By Rocio Ferro-Adams                                                                    27 January 2024

Analysis

The current conflict has brought to the International Criminal Court (ICC) an Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (South Africa vs Israel). [1]Evidence of genocide must meet some of those Acts under Art1 of the Convention, of which both countries are a party to. The background being the evacuation of Palestinian people from North Gaza to a small area in South Gaza, with limited access to water; fuel, and basic living facilities -it is both extraordinary and necessary to hear the perspective of both nations, and the events which lead to the current circumstances of both peoples. To understand to, that there are binding rules under international law – laws of war and conventions and treaties which limit the damage caused to civilians, which member States at the United Nations are a party to.  

On 7 October Hamas (a militia group) systematically and ruthlessly attacked an Israeli population of about 1,200 people, 124 of which have since been taken hostage into Gaza, by Hamas into Palestinian territory. Some of those taken and killed were foreign nationals and dual nationals.  Hamas planned Operation, Al-Asqa Flood, supposedly sponsored by Iran, whilst it is claimed that Israel had been allowing money from Qatar to come into the country in exchange for Peace, between Israel and Hamas. These activities were outside of the norm for the Israeli and Palestinian population, and Israel is said to have failed in its intelligence to protect people (as this was not an unknown vulnerable area to Israeli Security).  Some discussion suggests that Israeli signals intelligence, which had been made available in the Summer of 2023, had been largely ignored by Israeli Intelligence and dismissed.[2] (This included video footage of trained planned attacks). This is likely to cost, Prime Minister Netanyahu, his premiership as the reputation of Israel is badly damaged and military leaders are accused now, after more than 12 weeks of committing war crimes.[3] Opinion at Chatham House, suggests that the right-wing coalition government will have to align differently in future post the Israeli-Hamas war, this is reflected in opinion elsewhere in the media and academic circles.[4]

This is a serious intelligence failing, which has resulted in an immediate aggressive Israeli response. With Operation Swords of Iron, Israel declared a state of emergency within 80km of Gaza, and ‘a readiness for war’, deploying the Israeli Defence Force (IDF), into Gaza, extended in its intention to obliterate Hamas and its leadership in Gaza, the West Bank, and later Lebanon and the Syrian Borders, putting at risk its reputation on humanitarian grounds, as the Palestinian civilian populations in Gaza were largely affected.  There were some fears also over smaller Israeli civilian populations living near borders to Lebanon, being forced out of their homes into refugee camps.[5] Under International law Israel has the right to defend itself, but it oversees policing of the borders of Gaza. Palestine is not recognized as a State by Israel and some countries at the UN (about 57 countries), neither is Israel entirely by all members (27 or so countries). Details of the attack on Israel are presented in some detail in the case at the ICJ.[6]  These acts constitute a terrorist attack of a large proportion and are horrific.

This is only one conflict in the Region, which is feared will spark off other existing conflicts such as Israel-Lebanon, the Iranian backed Houthi attacks on trading ships in the Red Sea affecting the global economy and the Yemen; and Iran-Pakistan, who are concerned about power geo-politics and political territory, sometimes associated with nuclear potential and terror. The threats to shipping in the Red Sea, are not new and Saudi Arabia have tried to tackle the problem for some years. Now the changing tactic by the Yemeni Houthis, (a militia group backed by Iran) and more recent attacks this month on UK and Indian shipping in the Red Seas, is that the Houthis claim are linked to support for Gaza and aid not reaching Palestinians. This is affecting aspects of the Global Economy and trade.[7] This is destabilising for the Region. Britain had also sent a warship in defence of its own ships, and separately in support of Israel in the wake of immediate attacks on 7 October 2023. Some commentators will choose to link the two events, but Britain has the right under maritime law to defend its shipping, close inspection of Allied action in humanitarian support also show, respect for the Palestinians suffering in Gaza. Dual purpose for deployments of ships is accepted to provide humanitarian assistance as well. The UN Secretary General states that suspending aid to either Yemen or Gaza at this time, would be a concern.

There is no clear planned link between all the conflicts, as such. For instance, the Pakistan and Iran, tit-for-tat missile attacks by both countries earlier this month.[8] But links between feared militant groups exist and deep networks. Fears were rising in December 2023, that Hizballah in Lebanon would join forces with Hamas, spreading into wider conflicts in the Middle East. Conflicts of this kind that impact international security are detailed and analysed by the Royal Services Institute (RUSI). [9] This particular tension worries other Arab nations as well, who are party to the Abraham Accords 2020[10], such as the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and nations which were in early-stage negotiation, on normalisation agreements of relations with Israel in the Region, such as Qatar.[11] Saudi Arabia is a key ally to the USA, who has supported Israel after the 7 October, but it is not a party to the Accords and it is the key force in the Middle East and along with Egypt; are important power brokers in any future deal for Peace in the Region, providing a balance to Israel. More so as Egypt, shares a border with Israel and which has a historic responsibility for Gaza more recently than Britain. The Syria-Israeli conflict is not inevitable, but Israel may now begin to rise against threats, and as tensions escalate over Palestine.[12]  It is now about who controls the narrative of the unfolding crisis in diplomatic terms and who can influence the situation for the better.

The geo-political problems are sensitive and complex and have every characteristic of spilling over into other states without prospect of containment, without immediate action from the international community.  Hence, it is important to reflect upon the historic resolutions at the UN, on Israel and the Palestinian State which is recognised by 136 countries at the UN. The arguments from within the Western Alliance is that there needs to be a ceasefire that is sustainable, and a roadmap towards a two-state solution. That could take many different roads, and time scales, providing flexibility. One option is a UN Peace Keeping force to be deployed in the Region in the meantime after a sustained ceasefires, but Israel will undoubtedly insist to the UN, that it has the right to police its own borders.[13] It would require some acceptance of international intervention and agreement to do so.  The Palestinian population could call on this intervention, and South Africa, has begun to lay the foundations to that process already on 11 January. The ICJ has responded with measures on 26 January 2024, to ensure that the civilian population of Gaza is not damaged any further and that measures are in place for Israel to comply, within one month, to those aspects in relation to compliance with the Genocide Convention to which it is a party to (set out below in PART 2).  This approach may also be supported by countries such as Mexico and Chile who raised further concerns since the South Africa Vs Israel Case began to be heard. The USA and UK has also, tried through diplomacy calls to request for Israel to adhere to international law, but there are different perspectives at work and disputes about what constitutes war crimes.

Part 1

The bigger picture and how the Western rules-based order is at stake.

Other geo-political and international problems are found in Regions in Europe, and Asia. The Ukraine-Russia war continues to require support in terms of military hardware from across Europe in opposition to the expansionist plans of President Putin, of Russia, this also draws on the USA and the UK and their commitments elsewhere; both in terms of aid, armed forces personnel, and military hardware commitments to NATO and funding for AUKUS (2021), a security partnership in the Indo-Pacific.  This has occurred in response to rising tensions in the Region, which have created long-term conflict scenarios for the Western Allies, which have brought to the forefront diplomatic and political conflict over Taiwan with China, and more generally over territory affecting Japan, and trade in the Region.   This along with Security concerns over testing military and nuclear actions initiated by North Korea, have caused tensions with Japan, and with Australia now also investing in a wider security defence alliance, to include Australia, the UK and USA under AUKUS, a trilateral security partnership. This creates a new force in the Indo-Pacific since 2021.[14] France has also retained diplomatic interests in the regional alliance.

Russia has had diplomatic and strategic influence, or contact at some stage, with conflicts around the world. One perspective is that what is at work in a parallel structure to the Western rules-based order, an alternative competitive regime of politics, international organisation, and trade, outside of Western influence and power. But Russia has not reigned in the countries in BRICS, who have shown that diplomacy is strong outside of these structures. Brazil, India, China, India and South Africa are particularly powerful, without Russia.  BRICS despite Russia may be able to withstand Russian influence and could become a hopeful example of where states legitimately have sought bilateral arrangements with new trading arrangements, which are said to integrate with and complement World Financial Arrangements, and rules such as those set by the WTO and IMF, but do not include the West. This is the Global South at work, where countries of the South have different views and perspectives about their interests and can work together to build solutions. The alternative, perspective is that Russia holds all the cards, power and influence to bribe, and corrupt vulnerabilities in these democracies.

Without influence, the West is left powerless to question and challenge within these new economic structures, which act across regions and largely contain the expansionist power of Russian, money, and trading regimes.  Although the Cold War ended in 1989, Russia has been able to establish its own rules since early 2004; reflecting, but opposite to in; intent, goals and aims, interests, to Western blocs of trade and international relations.  The current resistance against Russian influence within Africa, could simply be temporary as Russia is at war in Ukraine and expending effort. The problem may be in not accusing Russia of influence. This has been a challenging new order; an alternative to the ‘rules-based order’, where the West has had little influence, until now.

Coupled with increasing tensions arising in Northern Europe as Sweden and Finland join NATO, in response to the war in Ukraine, these countries fear Russia’s expansionist policies and actions and have begun to increase spending on defence locally; whilst the UK, a relatively close neighbour has provided funding to NATO worth 2% of GDP and committed 20,000 troops this month, as planned in Exercise Steadfast Defender 24.[15] NATO is said to be mobilising 90,000 troops, to strength defence of Europe and may include activity in Poland a neighbour of Russia. This comes also in response to claims from Sweden, Finland, Poland, and neighbouring countries such as Lithuania. Some comments on unpublished assessments state hostilities with Russia are likely, within or up to somewhere between 5- 20 Years.[16]

Could this be the beginning of World War III, Military Officials and Heads of Defence Staff across Western countries may agree that the rise in tensions amongst states is not dissimilar to that found in other case studies, such as World War I and II, but that we are not at war. This could be taking place in what assessments suggest are very much needed investment in Defence in the Region, especially in Europe which has seen a decline in spending and political interest in investment in defence is low, over the decades of Peace – where we have enjoyed a period of relative peace for a long period of time. Today there is now a significant amount of Defence restructuring and there is no evidence of a war economy and planning which all Western nations will want to refrain from implementing, unless economic test conditions are met and are necessary. Some commentators describe the current international situation as a pre-war environment, and this is a fair assessment.[17]  

Today’s warfare is conducted at speed, and with technology not available to people in 1939-45 and 1914-1918.  Fears of nuclear war with Russia, bio-warfare from China and home-grown terrorism in the UK, after a period of relative peace; are also of security concern and it is not possible to derive from information available and due to the nature of Security Studies and rapidly changing information, what could, or could not be a feature of a World War III at this stage. All these issues could be a factor, and speculative. The Allies, NATO are not at war, but are reinvesting in infrastructure and personnel, which by all indications, was much needed.  

PART 2

What is the problem within the Israeli-Hamas war 2023-34 and how does it impact peace in the region?

The tensions in the Middle East today, date back to the 1947 when Israel was created and the Palestinian population was absorbed, and then moved into areas such as Gaza and the West Bank as part of the Balfour Declaration. And later as part of the ever increasing political and international position, a two-state solution to achieve peace in the region.  This is the perspective held by the UN and most of its members and the UK, USA. The points on transfer made by South Africa may date back to arguments arising around the transfer of a Palestinian population into two small areas since before 1969, which is illegal under international law, but today the argument must also refer to the specific actions taken by Hamas, who overwhelm the population of Gaza in force and are designated a terrorist group (but the population is unable to overcome them or prevent them from mobilising). Israel polices the borders between Israel and Gaza. 

The issue of transfer is a very established argument in relation to Arab nations voice and objections raised at the time of the Sykes-Picot Agreement 1916.  The UK Cabinet took the decision to support the creation of a Jewish homeland and both perspectives were active at the time. An argument for a Jewish and a Palestinian homeland were considered, in the 1960’s new arrangements were put in place as Israel broke existing arrangements at the time.

The current case before the ICJ is one about the way in which both nations have behaved towards one another during this conflict. The case against Israel is serious enough to be heard at the ICJ and is backed up with evidence from UN Agencies, the International Red Cross.  Israel can defend itself, citing the actions of Hamas and its terror against a relatively much smaller group of Israeli people living near the Gaza border and foreign nationals there, in the most unimaginable acts of violence. Although its intensions may have been much wider to cause alarm and fear amongst the whole nation of Israel.

Israel under international law, has the right to defend its people within its borders and sought to act in response to external attacks. The questions for observer states and the Palestinians, is its overall response and whether it would pass a test of proportionality under the laws of war, and therefore justified, given that about 23,210 Palestinians living in Gaza have been killed mostly children, and women.[18] Gaza has been raised to the ground and Palestinian populations are currently squeezed into a small area, with little to no sanitation, food, access to water and fuel which Israel controls. [19] Little aid is getting through which has shocked UN Agencies and those responsible for food aid FAO, journalists, aid workers, teaching and academic populations have been badly destroyed each day and children, the future generation of Palestinian people are being destroyed. This is the evidence presented to the ICJ. This has been confirmed by journalists and BBC Coverage. The charge is one of genocide, prompted, it is said by South Africa’s legal team, by the call and direction given by the Israel Military to its soldiers in the IDF.  This direction they argue has come from the PM of Israel, a former security official.

The ruling by the ICJ on 26 January 2024, gives legitimacy to the case brought by South Africa, which has resulted in a set of measures which protects the rights of the Palestinian group, from Genocide. The Case was recognised as having met some of those conditions under the Genocide Convention (1948), Art1 and other Areas. The Court voted 15/1 that Israel must not commit those acts listed by the Court which complies with the Genocide Convention. It must preserve evidence of Genocide against the Palestinian Group. Israel must provide to the ICJ a report on all measures (compliance) within one month, presented to South Africa who has won the right to represent the rights of Palestinian Group at the ICJ. The ICJ voted 16/1 Israel must prevent the Genocide of the Palestinian Group, 16/1 Provide basic service and humanitarian Assistance to the Palestinian Group in Gaza (assume food, medicines, shelter, fuel to adequate levels to prevent genocide). [20]

Interpretation of the summary ruling from the ICJ South Africa Vs Israel, is that actions taken by Israel in Gaza amount to defamation, found under the Genocide Convention (in some area hence the measures). There is a clear dispute amongst the two nations, and they disagree on whether acts against a Palestinian group of people; are genocide. The Court concluded in its ruling as above and has drawn up measures to protect Palestinians in Gaza. Allies are also affected, and any support for Israel must turn from military support to humanitarian assistance to protect the Palestinian ‘group’, in Gaza. The Court did not provide direct measures on this, but it is likely assumed; to argue otherwise would require extensive legal work on the justification for any further military assistance to Israel, during what should be the final stages of the Israeli-Hamas war – ‘humanitarian pause, or ceasefire’. This is my interpretation and not the political or legal interpretation.  There is no enforcement mechanism as such; except the report requested and the binding measures of international law and although legally binding, on Israel to adhere to the law, the Court cannot enforce (police) it’s ruling, but this case has changed the moral language about the conflict.

The UK PM Rishi Sunak, has requested that Israel should adhere to International Law, some weeks after October 7 and has since reiterated this in statements to the House of Commons in the UK Parliament in January 2024. He has publicly done soo, several times, although he fell short of calling for a ceasefire.  Although, at the beginning of the conflict, the immediate international reaction was largely in support of Israel, both the UK and USA provided immediate support to Israel politically and locally sending a warship to the area.  Over the course of 12 weeks, the US President Biden has discussed with the PM of Israel, Netanyahu the need for its commitment, to a two-state solution and a ceasefire, which Israel has refused until hostages are released. The use of restraint in warfare amongst Western Generals is a well known rules and legal based system. And some nations hoped for Israeli restraint at the start of the conflict, without escalations. Britain called for an intervening humanitarian pause, of which two have already occurred – and another pause, would be a third time, without an actual ceasefire. (There are also issues of competence to achieve objectives, within the law, as Israeli soldiers killed three of its own hostages, which they were supposed to help release, due to ‘mistaken identity’, despite flying a white flag).

On 26 January, prior to the court summary, Lord Cameron the UK Defence Secretary, called for a ‘humanitarian pause’, to prevent the loss of innocent lives, which will ‘lead to a permanent ceasefire’. The immediate view of South Africa is that Israel would be in breach of the measures to protect Palestinian people in Gaza, without an immediate ceasefire. It is now more than three months since the IDF Operations in Gaza began, and it is possible to assume that the IDF response was expected to be swift and short.  And that the extended period of the response, the level of action against Palestinian People in response to Hamas’ attack on Israel on 7 October, now meets sufficient humanitarian concerns, to be considered amongst acts which could be crimes of genocide in war, or peace time. The reality is that a pause is necessary for humanitarian relief – a ceasefire may avert a humanitarian disaster and further . Israel has rejected the ruling and has called it ‘wrong and outrageous’, the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, has described it as a ‘wake up call to Israel and other states who behave in this way’. The emphasis has been to avert tipping points into war which escalate into greater-wider conflict in the area.

This is not what Israel was expecting to hear given the severity and savagery of the acts perpetrated by Hamas on 1,200 people in Israel on 7 October. The question in war time; is not just whether Operation Swords of Iron, was not just disproportionate in action, but were these acts of genocide, or war crimes? Therefore, it will be important for the ICJ to keep cases, those which comply with war crimes and those of genocide, which are different, but criminal in nature by international standards. Both sides in the Israel-Hamas war are being judged, but this case relates to Israel only and although the argument of self-defence was heard, the Court is concerned with charges of Genocide only – and Israel did not put in a counter claim of Genocide by Hamas on Israel.  It may be that the greatest number of people have been affected by the action, are of the opposite group – the impact on innocent Palestinian civilians as an ethnic, religious, and cultural group; as opposed to Hamas which is a proscribed terrorist group and relatively much smaller, to the populations of Palestinians and Israel.

Both Britain and the USA must be seen to be compliant to the ruling, as the UK sent a warship to the Red Sea near Gaza, initially to support Israel militarily. It is expected that this ship would be used for humanitarian purposes, as well. The ruling of the court stated that that the Palestinian People of Gaza must not be damaged physically, mentally and that children being born must be protected. This may also include damage to physical property.  It is expected that the UK will act responsibly and comply with international law, and use current military assets for humanitarian purposes, with regards to the people of Palestine. It is unclear at this stage, how much more Israel, will respond in either further attacks, or compliance with the measures issued by the Court, within a month.

Potential Gamed Moves

The international community will not support the continued bombing of civilians in Gaza who have been ‘evacuated’ from North Gaza into “an ever smaller area”, as described by the UN Secretary General, who has raised concerns of the humanitarian plight of the Palestinian people, and the loss of life and the inability of the population to move between borders; through safe crossings, to Egypt, or receive vital humanitarian aid. Aid Agencies such as the UN and the Red Cross are overwhelmed as poverty, dysentery, skin diseases spread, and people die due to their wounds, and lack of access to fresh food and water, and safe shelter, children have been the most affected. 500 listed individuals with dual nationality have been allowed to pass into Egypt as nationals, or as foreign nationals only. The concern is that the population will die due to injuries, disease, and starvation. This is unacceptable, and the PM of Israel has refused any negotiations on a ceasefire or a two-state solution, which is unacceptable to the UN and the international community which have condemned the Israeli Governments actions.

Therefore, Israel may be made to act and enact a ceasefire – when it decides to do so will be key.  It is under international pressure, from key allies like the USA who it expects will agree or ignore its policy towards Palestine. The policy relays on Western power support, whose own populations reflect the splintering of public opinions represented in protests and rallies, with ever increasing support for a ceasefire. Reactions can destabilise politics at home at elections in the UK and the USA. Israel may bide its time, as the call for a ceasefire may have less significance if President Biden loses the next election, commitments to a war in Ukraine and any future influence in the Middle East, may be of much lower priority, as Republicans may choose to create a different international narrative around the conflict and emerging regimes, which does not align with the current Democratic rhetoric.

Options for Israel – the Israel Perspective

• Restructuring for the good solutions found in Federalism and a single state solution.  In the past, papers were published on a single state solution. With the backing of the international community, could see Israel under a single unitary state absorbing Palestinian populations into a Federal, or Con-Federal arrangement, described by Benjamin Witt in 2018 into a single state called Israel. His work reflects on the 2014 proposal of carving Israel into Cantons, states, and Provinces, written and discussed by Judd Yadid and Carol Strenger (available in Law Fare).[21]  All these proposals inevitably involve Palestine, although not directly described.  In terms of modern Democratic arrangements, in theory, the proposals seem sound, and would be a rational and solution, should a two-state solution or Palestine fail to structure and support itself and gain recognition from the international community as a sovereign state.  Such proposals in peace time, may appear attractive to those in support of Zionist claims over land and Holy sites. Co-existence would require high degrees of tolerance, equality, respect, and trust from both communities.

• In response to conceptions of a working apartheid in Israel, the response from the proponents of these conceptions of a new state structure, suggest that this would be the method of removing the perceptions of apartheid which have evolved to divide Palestinians and Israelis. Today, in the post-7 October world, this seems ever more unlikely, and splintered. The rights of Palestinians and their voice, unheard or possibly left to Western conceptions of natural law.  However, Israel is a Middle Eastern state shaped by Zionism and further research shows that there is some tradition of brit,[22] federalism in Israeli politics and theory, and it is a distinctly Jewish resolution, or intended experience of federal arrangements, which was explored in the 1970-80s, as impossible solutions to state administrative problems and identity. (Mollov 2007). Daniel Elzar is quoted in the work of Mollov, published in JCPA in 2007, as having published several books on the topic, one being Kinship and Consent: The Jewish Political Tradition and Its Contemporary Uses.[23]

• This idea was based on a single unitary state theory, which contained a homogenous population. Right-wing ideology, has made much of these ideas more recently, reviving conceptions around religious identity rooted in this tradition of brit and which may still be moulding conceptions of this kind as solutions for today’s problems, which would be defined differently by more liberal proponents of the concept. Brit is rooted in a deeply religious conception between man and God, and like many nations states, these conceptions remain important in shaping purpose and intent. Much like Western Political Theory has shaped our own European notions of man and self. It is therefore not secular in origin, but Federalism can be a secular concept in modern political theory.  Whether this can be in Israel is something, I cannot answer, but it is not an unaccepted possibility amongst Israeli Secular Society.  It therefore appears to offer some solution across religious and nonreligious sections of Israeli society.  Sometimes the Palestinian view that also supports a single state solution, in which the land of Gaza and the West Bank are included in Israel are also ignored and rejected, sometimes in a devise manner, which means a serious consideration of a unified state and people living side by side under equal legal terms are overshadowed, by right-wing and extremist ideology on both sides. Such pressures on the political infrastructures, makes it difficult to negotiate a peace settlement of this kind – but it is not impossible.

• Rationale: This would allow Israel-Palestine to police its boundaries, determine tax revenues, general elections, and determine the direction of policies associated with state infrastructure, such as defence, security and resourcing, including the two countries’ food security in its totality. This of course is in conflict with the two-state solution, as there are questions of trust and treatment of the Palestinian communities and their equal rights, which they believe today are restricted by Israel daily, basic things such as education, water, food and land, to move and live freely and to have respect of their cultural identity as distinct and of equal value is threated by parts of Israeli Society and access to jobs and employment are still denied in some instances; as well as the right to have businesses which are largely agricultural in Israel are often limited, due to historic arrangements, where land was bought and restricted to Jewish owners. 

• Access to religious sites, therefore, seems to be a lower priority then the basic need for protection and sanitation, education, healthcare, and the right to life. Key questions exist therefore, as to what the state of Palestine would be willing to give up; in order to have an independent state, and whether Gaza and the West Bank will always remain part of that solution, or be restructured in some way as the Israeli government have suggested publicly, since 7 October, to those searching for peace and co-existence and those on the right-wing of Israeli policy, may now believe that they are closer to achieving those aims.

• A two-state solution: Under UN arrangements, resolution a two-state solution is the main fix all approach, providing two distinct populations with the possibility of long-term survival of two distinct populations, with different identity, culture, and government – Palestine being found in Gaza and the West Bank. It would assure its more homogenous populations, free and fair elections, democratic government, freedom, and equal rights.  Two-states, one of Palestine and one of Israel living side by side.  It is the most favoured option and the one that the international community prefers and supports.  What models of democracy and government these two states would take after the Hamas-Israeli (2023/24) war in the future, are little discussed publicly, but the assumption that the promise of a two-state solution is not for negotiation – has been made clear by the UN and even Israel’s allies, the UK and USA. The assumption diplomatically, is that when certain thresholds are met, then discussions can begin. Oslo Agreements and two Camp Davids historically have failed to make the agreed resolution a full reality without conflict.

• Criticism of the two-state solution: The problem is its failure to resolve the inequality between the two states the Israeli settler moves into Palestinian territory and violence from these communities, which are no longer contained by the IDF and Government. The economic and sovereign inequality between the states means that the model may be constantly always likely to fail.[24]  This is the argument for a single state. “One … secret of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is that the difference between the one-state solution and the two-state solution is at least a little bit less than meets the eye. Two states, after all, does not quite mean two real states. One state would be demilitarized; it would be entirely dependent on the other economically; and it would have certain other de facto or de jure limitations on its sovereignty. Some argue that the concept of Palestine is therefore not sufficiently real within the two state solution, the lack of specific support and state recognition has a times meant that the critics (of a two-state solution) have been proven right.” [25]

• One important thing about Witt’s political rationality, is his perspective. Everyone does want a solution and many Israelis’ support a two-state solution. “…while large numbers of both Palestinians and Israelis still support a two-state solution in principle, the leadership of neither side is either able or willing to get there. This level of dysfunction on either side alone would be enough to preclude a two-state deal. The dysfunction on both sides—which is mutually reinforcing—all but guarantees that for the foreseeable future, progress will be incremental and set against a larger pattern of drift. That drift has been—and will, I suspect, continue to be—toward a reality in which separation is ever harder.” [26]

• The success of a two-state solution after the Israeli-Hamas war hinges on the ability of the international community to support Palestine, its population and economy and political infrastructure.  It cannot be a two-state solution if Israel, continues to attack Gaza. One means of doing this is to secure the continued existence of a Palestinian land and the population, with UN Keeping Forces and charities as the area will be too unsafe for normal UN civilian support without backup. There would then need to be a period of reconstruction – monies need to be committed – to support the emergence of a Palestinian state again. But the right-wing President, Benjamin Netanyahu, has very recently rejected the idea of a two-state solution and has rejected the USA, and UN approach for a solution based on the argument for two separate states.[27] (The UN favours a two-state solution). One concern is the violence which may ensue once the reality of a two-state solution is being formed and created territorially.

Inevitability of a single state? Historical consequences.

• Had the attacks on 7 October 2023 not taken place, would the West have continued to ignore and not progress the two-state solution diplomatically is a difficult question to answer. There was certainly evidence of the lack of impetuous and priority over the years, and certainly the lack of resolution or solutions for the Palestinian populations. Some organic integration and Israeli peace activity assured coexistence and Israeli has itself had a small Arab-Palestinian population, which is integrated. It is not impossible to believe that a single state solution may have simply just evolved, organically and without interference, despite larger Palestinian opposition in Gaza.  But what sort of state could it become?

• Hamas can never be justified, nor its actions, their denial of Israel makes a diplomatic solution more difficult and therefore a single state solution would be subject to terror.  Israelis deserve a home state, but so does Palestine – the location was always going to be the same one.  How it was achieved, may be indefensible today, but undeniable after the Holocaust.  The loss of sovereignty for Palestine was in part formed out of Western and Allied interests during 1945-7, and the breakup of the Ottoman Empire before World War II and the desire for the survival of a people persecuted. It may have been a mistake by Imperial powers to overlook the importance of an Arab nation entity and a sovereign land called Palestine under international law, but the rules-based regime in which we live today was still in its infancy.  It would have been useful to do so, before the 1945 Displacement of populations occurred, and it was known, that it would cause problems in the future.

• It is best not to deny history, but to understand and accept it.  Although history cannot be undone, it can be understood providing a depth of understanding of the region and the responsibility which those European nations have, in ensuring the rights of Palestinians as well today. British Government Cabinet Papers from 1915 known as the Herbet Samuel Memorandum of Palestine[28], reveal soo much of the UK Government thinking and there are gaps which suggest that intelligence of the region and its culture was largely ignored, and unknown. Imperialism shaped what is in existence today and the conflict has existed since before 1945. Further historical reading, and more recent publications from 2022 on historical analysis of region suggest that there were key Imperial interests for which Britain brokered with France at this time, which tipped into ignoring Arab states and Palestine.

• Israel may want to write its own story of events and for those details of Jewish identity not to be lost or reinterpreted differently. This is an understandable position, but international law may well interpret these actions differently to Israel and we await the outcome of the ICJ at the Hague in full – within a month an update on compliance with new measures, or at the very least history will question the legitimacy of the current level of bombardment on Gaza, and the humanitarian consequences and the unnecessary loss of civilian Palestinian life. The consequences of which have the very real possibility and prospect of bringing Western Allies into a wider war in the Middle East, as Israel contends with continued conflict with its neighbours; Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, and Iran on an almost daily basis since 7 October, suggesting an escalation and intensity in the conflict, which if speeded up much more, would result in Regional war, bringing the UK and the USA into conflict in the region. 

• However, both nations have been brought closer to the conflict in the Red Sea as they respond to piracy of trading ships, from the Iranian, Yemeni militia group, the Houthi’s who have sought to mix the Israeli-Hamas conflict in Gaza, with criminal attacks, which may have been intentional and intended  in order to gain support from Arab states, despite their actions being criminal, in maritime law – it has been an attempt to change public perceptions of their actions.

One final point

What happens then also to Maronite Christian communities in Israel? Those original speakers of Aramaic and early Christianity who were protected by the Orthodox Church are crushed daily by the conflicts that exist. Many do not have access to foods which are running out even outside Gaza.  There are too, Christian Palestinian, grouped together and persecuted as a single Palestinian entity, with little rights. Where are their voices in this conflict?

One important thing about Witt is his perspective, everyone does want a solution and many Israelis support a two-state solution.

“…while large numbers of both Palestinians and Israelis still support a two-state solution in principle, the leadership of neither side is either able or willing to get there. This level of dysfunction on either side alone would be enough to preclude a two-state deal. The dysfunction on both sides—which is mutually reinforcing—all but guarantees that for the foreseeable future, progress will be incremental and set against a larger pattern of drift. That drift has been—and will, I suspect, continue to be—toward a reality in which separation is ever harder.”[29]

Conclusion

Several things will determine the conditions for a prospective roadmap towards Peace and whether there will be diplomatic moments ripe for picking, and whether it is a single or two-state solution which will emerge given the current leadership in Israel.

• Who is next President of the USA and what military commitments will be given to Ukraine and Israel – Middle East stability in the region is currently vital for European interests, but less likely to be a priority for Republicans, nor a prospective President Trump. Other international diplomatic spats could cause a rift between Arab states, who considered The Abraham Accords and normalisation of relations with Israel, Saudi Arabia was undecided and may decide not to recognise Israel without a ceasefire. Destroying the stability which the Abraham Accords could provide – damaging future relations with Saudi Arabia-USA in the processes. Biden has restored relations with Saudi Arabia, and these may be quite different under President Trump; at the very least they will take a different emphasis and possibly a quieting in diplomatic relations.

• Whether PM Netanyahu can delay an election and ceasefire long enough for a next US Presidential election, to suggest that this is what he will do entirely; given the seriousness of the case, at the ICJ is sceptical, but a likely strategy. His political career in the present Government is said to be at its end. So any new President may be dealing with an entirely new PM in Israel.

• The ICJ Ruling on whether Israel has committed cases of genocide through political and policy direction, through intent and actions, can speed up the process to enable international intervention through the UN, and Peace Keeping initiatives, which would require the commitment of several nations attracting the likely support from the present administration under Joe Biden. Continued commitment from the USA could be hampered if a President Trump were to be in charge in 2025. Soo a sustainable coalition of Peace Keeping initiatives would have to be designed to allow an initiative to begin, which could risk losing support from a powerful nation state later, politically and militarily. NATO also risks losing financial support, compromising the war in Ukraine and the aims of European Allies. Israel must show moderation and restraint now to achieve a coalition of support in any future action.

The pain and losses of war – Psychology and preparedness, mental health of a Palestinian nation, their resilience as an ethnic group and whether they can survive have been tested daily.  A solution is essential for their survival. But Israel does continue feeling antisemitism.

@ResearchCapacity. Copyright .

---

[1] Case filed at the International Court of Justice at the Hague (2024) Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel) 11, 12 and January, with Summary of ruling published on 26 January 2024. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (Sou (icj-cij.org)

[2]Israeli Intelligence dismissed information about planned attacks by Hamas on Israel.  Israeli intelligence ‘dismissed’ detailed warning of Hamas raid (ft.com)

[3] Published Case presented by Israel at the ICJ, detailing attacks,  CR 2024/2 (icj-cij.org)

[4] Chatham House, professor Yossi Mekelberg, 17 January 2024, When Netanyahu falls, Israel’s democracy will need new political realignments | Chatham House – International Affairs Think Tank

[5]Article details Israeli people also displaced by the Israeli-Hamas war. 60,000 internal Israeli refugees, as Sderot largely evacuated | The Times of Israel

[6] Lebanon, Hizbullah and Financial Lessons of the Past | Royal United Services Institute (rusi.org)

[7] US Navy Secretary Speaks at RUSI on the Houthi Threat | Royal United Services Institute.

[8] Pakistan-Iran diplomatic ties restored after missile and drone strikes – BBC News

[9] Lebanon, Hizbullah and Financial Lessons of the Past | Royal United Services Institute (rusi.org)

[10] Abraham Accords: UK government policy – House of Lords Library (parliament.uk)

[11] Gaza, Qatar, and the UAE: The Abraham Accords After Operation Guardian of the Walls | The Washington Institute

[12] Syria: The story of the conflict – BBC News, Fears of growing regional conflict as strike kills five Iranian guards in Syria | Israel-Hamas war | News UK Video News | Sky News

[13] The people of Gaza need a UN protection force | Gaza | The Guardian. One problem lies in Israel allowing enforcement set in place by the measures ruled on 26 January to prevent damage to Palestinian civilians.

[14] SSN-AUKUS: Opportunities, Risks and Implications | Royal United Services Institute (rusi.org)

[15] NATO marks the start of Exercise Steadfast Defender 2024

[16] Defence secretary warns of further wars with Russia, China and Iran in next five years | The Independent

[17] UK needs to be ‘prepared’ for war – Grant Shapps – BBC News

[18] CR 2024/1 (icj-cij.org) Notes from the case published by the ICJ and video footage, page23.

[19] Ibid page 26, extensive damage to Palestinian people and homes in Gaza and food and fuel limited, pages 27 -30.

[20] The Court indicates provisional measures (icj-cij.org), The Courts Provisional Measures, 26 January 2024.

[21] Imagining a Federalist Israel: Notes Toward a Disruptive Fantasy | Lawfare (lawfaremedia.org)

[22] Daniel J. Elazar: Federalism, Brit, and Implications for Israeli Society | Jerusalem Center For Public Affairs (jcpa.org)

[23] Daniel Elazar, “The Jews’ Rediscovery of the Political and Its Implications,” in Daniel Elazar, ed., Kinship and Consent: The Jewish Political Tradition and Its Contemporary Uses (Ramat Gan, Israel: Turtledove, 1981), 1-17, at 9.

[24] Jamie Dettmer, Politico The two-state solution is dead. Why pretend anymore? – POLITICO, 19 January 2024.

[25] Benjamin Witt On Strategy, Law, and Morality in Israel’s Gaza Operation | Lawfare (lawfaremedia.org)

[26] Ibid, On Strategy, Law, and Morality in Israel’s Gaza Operation | Lawfare (lawfaremedia.org)

[27] Rejection of two-State solution by Israeli leadership ‘unacceptable’, says Guterres | UN News

[28] 1915 Cabinet Papers Future of Palestine Herbert Samuel memorandum 1915 CAB 37 123 43 – The Future of Palestine – Wikipedia. Compare with National Archives publication.

[29]Benjamin Witt, On Strategy, Law, and Morality in Israel’s Gaza Operation | Lawfare (lawfaremedia.org)