What if… is a question that has been pondered for a long time. Over the next few months, Al Jazeera will explore some of the biggest challenges of our time and ask leading experts: “What if…”
According to Donald Trump, the president of the United States has given Hamas a Sunday deadline to reach a deal that would allow Israel to stay in some of Gaza’s regions and put an end to its war with Gaza.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
Critics question whether the ceasefire agreement, which was reached last year, will actually stop Israel and bring peace to Gaza. They point to Israel’s continued attacks on Lebanon and its ongoing raids on the occupied West Bank.
Many people anticipate that Israel will continue its military assault on Gaza, killing more than 66, 000 Palestinians, if it succeeds.
That’s despite global condemnation of Israel.
A UN commission echoed the conclusions of international human rights organizations that Israel’s war was a genocidal war. Soon after, the European Union suggested that Israel’s trade agreements with the bloc be suspended. And a UN-backed body concluded in August that Israel had inflicted a man-made famine on the enclave.
In September, several of Israel’s traditional allies, including France, the UK, and Canada, recognized Palestine as a state, following Norway, Spain, and Ireland, who did the same last year.
Israel has also been decried by individual lawmakers. Last month, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez called for Israel to be expelled from global sporting bodies “until the barbarity ends”. Natasa Pirc Musar, Slovenia’s president, referred to Israel’s actions as “genocide” in May.
What if these nations collaborated to stop attacking and leaving Gaza, even with US support, and proceeded further?
The UN could do what, exactly?
There is precedent for this, and the UN is still the most effective way to stop Israel’s actions in Gaza.
” Israel is in breach of the UN Charter, the 1948 UN Convention against Genocide and the 1998 Rome Statute, which many members signed up to. In all of these agreements, states are legally required to take action when there is genocide or atrocity committed.
Only the Houthis in Yemen, one of the poorest nations in the world, are currently using drones, cutting cables, and blocking shipping.
” In 1950, the UN General Assembly passed the Uniting for Peace Resolution to intervene in Korea. The USSR had vetoed every previous attempt to take action through the Security Council. After receiving the unanimous support of the General Assembly, the United Nations was able to intervene legally in the Korean conflict, restore South Korea’s independence, and help end the world’s longest war.
“Seventy-five years later, that precedent can still be used. It might appoint a military force to attack Gaza, a place where the UN has previously declared that Israel has no place to be in like other occupied areas. A UN force would be able to begin humanitarian aid, begin reconstruction, restore utilities like water and electricity, and engage in negotiations for some form of interim rule.
” It is also possible for the UN, under Article 6 of the UN Charter, to eject members who have persistently violated its principles, but that requires the support of the Security Council (and the United States). The US, France, and the UK vetoed numerous attempts to remove South Africa from the UN in the 1970s.
“Unfortunately, the General Assembly passed a resolution that effectively forbade South Africa from its position for 20 years. It is time for the Assembly to consider undertaking the same action with regard to Israel”.- Michael Lynk
Without the UN, what could individual states do?
“This has no good responses,” he said. Concepts like humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect have generated a lot of interest since the 1990s, but it remains the mainstream view that the lawful use of force requires UN Security Council authorisation or a valid claim of self-defence.
All parties are required to refrain from genocide under the 1948 Genocide Convention, but this does not establish a separate legal framework for forced intervention.
“Collective self-defense or the comparable concept of “intervention by invitation” are other considerations.” This possibility depends on Palestine being recognised as a state that can exercise its sovereignty by inviting third states to participate in a campaign of self-defence against Israel.
The majority of instances don’t involve state-to-state armed conflicts, but rather non-international armed conflicts (such as when State A requests State B to conduct military operations on its territory against an insurgent group).
The DRC and Uganda had a disagreement over the invitation when it withdrew it in the 1990s, which led to the resignation of Ugandan troops and the DRC’s refusal to accept it.
The US-led coalition against ISIL (ISIS) in Iraqi territory, which was run with Iraq’s consent, is one more recent examples. The legal justification for ISIL’s prosecution was much more complex in Syria.
“Could Palestine invite a state to come to its aid tomorrow? If Palestine itself asserts that it is acting in self-defense under Article 51, I suppose it could.
However, this raises some complex problems. For one, it is not clear who speaks for the State of Palestine. A statement by Hamas, a non-state actor with governmental authority in Gaza, that it is engaged in self-defence may not have legal weight if this is the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah. I’m not entirely sure how the law of occupation might fit into this. “– Michael Becker
What might trade restrictions and sanctions accomplish?
Think of Russia. It has already been subject to sanctions by the world, but it is still surviving thanks to China’s support. I imagine that sanctions on Israel would be similarly undone by the US.
Sanctions or trade embargos may hurt Israel, but not stop it, according to the reality that sanctions or trade embargos might be implemented without the support of the US, which is Israel’s largest export partner.
“You’d be able to inflict some damage on the Israeli economy, but you’d be improbable to stop it, if you combined China, the EU, and perhaps India.”
“You also need to look at the type of exports Israel relies upon. It doesn’t really export goods like technology, which aren’t as easily replaced, but rather items like technology, which can be boycotted.
Israel’s economy is still prospering even after 22 months of war. Debt is a problem, and the economy is not growing at the rate it was, but all those people, including me, who predicted its collapse look to have been off the mark. – Daniele Bianchi
What might the general public do?
” Cultural and sporting boycotts work to both change public opinion in their subject country and rally opinion against it.
Cultural boycotts are a way to let the people in a country know that their behavior is so unacceptable that it should not be tolerated. It helps them avoid giving the impression that they are “just another country” or that every other nation has issues with human rights.
” For South Africa, the idea was first proposed by a man called Trevor Huddleston, who suggested a cultural boycott in 1954, but it was the UN General Assembly that established it a decade later in 1968.
The development of international relations is characterized by “a slow and steady component.” Academicians are aware that, unlike most people and governments, national reputations typically grow and develop over many years or even decades.
“Cultural boycotts are conducted in accordance with the same guidelines. They serve for years as a drag on a national reputation, hiding the truth behind their status as a pariah, and denying normality.
“Mandela himself referred to the Apartheid state as the world’s skunk.
Source: Aljazeera
Leave a Reply