Claims of war crimes have increased as many international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) start to tally the atrocities being committed in Gaza. NGOs refer to International Humanitarian Law (IHL), sometimes also called the Law of Armed Conflict when classifying the facts they document. IHL origins stem from the 1949 Geneva Conventions which was ratified by all U.N. member states. This law is also supplemented by rulings at international war crimes tribunals. IHL binds states, like Israel, as well as non-state actors involved in conflict, like the Ezzeldin AlQassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas, the Islamic Resistance Movement. The laws of war are non-reciprocal, meaning they exist independent of actions from the opposing party.

The basic tenet of International Humanitarian Law states that parties must distinguish between civilians and military objectives at all times. Direct attacks on civilians are considered war crimes. When an attack fails to differentiate between civilians and fighters it is an indiscriminate, and therefore illegal, attack; and if civilians are killed or injured in the process, it is a war crime. Disproportionate attacks are those where the expected harm to civilians and civilian objects is excessive and therefore a war crime. Attacks on military objectives must be proportionate; they cannot lead to excessive loss of civilian life or damage to civilian objects. The taking of hostages and using civilians as “human shields” is also prohibited; and all prisoners of war must be treated humanely as enshrined in Article 3 of the Geneva Convention.

In addition, the ratified rules dictate that it is not enough to simply claim civilians were not the target of an attack, as Israel has done when claiming they are targeting Hamas members. IHL dictates that parties must take all feasible precautions to minimize civilian harm; and if an attack might adversely affect civilians, the law requires parties to give “effective advance warning.” If, however, noncombatants are unable to leave the area for a safer one, the warning is ineffective; and a warning does not therefore absolve parties of the responsibility to protect civilian lives. In addition, combatants are expected to take all feasible measures to protect civilians who do not evacuate after a warning. Statements that are clearly intended to spread fear and displace citizens rather than legitimate notices are not considered valid warnings.

Israeli families of victims of the October 7^th militant attacks have appealed to the International Criminal Court (ICC) to order an investigation into the killings and abductions, despite Israel’s opposition to the court, and classify them as war crimes. The Ezzeldin AlQassam Brigades also continues to indiscriminately fire rockets at Israeli targets that include civilian communities. 1,400 Israelis have been killed by these attacks; and over 200 hostages taken, another act International Humanitarian Law prohibits. Amnesty International has called on Hamas to release the hostages and immediately stop the indiscriminate rocket attacks on Israel.

International organizations and activists have also accused Israel of committing war crimes in Gaza, including claims of genocide. While experts are not in agreement on the accuracy of these assertions, a leaked document from the Israeli intelligence ministry has recommended the ethnic cleansing of Gaza. The Carnegie Endowment for Peace reports: “On October 17, the Misgav Institute for National Security and Zionist Strategy—an Israeli think tank founded and led by former defense and security officials—published a paper urging the Israeli government to take advantage of the ‘unique and rare opportunity to evacuate the whole Gaza Strip,’ and resettle Palestinians in Cairo with the assistance of the Egyptian government. Separately, a leaked document from the Israeli Intelligence Ministry recommended forcibly resettling 2.2 million Palestinians from Gaza in the Northern Sinai and constructing a buffer zone along the Israeli border to prevent their return.”

Such actions constitute a premeditated war crime if successful. This is not the first time the Israelis have documented efforts to expel and expropriate. The 1948 Dalet Plan with and the 2011 Begin–Prawer Plan are two examples of expulsion tactics that would fall within the Geneva Conventions’ classification of genocide as the “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”

The clear intent to relocate indigenous peoples coupled persistent, daily Israeli bombing has levelled entire Gaza neighborhoods; and the Palestinians have neither the equipment nor the resources to rescue survivors or dig many of the bodies from the ruins. AlJazeera reporter Indlieb Farazi Saber wrote that the humanitarian crisis in Gaza was already dire; and now “Israeli bombing [has] turned Gaza’s desperate situation into a ‘catastrophe.’” The United Nations reported that at least 8,796 Palestinians have been killed in Israeli attacks since October 7^th with 66% of them being women and children.

Amnesty International released details from their investigation into five specific attacks, confirming that the Israelis perpetrated indiscriminate attacks on residential buildings, a refugee camp, family homes, and a public market. The Israeli Defense Forces bombed Jabalia, Gaza’s largest refugee camp, for two consecutive days without warning or any precautions to protect civilians; and they also forced Palestinians living in the North to move South, sending threatening evacuation pamphlets and recordings. Inexplicably, they also bombed the south to where they had demanded the population move, denying a safe space for civilians to avoid the attacks. Their evacuation order has left more than one million civilians displaced.

The Israeli army claims to only fire at military targets, but in several cases Amnesty International found no evidence of the presence of fighters or other military objectives in the vicinity at the time of the attacks. Amnesty also found that the Israeli military failed to take all feasible precautions to maintain civilian safety. This included not giving Palestinian civilians effective prior warnings, and in some cases not warning civilians at all.

The Israeli military has also been using white phosphorus in their attacks on Gaza, specifically in densely populated neighborhoods. White phosphorus is a chemical that ignites when in contact with oxygen. It causes horrific and severe burns; and it can burn down to the bone. Burns to 10% or more of the human body are often fatal. Human Rights Watch reports: “white phosphorus in Gaza, one of the most densely populated areas in the world, magnifies the risk to civilians and violates the international humanitarian law prohibition on putting civilians at unnecessary risk.”

Another key factor in the war has been the Israeli blockade of Gaza. The Israelis have controlled the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) since 1967; and Israel’s withdrawal of ground forces from Gaza in 2005 did not end this occupation. They have maintained control over Gaza, monitoring its territorial waters, airspace, the movement of people and goods, and its infrastructure, making Gaza an open-air prison for the past sixteen years. Under International Humanitarian Law, the occupying power is required to satisfy the basic needs of Palestinians in Gaza. This includes access to food, water, and electricity. By completely blocking access to these basic needs, as well as bombing Gaza’s communications towers, they have failed to fulfill their legal responsibility. The blockade of Gaza and the blockade on humanitarian aid and basic necessities amounts to collective punishment, a war crime under International Humanitarian Law.

There is little doubt that war crimes have been perpetrated; and the issue now is one of determining scale and accountability. There must be a ceasefire to save lives and end the constant suffering caused by this war. Still, it is vital to remember that the citizens of Gaza were already suffering from a humanitarian crisis before the war began. Simply calling for a ceasefire will not remedy this issue. Gaza needs full access to humanitarian aid, food, clean water, and electricity. Israeli and Palestinian citizens will need time to grieve their losses and recover from this atrocity. To truly make change, there must be more than just a ceasefire in Gaza. The dramatic rise in both antisemitism and Islamophobia across the world will only lead to further negligence and violence. Both parties must be held accountable for the war crimes committed in this conflict; and the international community must be willing to uphold international law or face the consequences of a lawless future.

Americans Trapped in Gaza

There are still hundreds of Americans trapped in Gaza. (Photo from AFP)

The Growing Frustration of Americans Trapped in Gaza

By Jacob Van Veldhuizen

The State Department and the National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan, adamantly stressed that it was Hamas that prevented Americans from leaving through Rafah. Secretary of State Antony Blinken reiterated this on October 31^st, citing Hamas as the singular roadblock to evacuation efforts. U.S. officials have even claimed that Hamas physically prevented anyone from moving through the border. The attempt to shift blame to the militants, however, was finally debunked when Matthew Miller, a Department of State spokesperson, acknowledged that Hamas is not at those gates. In fact, Egyptian authorities control the crossing, having allowed it to open only rarely and unofficially since 2006.

Under an Egyptian Israeli agreement a third party, The European Union Border Assistance Mission (EUBAM), is meant to monitor the Kerem Shalom crossing point at Rafah. This was effectively shut down when Hamas won elections in 2006 and the Israelis decided to place the Gaza Strip under siege thereafter. According to Camera.org, the “shutdown of Kerem Shalom crossing point into Gaza meant that the EUBAM monitors, who are based in the nearby Israeli city of Ashkelon and pass through Kerem Shalom en route to Rafah, could not work. And because the [Agreed Principles for Rafah Crossing Point] APRC dictates the Rafah terminal can’t operate without EUBAM, the terminal was closed. (According to EUBAM, the group is based in Israel because the security situation prevents it from moving to its intended base inside Gaza.)” Humanitarian aid, therefore, is sometimes allowed through albeit unofficially. But since October 7^th, the Israelis have bombed the crossing on several occasions and only a handful of Americans have been permitted to leave as of this writing.

On November 1, a few hundred foreign nationals and the critically wounded were given permission to cross the border into Egypt. There are conflicting reports on whether Americans were a part of those who exited; and numerous reports indicate that some of the wounded who did not have their travel documents were turned back, with claims that some passed away due to the severity of their wounds. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and President Joe Biden claimed Americans passed through; but citizens on the ground say they were told that Americans would have to wait. The government’s approach has not only been contradictory but also facile, given that the Israelis cut off communication and electricity to the Strip.

Following the Israeli declaration of war, the State Department published an online Crisis Intake form where American citizens and their eligible family members stuck in Gaza, Israel, Lebanon, or the West Bank can submit a request for evacuation. The State Department points to this resource as evidence that the U.S. government is trying to bring its citizens safely home. The form is the only method of communication with the U.S. government currently available for those trapped in Gaza. However, since telecommunication has been severed with only intermittent availability, the Biden Administration does not appear to have a contingency plan for remaining in touch with its citizens even though it insists it has spared no effort in ensuring their safe extraction.

One example highlighting the inconsistencies between official and field accounts is the case of Abood Okal, Wafaa Abuzayda his wife, and their one-year-old son, Yousef. Okal relays how he feared for his life trying to access cell reception in an open field where he could easily be mistaken as a militant. He eventually was able to contact his lawyer as well as send voice notes to major media outlets expressing his feelings that he and his family were abandoned in a war zone. American outlets like CBS news, the Boston Globe and others picked up the story.

According to Okal and his lawyer, Sammy Nabulsi, the only people at the border are Americans waiting to leave and the Egyptian military. The Okals and other families say they were told by the State Department to go to the border at Rafah and await further instruction. However, after hours of waiting, they were then contacted by the State Department and informed they would not cross that day. As they waited near the crossing, Israeli shelling continued to fall on or near the crossing.

Another Detroit resident, Zakaria Alarayshi, expressed frustration at the muted effort to evacuate him and his wife, saying he feels like a second-class citizen because of the President’s seeming indifference. He told the media he “did everything right to … live honorably,” paying his taxes and even voting for Biden; but that he felt abandoned.  Alarayshi has since filed a lawsuit against the Biden Administration naming Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin as defendants and claiming U.S. officials showed “disparate treatment” and violated “constitutional provisions that ensure equality under the law.”Administration officials have done little to mitigate the perception that Palestinian-Americans were not a priority. The State Department and the National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan, contradicted themselves in private correspondence with those in Gaza. They publicly blamed Hamas yet informed Americans stuck in Gaza that delays were “the result of a failure to lock up a diplomatic agreement among Israel, Egypt and the terrorist group.”  They have been providing conflicting narratives to convince the public that they indeed have the situation under control. However, families in Gaza and their representatives have exposed Administration claims as inaccurate at best. The U.S. appears to be either unable or unwilling to make any significant headway as relates to American citizens in Gaza. The official statements come across as a deflection of any accountability or blame for the government’s inaction; and the outcome of the Alarayshi lawsuit may affect how future administrations deal with similar situations.

War in Ukraine

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken is seen making a case for continuing support for Ukraine. (Photo from AFP)

What’s Next for Ukraine?

By Colin Bailey

Ukraine’s General Valery Zaluzhny says the war with Russia is at a stalemate. His nation has appealed to the West for more weapons; and Congress is faced with the difficult choice of how to respond. The volatile Palestinian-Israeli conflict has not only taken the world’s eyes off Eastern Europe, but it also risks affecting the funding and resources to the beleaguered Ukrainian forces. Many Ukrainians fear that the country will not receive the backing it needs to continue its counteroffensive against the Russian military given that the United States government has committed significant resources to the Israelis and American politicians like Nikki Haley are keeping the pressure on to give them “whatever they need.”

Press coverage of the war in Ukraine has declined drastically with headlines and talk shows immersed in the more recent Middle Eastern turmoil. While Western editorials and politicians had previously lionized the Ukrainian defensive war against Russian invaders, their attentions are now focused on the existential threat to Israelis. There is a stark contrast between social media platforms with a significant number of content creators expressing sympathy for the Palestinians, while the media has focused its efforts on highlighting allegations of militant terrorism and the Israeli right of self-defense. The dichotomy is equally evident in coverage of rallies and demonstrations with pro-Palestinian protestors often characterized as antisemitic and Hamas sympathizers.

Pressure from pro-Israeli organizations is evident in the high volume of sponsored campaigns that seek additional funding for the Israeli military, donations for families of hostages, and neutralizing the narrative on campus. For example, the Hillel Foundation for Jewish Campus Life is running a campaign stating, “Hillel International President CEO Adam Lehman and Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO and National Director of the ADL, call on university leaders to speak out and take the actions needed to ensure they are creating a safe, inclusive, and equitable environment for their Jewish students.” The Jewish Community Federation Council of Greater Washington also ran a sponsored campaign seeking support as they help “Jewish teens as they try to navigate difficult conversations with their peers while also facing repeated incidents of antisemitism and anti-Zionism.”

The campaigning and political pressure prompted President Joe Biden to propose a deal providing the Israeli and Ukrainian governments with billions in federal aid. Biden’s proposed plan encompasses $106 billion total in funds distributed between Ukraine, Israel, bolstering defenses in the South China Sea, and continuing construction for a border wall along the US border with Mexico. The lion’s share has been allocated to Ukraine at $60 billion, a significant sum given that “[s]ince the war began, the Biden administration and the U.S. Congress have directed more than $75 billion in assistance to Ukraine, which includes humanitarian, financial, and military support, according to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, a German research institute,” as reported by the Council on Foreign Relations in September.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin addressed a congressional hearing on October 31^st advocating for the bill. They stressed that funding for Ukraine and Israel was essential to the national defense of the United States. Although there is broad support for providing the Israelis with additional funds, many members of Congress indicated that they were less enthusiastic about providing more aid to Ukraine. The Biden plan has been met with resistance by republican lawmakers who believe that the US has provided enough aid to Ukraine. Several of them have proposed to separate the large funding bill into smaller, manageable funding allocations. Republicans in the House of Representatives have passed an alternative plan that aims to defund the Internal Revenue Service and provide the Israelis with $ 14.3 billion through a standalone bill. The standalone proposal ties aid to spending cuts; but the Senate appears to be on track for a bipartisan block of the bill. The debate has shifted the conversation further away from Ukraine, which reflects a public mood more concerned about the Middle East than Ukraine.

Polls conducted by NPR, PBS, and Marist in the United States report that 85% of Americans fear that the Israel-Hamas war will grow into a regional conflict. These fears have merit given the missile attacks by Houthi and Hezbollah forces. Support for the Ukrainian War had already begun to wane over the issue of funding; and will likely decline further as the Palestinian-Israeli war continues to evolve. A recent Gallup poll indicates the number of Americans who think too much aid is given to Ukraine has increased from 29% in June to 41% in October.

Ukraine has also taken a backseat to the Israeli war in Europe the public and parliamentarians divided over continued support the Balkan nation. Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico has threatened to veto the European Union’s continued military aid to Ukraine. He stated, “[w]e are ready to help, but not militarily, because I do not believe in a military solution to this conflict in Ukraine” during the European Union summit in Brussels. Fico is not alone in his views. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán declared: “Today everybody knows but they do not dare to say it out loud, that this strategy [of sending money and military aid] has failed.”

Hesitancy to support Ukraine comes as the Russian military continues a military offensive in Avdiivka. This campaign which began in early October has seen the largest loss of life in the Ukrainian War this year. Russia’s major military push has begun ahead of winter during which they may lose any tactical leverage. Current projections indicate Russia will suffer heavy losses as it attempts to make gains during a season where ground conditions will bog down any advancing troops.

While it is premature to believe American backing of its Ukrainian ally will be significantly reduced, unfolding events in the Arab region may affect the scale and speed of commitment politicians and the public may now be willing to dedicate. The Ukraine-Russian stalemate will likely last until spring; but if Western support wavers significantly more by then, Putin may view the hesitation as an opportunity to implement an even more aggressive offensive. This may prompt renewed investment on the Ukrainian front but only insofar as there is public support for the effort as the nation nears a Presidential election. Regardless of a Ukrainian victory or defeat, however, Russia will not be a broken nemesis. Thomas Graham aptly notes in a Politico piece, “the challenge for the United States is not to defeat Russia, as much of the American foreign policy establishment would now have it, but rather to skillfully exploit relations with a rival to construct a new global equilibrium that advances American interests.”