidelining Palestinian rights and aspirations for statehood.

https://carnegieendowment.org/2021/04/29/approaching-peace-centering-rights-in-israel-palestine-conflict-resolution-pub-84397

https://www.iai.it/sites/default/files/iaip2007.pdf

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Introduction

For thirty years, the United States has sent mixed messages to Israelis and Palestinians. While successive administrations have expressed support for a two-state solution and the establishment of a democratic state of Palestine, they have refrained from using the levers of U.S. power to stem the tide of Israel's illegal settlement expansion. Meanwhile, they have used the levers regularly to constrain Palestinians' diplomatic and legal efforts to fulfill their legitimate aspirations. The failure to hold Israel to its commitments and legal obligations during the peace process and the de-prioritization of Palestinian good governance and accountability effectively undercut the efforts of Israeli and Palestinian constituencies who supported a political agreement through negotiations.

A new approach to Israel-Palestine conflict resolution is needed to allow the United States to achieve better outcomes by doing less, including less harm. This requires prioritizing rights and human security-what is referred to here as a rights-based approach-and is all the more urgent according to a recent Human Rights Watch report that finds that Israel is committing crimes against humanity including persecution and apartheid against Palestinians. Although a shift in focus, the approach would align with President Joe Biden's overall U.S. national security strategy, strengthen U.S. alliances with normative actors, and help to restore U.S. credibility and global standing. It would also hold the most promise for changing the political calculations currently steering Israelis and Palestinians away from a durable political solution. But what does a rights-based approach look like and how would it work?

Shifting the Paradigm: A Rights-Based Approach

The Normative Argument

A rights-based approach that espouses universal values and norms in the conduct of foreign policy is not an entirely novel concept. In fact, in the immediate aftermath of World War II, the United States consistently centered values and norms in arguing for a rules-based international order. The effort brought forth the Geneva Conventions to protect civilians and occupied people during times of war and led to the creation of the United Nations system, which includes treaties and associated mechanisms to promote respect for rights and the well-being of peoples, as well as to advance decolonization. Unfortunately, in the pursuit of U.S. interests, this architecture has been buckling under the weight of its contradictions for some time. Some say it may be dead and buried, particularly in the wake of former president Donald Trump's establishment of a more transactional method for advancing U.S. policy.

Certainly, the policies of Trump have gone a long way in undermining the normative framework for international peace and security, particularly in the context of Israel-Palestine conflict resolution. The administration's Peace to Prosperity Plan, which sought to resolve all outstanding final status issues between Palestinians and Israelis with or without the participation of or consultation with Palestinians, is a stark example of the disregard for the rule of law.

With human rights experts, UN bodies, leading legal organizations in Palestine and Israel, and now Human Right Watch describing Israeli policies vis-à-vis Palestinians as a system of domination fitting the legal description of apartheid, the U.S. approach to Israel-Palestine conflict resolution needs to be reconsidered. The Oslo peace process and its two-state solution have little currency in Israel today, particularly after the passage of the Basic Law: Israel as the Nation State of the Jewish People and the rise of Israeli political parties openly advocating policies for Jewish supremacy. Palestinians are unlikely to accept a permanent regime of separate and unequal treatment as well as ongoing displacement. How that plays out in the months and years to come remains to be seen. What is clear is that the vast asymmetry of power between Palestinians and Israelis means U.S. and international engagement is necessary to prevent the permanent disenfranchisement of approximately half the population living under Israeli control and the negative impacts that it would have in an already unstable region. ¹

Though the post-World War II international system has proven unable to prevent grave human rights situations-for example, ethnic cleansing in former Yugoslavia, genocide in Rwanda, and forced population transfers of the Rohingya from Myanmar-that does not mean the United States can have no effect on Israel-Palestine conflict resolution. In fact, a reckoning with the harmful effect U.S. policy has had on Israelis and Palestinians is long overdue; and a meaningful and positive, even if modest, international and U.S. response to the Israel-Palestine situation could help change the negative trends on the ground. Moreover, the international community bears significant responsibility for the conflict, whose seeds were sown by partition of the land into two ethno-religious states following a UN General Assembly vote in 1947. The UN has been beleaguered with the matter ever since, dealing with the humanitarian concerns of Palestine's refugees, successive Arab-Israeli wars, and deteriorating human rights conditions in the occupied territories.

The contradictions between declared American values and U.S. policies on Israel and Palestine have become a growing source of tension in American politics, particularly among younger, more progressive citizens and advocates for racial justice. Palestinian human rights are now part of the policy debate in presidential primaries: a clear majority of American voters favor a U.S. approach on Palestine and Israel that is consistent with American values; ² leading progressive Democrats are calling for the administration to "ground its engagement on Palestine and Israel in international law and human rights"; and the Movement for Black Lives, in recognizing the interconnectedness and transnational nature of systems of oppression, includes in its policy platform a call for redirecting funds spent on weapons transfers to Israel for domestic priorities-pointing out Israel's ongoing human rights abuses against Palestinians. Even among Democrats writ large, a majority now favor putting pressure on Israel to make compromises vis-à-vis Palestinians, and around two-thirds of Americans consistently say that they do not want the United States to favor one side or the other on Israeli-Palestinian issues.

U.S. engagement with Israelis and Palestinians-at home and abroad-has and will continue to come into conflict with the fundamental values the U.S. espouses. This interplay between U.S. domestic and foreign policy was on full display when, with the full backing of the U.S. president, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced he would deny a sitting U.S. congresswoman of Palestinian descent entry into Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories with a congressional delegation because she supports other Americans' right to engage in political boycotts of Israel-activity entitled to the highest protection under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

But what are the norms that should shape a rights-based approach? A start would be those encapsulated in the United Nations Charter; in customary international law to which all states are bound; and in the International Bill of Human Rights, consisting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Many of the norms contained in these instruments are already built into U.S. foreign policy by virtue of Section 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act, which states that "a principal goal of the foreign policy of the United States shall be to promote the increased observance of internationally recognized human rights by all countries."

In an advisory opinion in 2004, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the judicial arm of the United Nations, determined that Israel had obligations to Palestinians under humanitarian law and international human rights conventions. Among the human rights that the court determined Israel violated in constructing a wall inside the occupied West Bank and its associated regime included the right to self-determination, work, freedom of movement, and protection of families and children and the right to an adequate standard of living, health, and education. The World Court also determined that all states parties to the Geneva Convention-the United States among them-have an obligation to ensure compliance with the convention and to cease all aid to Israel that supports its violations of the convention.

Thus, a rights-based approach is not only about centering values for values-sake, it is also an obligation under federal legislation and international law.

The Interest-Based Argument

Even if a negotiated agreement that is in the interests of the United States seems far off, a rights-based approach would markedly improve the environment for a solution by creating costs for maintaining the status quo. In this sense, a rights-based approach would not be a placeholder policy that prioritizes conflict mitigation until more conducive political conditions materialize but rather be the conduit that creates those very necessary conditions.

First, a rights-based approach makes the United States a more credible mediator, thereby empowering Palestinian and Israeli leaders to reach an agreement. For decades, there has been a credibility gap associated with U.S. mediation. While Israelis and their leadership have wanted exclusive U.S engagement, the Palestinian public has been much more skeptical. The latest polls show that even under a Biden administration, 51 percent of Palestinians do not expect fair treatment from the United States and 48 percent oppose "a return to Palestinian-Israeli negotiations under the US leadership." The lack of faith in U.S. mediation means that Palestinian leaders come into negotiations with little confidence in their ability to sell agreements to their publics, thus tying their hands. In Israel, the knowledge that all is required is pro forma participation in the process has strengthened constituencies' support of permanent Israeli control over the West Bank. If human rights were centered and there was accountability for the violation of rights and international law, Palestinian trust in American engagement would grow and expectations would be clarified for Israeli leaders-with ripple effects down through the Israeli electorate.

Yousef Munayyer

Second, centering rights can inspire the necessary public confidence and create momentum for reaching a political agreement. Some 75 percent of Palestinians believe that the chances of an independent Palestinian state coming to fruition in the next five years is either low or very low. About 62 percent believe the two-state solution is no longer possible. Likewise, inside Israel, nearly 85 percent of Israelis believe a solution in the next five years is somewhat unlikely or very unlikely. These views are undoubtedly tied to the repeated failures of the peace process as well as the worsening realities on the ground.

Today, neither Israeli nor Palestinian leaders have an incentive to create political constituencies to back a negotiated solution. In Israel, the U.S. approach failed to create any real costs for right-wing nationalist policies even as Israeli politics continued to leap right-ward over the years. The message from Washington was that the U.S.-Israel relationship should not be jeopardized by pressing Israel on its conduct vis-à-vis Palestinians. ³ In Israel, political parties coalesced around anti-Palestinian policies without fear of alienating a vital ally that was ostensibly aiming to broker Israeli-Palestinian peace. Among Palestinians, this incentive structure meant that political parties committed to negotiations would inadvertently undercut their own legitimacy by repeatedly committing to a failed peace process that demanded much from them, while Israeli settlements expanded without repercussions.
Related analysis from Carnegie
If Israeli policies that violated rights and previous commitments came with costs attached to the U.S.-Israel relationship, it would force a recalculation and promote politics that are more amenable to political negotiation. On the Palestinian side, it would allow parties committed to negotiation to garner the faith of their publics.

Third, a rights-based approach could correct the imbalance of power and provide Palestinians some agency to bolster international consensus around their rights, which might also spur Israel to take its obligations more seriously as an occupying power and to negotiate an end to the conflict consistent with principles of international legitimacy. The previous U.S. approach-crafting positions on peace proposals or parameters with Israel's input while inhibiting Palestinian diplomatic and legal maneuvers at the UN or at the International Criminal Court-effectively allowed Israel to maintain its occupation at no cost.

Beyond advancing U.S. interests, a rights-based approach to Israel-Palestine conflict resolution holds promise for reinforcing American objectives and interests on issues beyond the Middle East, including on authoritarianism, nationalism, nativism, and refugee rights. It would also pull the rug out from under U.S. adversaries who exploit the way the United States has shielded Israel from accountability in multilateral fora and with third states and would give the United States greater leverage with China and Russia as competition for regional influence becomes more and more pronounced in the years to come.

A Rights-Based Approach in Practice

In adopting a rights-based approach toward Israel-Palestine, the United States should first

Understand that in maintaining current U.S. policy toward Israel-Palestine, the United States is still doing significant harm and contributes to a worsening of the situation. The United States should thoroughly review its bilateral relationship with Israel, including its security assistance to Israel, to ensure that U.S. policy no longer perpetuates Israel's military occupation or enables human rights abuses.

Recognize that an asymmetrical relationship exists between Israel (a state) and the Palestinian people, who live under military occupation or are refugees in third countries. The Fourth Geneva Convention makes clear that occupied people may not be deprived "in any case or in any manner whatsoever" of the protections guaranteed them under the convention, including in any agreements they may sign. This humanitarian law seeks to mitigate the inherent unfairness associated with a people under occupation having to negotiate the terms of their own freedom. The U.S. backing of territorial compromises while Palestinians remain under occupation violates the UN Charter and customary international law principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force.

Signal that even as Israel continues to prevent a two-state outcome and maintains the blockade of Gaza, the United States will support equal protection under the law for Palestinians. As the ICJ determined in a 2004 advisory opinion, Israel has obligations to Palestinians living under its control according to both humanitarian law and human rights law. Given the length of Israel's military occupation, the human rights obligations owed to Palestinians should mirror the rights owed to Israel's own citizens. The United States should make clear that the status quo in the absence of a two-state outcome is not merely unsustainable but also unacceptable.

End the practice of defending Israel from the consequences of violating international law while creating obstacles for Palestinians seeking to access mechanisms for accountability. UN Security Council Resolution 2334 calls upon all states to take immediate steps to prevent acts of violence against civilians and to hold violators accountable. The United States, as a state party to the Fourth Geneva Convention, is also obligated to uphold the protections contained in the convention for occupied populations. U.S. attempts to shield Israel from the legal consequences of its settlement enterprise in international fora-via withholding funding to multilateral bodies, undue influence, or diplomatic pressure against third states or the International Criminal Court to avoid taking measures in this regard-undermine U.S. responsibilities.

Conclusion

The United States is at a pivotal moment in its relations with the world, seeking to reassert its leadership and support a rules-based international order. This moment calls for a new approach that puts human rights at the center of policymaking in regard to the Israel-Palestine issue. This approach is not only a moral imperative given the grave and long-lasting human rights crisis on the ground but also an opportunity for the United States to advance its broader policy objectives in the region and beyond.

Notes

¹ In 2019, Israel's total population was 9,054,000 ( Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics), including 1,597,483 Palestinians living in Israel ( Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, or PCB). In the same year, the PCB reported the population of Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territory to be 5,038,918. With a combined population between Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories of 14,092,918, Palestinians represented just under half the population in 2019 at 6,636,401.

² See, for example, Data for Progress polling in which the percentage of Democrats that support reducing aid to Israel based on its human rights violations is the same as the percentage that support reducing aid to human rights abusers in general (64 percent).

³ See, for example, the recent campaign commitment of now President Joe Biden.
Correction: Due to a mathematical error, the combined total population of Israel and Palestinians living in the occupied territories was incorrectly cited in endnote one as 15,690,401; the correct number is 14,092,918.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Approaching Peace: Centering Rights in Israel-Palestine Conflict Resolution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For thirty years, the United States has sent mixed messages to Israelis and Palestinians. While successive administrations have expressed support for a two-state solution and the establishment of a democratic state of Palestine, they have refrained from using the levers of U.S. power to stem the tide of Israel's illegal settlement expansion.

# data[].attributes.headline
What role have international organizations played in the conflict?

# data[].attributes.subject
What role have international organizations played in the conflict?

# data[].attributes.body
According to the UNRIC website, following the October 7th attacks, public hearings were set for February 2024 by the ICJ (International Court of Justice), this hearing concerned the “legal consequences arising from Israel’s policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem,”

Nine Israeli families impacted by the Hamas attack on 7 October filed a complaint on 2 November at the ICC for “war crime, crimes against humanity, and genocide,” with their lawyer requesting the ICC (International Criminal Court) consider issuing international arrest warrants against Hamas leaders

https://unric.org/en/israel-palestine-the-role-of-international-justice/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Israel-Palestine: The Role of International Justice

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, international justice is being summoned, with several complaints lodged at the ICC

# data[].attributes.headline
How does it show us the strengths and limitations of the United Nations? The Security Council?

# data[].attributes.subject
How does it show us the strengths and limitations of the United Nations? The Security Council?

# data[].attributes.body
In an article written by Susan M. Akram, she mentions that while the UN is good at talking about complaints or issues, it never relaly gets enforced or executed properly. “Violations of these prohibitions and obligations are war crimes and can also be crimes against humanity or genocide, depending on their gravity and the perpetrators’ intent.”

“The UN and international community appear powerless to limit the methods of warfare, implement a ceasefire, call up UN forces to protect civilians in Gaza, or ensure accountability.“

https://www.openglobalrights.org/failures-un-israel-palestine-conflict/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On October 7, 2023, militant members of Hamas and Islamic Jihad attacked military bases and towns in southern Israel from Gaza, during which approximately 1,200 people-at least 845 of whom were civilians -were killed and over 5,000 injured. The militants also took hostage some 240 Israelis and nationals of other countries.

Israel immediately launched a massive attack on Gaza, a small strip of land of 140 square miles that is home to 2.3 million people, the vast majority refugees and their descendants from Israel's expulsions following the 1948 conflict. Israel began its occupation of Gaza in 1967, has maintained an almost complete blockade of Gaza since 2007, and remains an occupying power as defined by international law.

From the time Israel's bombardment began to January 18, 2024, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reported at least 24,620 Gazans killed and 61,830 Palestinians injured in Gaza. Some 70 percent of the fatalities have been women and children, according to Gaza's Ministry of Health; the World Health Organization reported that, on average, 160 Gazan children were killed every day for the first month of the conflict. Also as of 18 January, 1.7 million Gazans (85%) are estimated as internally displaced. The UN estimates that over 500,000 people will have no home to return to after the conflict. Gaza remains under full Israeli siege, including electricity blackouts and a blockade of fuel, food, water, and medical necessities. 2.2 million people are at imminent risk of famine.

What the UN secretary-general has called " a crisis of humanity " is also a legal crisis. The current war and its history reflect a failure of the UN system to prevent and punish war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. However, the responsibility for preventing the gravest of crimes falls not only on the UN but the entire international community, from individual states to civil society-and it is the latter that must prosecute and punish such crimes when the UN fails to do so.
Robust rules of warfare, weak enforcement mechanisms
The Geneva Conventions of 1949 on international humanitarian law-the universal rules on warfare-prohibit punitive sieges and collective punishment, hostage-taking, torture, cruel and inhuman treatment, targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure, and the forcible displacement of civilian populations. They require all parties to ensure that civilians have food, water, and essentials to survive during a conflict and guarantee that they can safely leave conflict areas and return home. Violations of these prohibitions and obligations are war crimes and can also be crimes against humanity or genocide, depending on their gravity and the perpetrators' intent.

The rules do not distinguish between political categories of the various parties-humanitarian law does not label a particular group "terrorists" and another group "lawful combatants." The same rules apply to all-a country's armed forces or any non-state armed group, including Hamas or Islamic Jihad.

A core international humanitarian law principle is that all parties must distinguish at all times between combatants and civilians and refrain from causing disproportionate harm to the latter. Further, humanitarian law recognizes the right of occupied people to use armed resistance against their occupiers to achieve self-determination and sovereignty in their territory. But the same rules apply to those using armed force to resist occupation as to states' armed forces. Thus, Hamas's October 7 attacks on Israel, which caused far greater harm to civilians than to military and police forces and involved the taking of hostages, constitute war crimes just as they would if those crimes were caused by a state's military forces.

A similar analysis applies to Israel's current bombardment of Gaza and its attacks on healthcare facilities that have caused thousands of casualties, the targeting of UNRWA schools housing civilians, and the massive destruction of homes and housing units. All harms disproportionate to the military objective-killing a relatively small number of Hamas fighters-are war crimes.

The UN and international community appear powerless to limit the methods of warfare, implement a ceasefire, call up UN forces to protect civilians in Gaza, or ensure accountability. Moreover, the current conflict illustrates a structural failure of the UN: the imbalance of power between a small group of states and the majority of states and peoples in the world.
Structural failures of the UN system
The power imbalance in the UN has deadlocked the governing UN bodies: the 15-member Security Council (SC) and the 193-member General Assembly (GA). All member states of the UN have an equal vote in the GA. In contrast, the SC's five permanent members have the power to veto any resolution, while the ten remaining members can vote but have no veto power. Therefore, a single UN member state can defeat the will of the vast majority of states.

The SC and GA have by now voted multiple times on resolutions calling for ceasefires in Gaza. On October 18, the US voted against 12 states to defeat the SC's first resolution for a humanitarian pause. On October 27, 2023, 120 of the 193 member states in the GA voted in favor of a ceasefire. The UN secretary-general invoked the rarely-used Article 99 to call for a ceasefire at the SC, once again defeated by US veto. On December 12, the GA voted again, with 153 states in favor, 10 opposed, and 23 abstaining-the demand for a ceasefire representing the overwhelming majority of the world's population. On December 22, the Security Council approved a resolution for more humanitarian aid to Gaza that fell short of a call for a ceasefire; the US abstained from voting in favor. Efforts to secure a ceasefire in the UN continue.

Because only the SC can authorize intervention to halt a conflict, a single member state can determine when the UN can halt war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide. However, the United States has used its veto over 30 times to protect Israel against past UN action seeking to halt its aggressions, including prior attacks on Gaza.

The same structural problem prevents the SC from referring a case to the International Criminal Court (ICC). Israel is not a party to the ICC, rendering it immune to prosecution absent SC referral or another state referring an Israeli national to the court for committing crimes in that state's territory. In the past, the United States has protected Israel against ICC prosecutions, going so far as to issue sanctions against ICC staff for pending investigations into Israel's settlements in the West Bank and attacks on Gaza.
Incomplete UN reform and individual state responsibility
UN member states have attempted to address these weaknesses through reforms, including the 2006 establishment of the Human Rights Council and the Universal Periodic Review, and the renewed UN-led commitment known as the responsibility to protect ( R2P). Another reform, the 1950 "Uniting for peace" resolution, allowed the GA to call emergency special sessions for the ceasefire votes on October 27 and December 12. Unfortunately, this process grants the GA no power to implement its vote.

These partial reform efforts leave prevention and accountability for the gravest international crimes in the hands of other international mechanisms and civil society. One important mechanism is the 1948 Genocide Convention, which requires all states parties to prevent and punish genocidal acts. Genocidal acts are defined as killing, causing bodily or mental harm, and deliberately inflicting conditions intended to and causing the physical destruction of an entire or part of a group. Any state party to the Genocide Convention can bring a claim to the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

In the past, the ICJ has ruled that depriving a people of food, shelter, medical care, and other means of subsistence, systematically expelling them from their homes, and imposing sieges are genocidal acts. Prior to the October 2023 attack, Israel carried out ground, air, and sea attacks on Gaza in 2008, 2012, 2014, 2021, and 2022; its tight and continuous blockade of Gaza began in 2007. This longer-term targeting of the Gazan population-alongside ordering the evacuation of 1.1 million Gazan civilians, bombing those trying to flee, and depriving them of the means to survive-may also be evidence of genocide, according to the Convention's definition of the crime. Statements of genocidal intent are important evidence, such as Israeli government statements that Palestinians are " human animals"; Israel will deprive Palestinians of all electricity and water, and cause "only [] destruction. You wanted hell; you will get hell."

As this article goes to press, South Africa has submitted an application against Israel to the ICJ for genocide, requesting provisional measures, including that Israel "not engage in genocide." The 84-page application exhaustively covers the evidence of genocidal acts and the plethora of statements indicating intent by Israeli principals, including those above. Thus far, more than 50 countries have supported the request for provisional measures, according to South Africa, along with the League of Arab States and the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Hearings were held for this request on January 11 and 12, 2024, at the Peace Palace in the Hague.

The Genocide Convention is ultimately the most relevant treaty for the current moment. If the UN is unable to end the cycle of violence, the international community of states and civil society must use all available tools at their disposal-and the South Africa case indicates that they are willing and prepared to do so.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The failures of the UN in the Israel-Palestine conflict

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Structural power imbalances in the UN system have prevented it from halting Israel's ongoing war crimes against Gazans. Individual states and civil society must step in to prevent further aggressions and ensure accountability.

# data[].attributes.headline
How have NGOs been involved? Has their involvement been effective? What have been some limitations?

# data[].attributes.subject
How have NGOs been involved? Has their involvement been effective? What have been some limitations?

# data[].attributes.body
“Amnesty International have been at the forefront of attempts to delegitimize Israel” According to Steinberg in “The Role of NGOS in the Palestinian Political War Against Israel. At the end of 2006, following rocket attacks from Gaza which resulted in the death of 19 Palestinian deaths. Amnesty International called for an immediate, independent investigation and for those responsible to be held accountable.” During the three weeks of fighting, over 500 NGO documents and statements were published, often accompanied by press conferences, op-ed articles, and media interviews. However, NGOs can only help so much. At the end of the day, they can’t really help in terms of hard power especially when it comes to military power.

https://jcpa.org/overview_palestinian_manipulation/role_of_ngos_in_the_palestinian-political_war/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
View all posts by Prof. Gerald M. Steinberg

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Role of NGOs in the Palestinian Political War Against Israel

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Role of NGOs in the Palestinian Political War Against Israel

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
The Role of NGOs in the Palestinian Political War Against Israel

# data[].attributes.headline
What are the arguments for and against the legitimacy of Israel's actions in regards to Palestine. Both for the current invasion of Gaza, but also others, such as settlements, physical borders, restrictions on movement for Palestinians, and others.

# data[].attributes.subject
What are the arguments for and against the legitimacy of Israel's actions in regards to Palestine. Both for the current invasion of Gaza, but also others, such as settlements, physical borders, restrictions on movement for Palestinians, and others.

# data[].attributes.body
Arguments:

Israel often cites its military actions, including invasions of Gaza, as necessary for self-defense against Hamas and other militant groups that threaten its security.

Supporters argue that Israel has historical and biblical claims to the land, which justify its presence and actions in the region.

The establishment of settlements and movement restrictions are framed as essential for maintaining security and preventing attacks.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and-north-africa/middle-east/israel-and-the-occupied-palestinian-territory/report-israel-and-the-occupied-palestinian-territory/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Human rights in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Stay up to date on the state of human rights in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory with the latest research, campaigns and education material from Amnesty International.

# data[].attributes.headline
How is the legitimacy of Hamas as the government in Gaza contested? What are the arguments for/against their legitimacy? By whom?

# data[].attributes.subject
How is the legitimacy of Hamas as the government in Gaza contested? What are the arguments for/against their legitimacy? By whom?

# data[].attributes.body
In the article “Can Anyone Govern Gaza?” by Daniel Byman, he mentions that Hamas is blamed for the suffering of the people (Israelis and Palestinians). In the international court, their actions are condemned according to the article “What Palestinians Really Think of Hamas” by Amani Jamal and Michael Robbins.

# data[].attributes.headline
What are the sources of legitimacy for the Palestinian government in the West Bank?

# data[].attributes.subject
What are the sources of legitimacy for the Palestinian government in the West Bank?

# data[].attributes.body
The sources of legitimacy for the Palestinian government in the West Bank primarily stem from its historical roots in the Oslo Accords, which established the Palestinian Authority (PA) as a governing body. Additionally, the PA derives legitimacy from its role in the Palestinian struggle for self-determination and its recognition by various international entities

https://arabcenterdc.org/resource/the-problem-of-legitimacy-for-the-palestinian-authority/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Problem of Legitimacy for the Palestinian Authority

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Recent damaging decisions by the Palestinian Authority cannot be solely blamed for the popular discontent with it. Instead, the Palestinians’ anger stems from the PA’s security relationship with Israel.

# data[].attributes.headline
To what extent does the international community see the Palestinian right to statehood as legitimate? What are the issues standing in the way for Palestinian statehood?

# data[].attributes.subject
To what extent does the international community see the Palestinian right to statehood as legitimate? What are the issues standing in the way for Palestinian statehood?

# data[].attributes.body
The international community recognizes Palestinian statehood to varying degrees, with 146 of the 193 UN member states acknowledging it as a sovereign state. However, issues such as ongoing Israeli occupation, internal Palestinian divisions, and geopolitical interests of powerful nations hinder full recognition and the realization of statehood.

https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1010&context=gjicl

# data[].attributes.headline
What are the claims to sovereignty for both Israel and Palestine based on?

# data[].attributes.subject
What are the claims to sovereignty for both Israel and Palestine based on?

# data[].attributes.body
The history of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict traces back to the late 19th century when Zionists sought to establish a homeland for the Jewish people in Ottoman-controlled Palestine, a region roughly corresponding to the Land of Israel in Jewish tradition.

According to BBC news, Palestinians claim East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state. Israel, which already controlled West Jerusalem, occupied East Jerusalem in the 1967 war and later declared the entire city its permanent capital. It says Jerusalem cannot be divided.

https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-44124396#:~:text=Israel%20and%20the%20Palestinians%20both,says%20Jerusalem%20cannot%20be%20divided.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Israel and the Palestinians: History of the conflict explained

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The conflict between Israel and the Palestinian people is one of the longest-running in the world.

# data[].attributes.headline
How does sovereignty factor in the relationship between Israel and Palestine? Which groups have sovereignty in which areas?

# data[].attributes.subject
How does sovereignty factor in the relationship between Israel and Palestine? Which groups have sovereignty in which areas?

# data[].attributes.body
if Israeli settlements are not illegal, and Israelis are able to rightfully settle the land under Israel’s political and military control, then what does that mean for the stateless Palestinians who also live there and for Israel’s 52-year rule over them? - Brookings

Israel currently occupies West Bank and the Gaza Strip

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/recognizing-israeli-settlements-is-about-sovereignty-and-thats-a-game-changer/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Recognizing Israeli settlements is about sovereignty, and that’s a game-changer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If the Trump administration endorses annexation, a position in line with recognizing the legality of settlements, then the framework of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict changes and the issues of sovereignty and political rights will become front and center.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
Recognizing Israeli settlements is about sovereignty, and that’s a game-changer

# data[].attributes.headline
What role have other countries played in the conflict?

# data[].attributes.subject
What role have other countries played in the conflict?

# data[].attributes.body
The country that has undoubtedly the most influence in this conflict (other than Israel and Palestine of course) is the US. This was mentioned in the power section but the article