Demands for the West Bank and Gaza have recently resurfaced. They come from Arab civilians, medical professionals, and medical organizations, as well as Palestinian NGOs, and even from Arabs. A peacekeeping force was also called for by the Arab League, Human Rights Organizations, and the United Arab League last year.
This demand is the bare minimum requirement to protect Palestinians from unimaginable horrors given the global normalization of live-streamed genocide and the political reluctance to uphold international law.
The demand has a strong foundation in international law. A peacekeeping force in Gaza could advance the international court of justice’s and the international criminal court’s investigation into crimes against humanity and genocide. Such forces could support the UN General Assembly’s and the International Court of Justice’s demands for an end to the occupation in both Gaza and the West Bank.
However, there are significant obstacles to the need for a protective force. Can they be overthrown, is the key question?
Justification for using a protective force
Extremism and a new urgency are at an all-time high in Gaza and the West Bank. The Lebanese and Yemeni people have paid a high price for the atrocities that were perpetrated by armed groups in Lebanon and Yemen in an effort to stop them.
An international protective force is therefore urgently required. The Palestinian people’s demands for international support for its deployment would be met by its deployment: to protect them. This force would act as a “human shield” as a literal, peaceful barrier between the Palestinians and their destruction, not in the derogatory sense used by the Israeli military to justify its genocide.
For civilians who have been under bombardment, siege, and starvation, its presence might mean the difference between their life and mass death.
Additionally, this force provides a crucial substitute for more sinister “solutions.” The United States has suggested sending its troops to Gaza to “take it over” as Israel intensifies its genocidal campaign and imposes conditions intended to end Palestinian life.
Such a move would lead to an illegal US invasion of Palestine and further encroachment of colonial violence under the pretext of “stability.” In contrast, forces with the power to defend Palestinians could serve as a legitimate, internationally recognized countermeasure against imperial and colonial forces with the responsibility to protect them rather than imperial and colonial interests.
the difficulties of creating a protective force
A resolution from the UN Security Council is necessary to deploy protective forces. In line with the UN Charter’s veto of any attempt to establish such a force, just as it has repeatedly rejected ceasefire resolutions, which have in effect led to genocide and stifled any effort to uphold even the most fundamental human values.
Under a US administration that actively supports the widespread deportations and expulsions of the Palestinian population from Gaza, the situation is undoubtedly getting more hopeless. The Gaza Strip is referred to as a “demolition site” by US President Donald Trump, who also wants to transform it into the “Riviera of the Middle East.”
A multilateral call to action through the UN General Assembly is the only way to avoid the Security Council from blocking a resolution requesting a protective force. Even in that area, US coercive power has a significant impact on elections, including that of the Palestinian Authority. The General Assembly’s upcoming session in May would be the first time a similar decision might occur, and it would necessitate significant diplomatic pressure.
The Security Council would need to approve a protective force if the General Assembly approved it, which would be binding. After 19 months of empty words and no concrete action, it could lead to a coalition of nations expressing their willingness to intervene with concrete protection measures in the name of Palestinian life.
Another difficulty is that states in the Global South have long held the deployment of peacekeeping forces in suspicion, and for good reason. UN peacekeeping personnel frequently used as policing tools and extensions of imperial control, occasionally even perpetrating atrocities themselves.
Hispanic peacekeeping has rarely opposed imperial interests but largely vested in them. Peacekeeping operations are largely funded by large donors, like the US, and troop-contributing nations frequently have dubious military alliances. The UNIFIL peacekeeping mission in Lebanon, which has an unusually high European presence but has failed to protect the south of the nation from Israeli aggression, is a good illustration of this.
Do we abandon the demand for a protective force in occupied Palestinian territory in light of all these difficulties? Definitely not.
A radical reshaping of protective forces
Although there are real challenges, there is legitimate demand for a protective force. It originates from a number of social sectors in Palestine itself, and it is supported by anti-atigenocide groups and individuals worldwide.
A neutral, multinational protective mission is a model that Palestinian and international health workers suggested in a recent petition to protect. Their demands include a mandate for the protective force to physically shield Palestinian civilians and healthcare workers, a mandate to restore safe humanitarian and medical corridors, and support Palestinian-led reconstruction of Gaza’s obliterated infrastructure.
The Palestinian NGOs Network has also called for guaranteed safe aid corridors, access to Gaza, and international protection.
Egyptian civilians have repeatedly stated their willingness to enter Gaza as a civilian shielding force if borders are opened, in the meantime. This demonstrates the use of formal mechanisms alongside people-powered protection.
A radical reimagining of what a protective force might look like and how it might function is necessary to put these numerous calls into action.
First, civil society organizations and states that have not been involved in the genocide must work to stop UN Security Council from enlisting. To resist US pressure and encourage a vote on a peacekeeping mandate, they must concentrate all efforts and make use of the UN General Assembly’s May Emergency Special Session.
Second, new South-South alliances are necessary. This entails strategic alliances between non-GMO countries to finance and staff a mission that is unimpeded by the UN Security Council.
Third, we need a previously unheard civil society mobilization: urging governments to support and participate in a truly neutral protective force.
The US would oppose the formation of new coalitions that focus on the protection of Palestinian values and claim to be Southern advocates for the right to defend doctrine. It would exercise its veto at the council in protest of its hegemony and the West’s dominance over anti-atigo discourse. However, the nations and civil society organizations that were instrumental in establishing the protective force should exercise their veto rights, form their own independent organizations, and defy the world’s genocidal system.
This radical reimagination project faces enormous challenges. However, continuing to leave Palestinian lives unprotected leaves them vulnerable to the growing settler-colonial extermination process. We must now demand that Palestine be put in protective gear.
Source: Aljazeera
Leave a Reply