Featured

The 1967 Arab-Israeli War revisited

Published

2 years ago

June 9, 2023

I was ten years old after the 1967 Arab-Israeli War when Israel occupied the West Bank in June 1967. Then, I didn’t fully grasp what was happening to us. Arab radio stations transmitting from Cairo, Damascus and Baghdad had been galvanizing us into believing that Israel’s days were numbered and that Arab nationalism, which nearly replaced Islam as our de facto religion, would soon tear up the Zionist entity to smithereens.

We virtually worshipped Gamal Abdul Nasser, the legendary Egyptian president, who became a god-like figure among most Arabs from Bahrain to Casablanca.

It was far more abominable to curse the ultimate leader of Arab nationalism than to curse the Almighty. Under such circumstances, achieving victory over Israel, the darling of the West, was tantamount to indulging in day-dreaming.

I remember I once asked Professor Hamed Algar, Professor of Ottoman History at the University of California at Berkeley, for his opinion of Nasser.

He described him as “the second major disaster to hit the Muslim world after Mustafa Kemal Attaturk“.

So you can imagine the gigantic shock and disappointment we suffered when all of our dreams were crushed when all these charismatic leaders proved to be mere contemptible little men who excelled in rhetoric and in repressing their peoples but failed utterly in the confrontation with Israel in the 1967 Arab-Israeli War.

A Narrative Story pre-the 1967 Arab-Israeli War

Four years before I was born, a great calamity had befallen my family.
The Israeli army murdered three of my four paternal uncles, Hussein (28), Mahmoud (25), and Yousuf (23). The three, all simple and impoverished shepherds, were grazing their flock of sheep and goats near the village of Al-Burj along the so-called armistice line, 22 kilometers south-west of the West Bank town of Hebron. Together with my three uncles, a number of other relatives, including a woman, were also shot dead. In fact, the Israelis not only nearly wiped out my entire family, but also seized our sheep herd, upon which our total livelihood depended to a large extent.

This calamity condemned us to a life of misery and abject poverty for many years to come. The Red Cross and the Red Crescent didn’t run active services in our region at that time, so we were left to endure our fate alone. I remember my late father telling me that the Jordanian government gave us two goats free of charge, as compensation for the tragedy. My family viewed this as a kind of insult added to injury.

Thus, my family had to live in a cave for 21 years. The misery, the suffering, the poverty and the harshness of daily living were conspicuous aspects of our life. Interestingly, to this day, the Israeli government has neither apologized for the crime nor compensated us for our stolen property.

The 1967 Arab-Israeli War: Would zionist jews say “mea culpa”?

Imagine, just imagine, how rabid and vitriolic Jews would be if they were in my shoes. None the less, these self-absorbed and self-worshiping Zionists still have the Chutzpah to accuse their victims of being ” terrorists and anti-Semites.” Isn’t this discourse tantamount to fornicating with truth and history? Well, in the final analysis, shamelessness has always been and will always be the main feature of being a Zionist Jew!

I don’t know when these Jews will say mea culpa to their Palestinian and other victims. Perhaps when kosher pigs fly!!

Well, I do realize that it is too premature, probably naïve, to even evoke such a question. After all, Israel is still murdering Palestinian children nearly on a daily basis.

Many stories to tell!

Of course, our tragedy didn’t stop at losing three men and a number of other relatives murdered and hundreds of sheep stolen by the Israeli government. Much more had been seized from us six years earlier, in 1948, including our farming land in al-Za’ak, in what is now Israel. We were not even allowed to retrieve our belongings, such as bed coverings, household utensils and probably some money that had been left prior to the expulsion at the hands of armed Jewish gangs.

Anybody who might have tried would have been shot on the spot. I heard of several people who had ventured to reach their former homes just across the border, only to be shot dead after having dug their graves.

The take-no-prisoners policy was consistent with the Israeli strategy of ‘cleansing the indigenous Palestinian inhabitants who constituted the vast majority of the population in mandatory Palestine.

To implement this Nazi-like policy, various Israeli gangs, which came later to form the so-called Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), committed numerous wanton massacres against the Palestinians. Some of the most outrageous massacres included Deir Yassin, Dawaymeh, Tantura, Lud and Qastal, but there were many others. The atrocities, carried out knowingly and deliberately by the Jewish leadership, were aimed at terrorizing the Palestinians into leaving. The message was as clear as it was gruesome. “If you want to stay alive, you’ve got to leave.”

Israeli propaganda during the 1967 Arab-Israeli War would tell the world later that the ‘Arab refugees’ left their homes willingly and were not forced into leaving by the Jude-Nazi gangs. I say Judeo-Nazi because when Jews think, behave and act like Nazis they become Nazis.

Interestingly, the Zionists continue to shamelessly generate such big lies to deceive and mislead world public opinion. I strongly believe that Zionist Jews are God’s lying people.

They lie as often as they breathe; dishonesty seems to be a built-in Zionist character. You can not be Zionist and honest at the same time.

Moreover, you can’t support Israel unless you are either completely ignorant or irredeemably unconscionable or both.

Israel itself wouldn’t be able to survive five minutes in an environment ruled by truth, honesty and justice.

Zionist Jews would never admit that Israel and Jews ever did any wrongdoing or committed any crime.

A Zionist would even tell God Almighty “you’re a liar.” Didn’t Jews carry signs in the US reading “Allah is on my ass”? ( I got this quote from Alfred Lilienthal’s famous book The Zionist Connection).

Zionist Jews may not be the most murderous people under the sun. However, they are certainly the most dishonest and mendacious.

Moreover, there is no doubt whatsoever that Zionist Jews are the most racist people under the sun. For these Jews, the life of a single Jew is far more important than the lives of a million non-Jews. For them, non-Jewish life has no sanctity.

The 1967 Arab-Israeli War: Jordanian era

Under Jordanian rule (1951-67), i.e. pre the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, the most important concern for the Jordanian authorities was loyalty to King Hussein and his family. The King was nearly ‘a demi god’ and the entire country, including the media, the security forces and the people revolved around his figure. Hence, the claim often made that Jordan was a king with a country, rather than a country with a king, had a substantial degree of veracity.

Connections to the King and his Mukhabarat (intelligence apparatus) and immediate coterie would automatically put one in a preferential position.

Shouting “Ya’ish Jalalat al Malik al-Muaazam” (Long Live The King), would give one an automatic certificate of good conduct. No wonder, it was a despotic regime based on sycophancy, favouritism, and nepotism.

King Hussein never really made genuine efforts to push back recurrent Israeli incursions, forays and raids on Palestinian population centres in the West Bank pre the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, let alone liberate occupied Palestine. Indeed, the Commander-in-Chief of the Jordanian army in the late 1940s, when Israel was created, and up until March 1, 1956, was a British officer by the name of John Baggot Glubb who came to be known among Palestinians and Jordanians as Glubb Pasha, an honorary title. So, who in his right mind would have expected a British officer to fight the Jews on behalf of the Arabs?

As far as Palestinians were concerned, the most immediate priority for the Jordanian regime i.e. King Hussein was to make sure that they and other Jordanians didn’t pose a threat to the survival, security and stability of the Hashemite monarchy. A Palestinian would get a six-month prison term if an empty bullet cartridge was found in his possession.

And as the Israelis would do later, the Jordanians enlisted the ‘Makhatir’ (clan notables) to inform on every gesture of opposition to the Hashemite rule within their respective clans and areas. This in turn created a kind of police-state atmosphere all over the country.

Free-minded Palestinians who insisted on voicing their conscience were persecuted and dumped into the notorious El-Jafr prison in eastern Jordan where they were often tortured savagely, even to death. I know of a person from my town (Dura) who was tortured to death for his affiliation with the Communist Party.

Torture is still practiced in Jordan with the knowledge, blessing and encouragement of the United States and Britain. Some of the so-called ‘terror suspects’ held by the CIA were secretly flown to Jordan in order to be ‘softened up’ by Jordanian interrogators.

In the mid1950s, the Jordanian security forces on several occasions shot and killed demonstrators who were protesting the pro-Western policies of the government and the regime’s failure and inability to stop recurrent Israeli attacks. Some of these demonstrators were affiliated with or instigated by the Ba’ath party and the Communists who openly called for overthrowing the monarchy.

As a counterbalance to the leftists, who were quite active, especially in the West Bank, King Hussein allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to operate relatively freely. So it was a kind of divide-and-rule policy.

The leftists would accuse the Brotherhood of being British agents and the Brotherhood would retort by accentuating the atheism and enmity to Islam of the Communists and Ba’athists. Hussein’s relations with the Brotherhood remained relatively stable until the final years of his life when he introduced the one-man-one-vote law, aimed primarily at reducing to the minimum the number of parliament seats the well-organized Islamists could win.

Notwithstanding, the Muslim Brotherhood, or the Islamic Action Front, remains Jordan’s largest opposition party, despite government harassment and constant persecution.

The Muslim Brothers were not British agents or agents of any power. They only wanted to create an Islamic state in accordance with the Sharia. In other words, their strategy and goals were diametrically incompatible with those of the Communists and the Ba’athists. Hence, the mutual sullen hostility.

However, to be honest, the Jordanian regime, especially with regard to how the state treated its citizens, was not as bad and harsh as other Arab regimes, e. g., Syria, Iraq and Egypt. In non-political and non-security matters, the rule of law was generally observed and applied. In general, an individual’s dignity was upheld as long as he or she didn’t criticize the regime or undermine the ‘security of the kingdom.’

More to the point, King Hussein was truly an astute leader. Far from behaving with vindictiveness and vengefulness toward his political opponents, even those who sought to assassinate him and overthrow his regime. The King nearly always pardoned them, showing magnanimity and gallantry unmatched in modern Arab history.

Despite its authoritarianism and despotism, the Jordanian regime never persecuted us in any way even remotely comparable to what the Nazi-like Israelis have been doing to us since 1967. The Jordanians never demolished a home, bulldozed a farm or arrested people for years without charge or trial as Israel has been doing to us.

Yes, ‘wrongdoers’ were arrested and tried and often tortured, but their families wouldn’t be detained, their homes wouldn’t be bulldozed and their farms, orchards and olive groves wouldn’t be decimated as the Israelis routinely do. Jordan actually granted us full citizenship until the late King Hussein severed legal and administrative ties with the West Bank in 1988.

An outstanding exception occurred in 1970, during the so-called Black September events when the Jordanian army battled with PLO guerrillas who The King claimed were planning to take over Jordan and end the monarchy. Some atrocities were committed during these confrontations and many people, Palestinians and Jordanians, were killed. Nonetheless, the ‘September events’ should be considered a kind of anomaly in The King’s relations with the Palestinians.

In general, one can safely contend that there is no comparison between the Nazi-like Israeli occupation rule and the Jordanian era. The Jordanians were not really occupiers, they never behaved as occupiers. In many ways, The King was our king and the Kingdom was our kingdom. Yes, the regime was authoritarian and generally repressive, but, in all honesty, it cannot be compared to the Israelis whose barbarianism, brutal oppression, racism and savagery transcend reality.

Nonetheless, Jordan was (and still is) a weak and poor kingdom, economically, politically and especially militarily. The Israeli army routinely carried out cross-border incursions into the West Bank prior to 1967, murdering innocent villagers, and the Jordanian army was generally too weak and too unequipped to repulse the Israeli aggressors.

King Hussein must have calculated that maintaining a peaceable or even quasi-friendly modus vivendi with Israel was the best insurance policy for retaining his kingdom and the rule of his Hashemite dynasty. I think he was wrong in thinking this way. His non-hostility towards Israel didn’t prevent the Jewish state from pursuing its aggressive policies, which culminated in the occupation of the West Bank in 1967.

King Hussein did make a lot of contacts with Israel even before the 1967 Arab-Israeli War. For example, on September 24, 1963, the director-general of the Israeli prime minister’s office, Yaacov Herzog, met the King in the London clinic of the King’s Jewish physician, Dr. Emmanuel Herbert.

Another meeting took place in Paris in 1965 and Israel was represented by Golda Meir, who was accompanied by Herzog.

It is also believed that Hussein had lots of contacts with the Israeli state through the alumni offices of Boston University.

Post Views: 7,570

Featured

The 20-Point Gaza Plan: A Blueprint for Dispossession?

Published

3 days ago

October 6, 2025

Syed M Sarmad Kazmi

As Gaza’s hospitals ran out of oxygen and children continued to die of hunger, a new “Peace Plan” emerged from Washington. The US President Donald Trump’s 20-Point Gaza Plan was announced recently in late September 2025. It has promised to rebuild Gaza and bring “a new era of stability.” However, to many Palestinians and observers across the world, it sounded like something else: a blueprint to erase what remains of Gaza’s sovereignty. What was initially discussed with the Arab states as a cooperative humanitarian initiative was, by the time of its release, cleverly reshaped. It is rewritten to preserve occupation under a new label.

From Arab Consensus to American Control

Early drafts of a postwar Gaza plan were reportedly framed through consultations among Arab and Muslim nations. They emphasized three principles: Palestinian self-rule, unrestricted humanitarian access, and reconstruction without foreign trusteeship. Yet as negotiations evolved, the plan was absorbed by U.S. diplomacy and redrafted in a way that aligned with Israeli conditions rather than Arab consensus. Several diplomats confirmed that Washington’s version quietly removed any reference to Palestinian sovereignty, replacing it with phrases like “transitional governance” and “security oversight.”

Even before it was officially unveiled, Reuters reported growing unease among Arab delegations, who complained that the new text ignored their agreed-upon points and reflected Israel’s security agenda. Pakistan’s foreign minister stated openly that “Trump’s 20-Point Gaza Plan is not our plan.” The shift marked more than a diplomatic re-edit as it exposed the power imbalance shaping Gaza’s future.

The 20 Points: Promises and Omissions

Publicly, Trump’s 20-Point Gaza Plan claims to rest on four pillars: ceasefire, hostage release, reconstruction, and demilitarization, yet its deeper clauses reveal troubling gaps. There is no guarantee of Palestinian sovereignty, no timeline for Israeli withdrawal, and no provision for international accountability. Instead, it envisions Gaza’s future under external trusteeship, with reconstruction funds controlled by a multinational board led by Washington and oversight committees dominated by Israel and allied states.

Several points speak of creating “safe redevelopment corridors” and “security zones,” terms human rights experts warn could mask forced relocations and demographic engineering. The plan further ties aid to behavior clauses, conditions governance on foreign approval, and places border control under “temporary supervision,” a phrase that critics fear means indefinite control. Amnesty International cautioned that “reconstruction must not become a pretext for displacement or collective punishment.”

In essence, while the plan’s language of peace and rebuilding appeals to diplomacy, its structure embeds dependency and control. To rebuild Gaza without granting it freedom is, as one Palestinian analyst put it, “to rebuild the prison walls, just higher and cleaner.”

The Human Cost Hidden Behind Diplomacy

Behind every clause of this plan lies a humanitarian catastrophe. The World Health Organization confirms that more than half a million people in Gaza face famine-level hunger, and over 360 have already died from malnutrition. The UN’s humanitarian office says 80% of Gaza’s population now depends on aid that Israel continues to restrict. In this reality, talk of “redevelopment corridors” rings hollow. Gaza does not need trusteeship—it needs food, medicine, and an end to the siege.

On the streets of Rafah and Deir al-Balah, survivors of months of bombardment heard the plan’s announcement with disbelief. “They speak of building new homes,” one displaced teacher told a reporter, “but they won’t even let cement cross the border.” Another woman asked, “Who gives them the right to plan our lives while we bury our dead?” These voices reveal the heart of Gaza’s objection: no document signed abroad can substitute for the will of its people.

Resistance and Rejection

Hamas’s initial response to the plan was mixed. The group welcomed references to reconstruction and aid delivery but rejected disarmament and external trusteeship. “No peace built on surrender will last,” its spokesman said. Across Palestinian civil society, activists dismissed the plan as “occupation repackaged.” Hashtags like #NoTrusteeship and #GazaIsNotForSale flooded social media, uniting Gazans and diaspora voices in digital defiance.

Former U.S. diplomat Robert Malley, writing for Le Monde, described the plan as “a maze of ambiguities and potential pitfalls.” His analysis noted that the proposal’s vagueness is deliberate—creating space for powerful states to interpret its clauses to their advantage. It is a familiar strategy: promise reconstruction while ensuring dependency.

Reactions among Arab and Muslim nations were cautious and divided. The Arab League issued a restrained statement calling for further review, while countries like Algeria, Iran, and Pakistan warned that any plan lacking Palestinian representation was unacceptable. Meanwhile, Western governments praised the proposal as a “bold step toward stability.” For Gazans, these words offered little comfort. They have seen such language before in the Oslo Accords, the Road Map, and countless other documents that delivered control, not liberation.

International law offers a clear measure. The plan’s idea of trusteeship contradicts the principle of self-determination guaranteed by the UN Charter and multiple General Assembly resolutions. Legal scholars argue that placing Gaza under external administration without consent would constitute a new form of occupation. The International Court of Justice’s 2024 advisory opinion warned that “peace agreements cannot validate the continuation of unlawful control.” Trump’s plan, critics say, does precisely that.

What True Peace Would Look Like

A genuine peace framework would begin not with political engineering but with justice. It would:

End the blockade entirely, allowing Gaza to trade and rebuild freely.
Place reconstruction under Palestinian-led management, not foreign trusteeship.
Hold accountable those responsible for war crimes and the starvation policy.
Guarantee the right of return and compensation for the displaced.
Empower Gaza’s people to elect their own representatives without external approval.

Anything less is not peace but an administrative occupation.

The Moral and Legal Test for the World

The 20-Point Plan is not a diplomatic breakthrough but a moral test. To accept it as written would mean endorsing a future where Gaza remains controlled by the same forces that destroyed it. It would normalize collective punishment under the banner of reform. And it would bury the core demand that Palestinians have made for decades: the right to decide their destiny.

Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and UN experts have all warned that Gaza’s crisis cannot be resolved through imposed governance. The path forward must restore dignity, not dependency. Yet, while the world debates corridors and committees, Gaza’s hospitals run without light, and its children die nameless in the dark.

The Bottom Line

Trump’s 20-Point Gaza Plan may speak the language of peace, but its structure carries the logic of control. For Gaza, peace cannot be built by those who silence its voice. True reconstruction will not come from Washington or Tel Aviv, but it will rise from the streets of Khan Yunis and the refugee camps that still believe in freedom.

The people of Gaza do not reject peace but subjugation disguised as diplomacy. Their message to the world remains clear: “We will rebuild, but on our own terms.” And until that right is honored, no plan, however polished, can claim the name of peace.

Post Views: 4

Featured

Global Sumud Flotilla Intercepted: Israel’s Naval Siege, Famine and Resistance

Published

3 days ago

October 6, 2025

Syed M Sarmad Kazmi

The Mediterranean dawn on 2^nd October, 2025, was meant to carry a different story. For hundreds of activists aboard the Global Sumud Flotilla, including doctors, artists, parliamentarians, and volunteers from over 37 countries, it was a mission of a lifetime. Their ships carried medical supplies, food packets, and a message written in humanity’s oldest language: solidarity. However, as Israeli naval vessels surrounded them 40 nautical miles from the Gaza Strip, that message was silenced most brutally. Within hours, the flotilla had been seized, its passengers zip-tied and blindfolded, and its aid confiscated.

Israel’s interception of the Global Sumud Flotilla is not just a naval incident but another chapter in the long story of Gaza’s suffocation. In a land already starved by siege, famine, and bombardment, this act tightened the blockade around two million civilians who had endured what human rights organizations now recognize as a continuing genocide.

Gaza in Famine: A Manufactured Catastrophe

According to the World Health Organization, over half a million Palestinians are now living under confirmed famine conditions. Malnutrition has become a silent killer, claiming the lives of more than 360 Palestinians, including 130 children. The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) places Gaza in Phase 5, which is the highest possible level of hunger emergency, categorized as Catastrophic. Gaza’s farms, bakeries, and water networks have been systematically destroyed, leaving families with little more than contaminated water and animal feed to survive.

The famine is not a natural consequence of war but a lethal weapon. Amnesty International has repeatedly stated that Israel is using starvation as a method of warfare, an act that meets the legal threshold for genocide.As per a report of Amnesty International published in October,

“Israel’s deliberate starvation of civilians is a war crime.”

Each blockade, each denied aid truck, and now each seized ship deepens this crime against humanity.

What is the Global Sumud Flotilla?

The flotilla, meaning steadfastness in Arabic, embodied the principle of Sumud, which means unshakable resistance. It consisted of more than 40 vessels and 500 international participants from 37 countries. Departing from ports across Europe and North Africa, it aimed to reach Gaza’s coast peacefully and symbolically challenge Israel’s naval siege. Among those on board were parliamentarians, humanitarian doctors, and activists, including climate advocate Greta Thunberg, united under one flag: human conscience.

Their mission was not to wage war, but to deliver aid and visibility. Yet as their ships neared Gaza, Israeli drones shadowed them, communications were jammed, and warning messages filled the airwaves. Finally came the interception.

The Interception: How the Siege Struck at Sea

Around midnight, Israeli commandos surrounded the final ship, Marinette, approximately 42.5 nautical miles off Gaza’s shore. Activists reported being forced to kneel for hours, zip-tied and beaten, as soldiers confiscated cameras and personal belongings. All contact was cut as the ships were redirected to Ashdod Port inside Israel. The Israeli military justified the action by claiming the flotilla violated a lawful blockade and that “no humanitarian aid was found aboard,” which is a statement disputed by multiple international witnesses.

More than 450 activists were detained, among them citizens of Spain, Italy, Turkey, South Africa, and the United States. Many were held without immediate consular access, with reports of inhumane treatment emerging within days. Amnesty International condemned the detentions as “an unlawful act of aggression” and a “deliberate effort to enforce collective punishment through starvation.”

Before communications were cut, Irish activist Tadhg Hickey recorded a final message: “We sail not just for Gaza’s survival, but for our own humanity. If silence is complicity, then to sail is resistance.” His words have since circulated across social media, embodying the flotilla’s spirit of nonviolent defiance.

Survivors deported to Turkey later described their ordeal. “We were treated like criminals for carrying food,” one volunteer said. “They zip-tied our wrists until they bled, but we’d do it again because Gaza is worth every risk.” Their testimonies echo the voices of thousands protesting globally after the interception, from London to Kuala Lumpur, demanding accountability and an end to the siege.

Law, Morality, and the Machinery of Blockade

The Israeli blockade, in place since 2007, has been condemned as illegal under international humanitarian law. The Fourth Geneva Convention forbids the collective punishment of civilians, and maritime law recognizes the right to deliver humanitarian aid in the face of mass suffering. Yet Israel continues to act with impunity, supported by global silence and diplomatic paralysis.

The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has warned that the blockade constitutes “a form of apartheid and starvation-based warfare.” Meanwhile, the UNRWA reports that 80% of Gaza’s population now depends on humanitarian aid for survival—aid that often never arrives.

Each intercepted vessel, carries a moral weight beyond its cargo. The Global Sumud Flotilla is more than a convoy; it was a reminder that humanity refuses to abandon Gaza to darkness. To criminalize compassion is to declare war on conscience itself.

Global Reactions and Outrage

Governments across the world have expressed alarm. Switzerland, Spain, and South Africa lodged formal protests, demanding explanations for the detention of their citizens. Turkish authorities arranged emergency flights to repatriate deported activists. Protests erupted in Paris, Istanbul, and Jakarta, as demonstrators carried placards reading, “Feeding Gaza is not a crime.”

Yet, in the corridors of power, condemnation remains cautious. Western governments have largely avoided direct criticism, framing the interception as a “security matter.” Meanwhile, humanitarian organizations, from Amnesty International to Human Rights Watch, have demanded that the blockade be lifted immediately and that the international community recognize the ongoing genocide.

The Broader Picture: Gaza’s Siege as Global Failure

The interception of the flotilla is not an isolated act, but the symptom of a global collapse of moral responsibility. While Gaza’s hospitals run without anesthesia and its children starve in makeshift tents, world leaders debate terminology instead of stopping the crime. Every intercepted aid convoy, every silenced activist, marks another day when humanity looked away.

The sea that once connected civilizations now separates the starving from salvation. Israel’s naval blockade is not a shield but a weapon. It starves, isolates, and erases. And yet, every time someone dares to sail toward Gaza, the truth resurfaces: even in the face of warships, the human spirit remains unsinkable.

However, the Global Sumud Flotilla did not fail, but it exposed the blockade for what it truly is: an act of cruelty sustained by silence. It reminded the world that solidarity still sails, that compassion still defies orders, and that Gaza’s struggle is humanity’s test.

Every intercepted ship tells the same story: that courage is contagious, that empathy is rebellion, and that the people of Gaza are not forgotten. The world may build walls of steel and propaganda, but the sea remembers those who dared to cross it—for justice, for life, and for Gaza.

Post Views: 2

Featured

If Law Still Means Anything: What the UN Genocide Finding Demands Next

Published

1 week ago

September 28, 2025

Syed M Sarmad Kazmi

A mother in Gaza scrolls past a headline on a cracked smartphone: “UN inquiry finds genocide.” The generator coughs once and dies. In the quiet that follows, the question is small and sharp: If law still means anything, what happens now?

What does the Finding Mean?

The UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry (CoI) concluded that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza. It has created conditions meant to destroy life. This is not a social media label but a formal UN investigation using the standard of “reasonable grounds to conclude.” It is not a criminal verdict that belongs to courts, but it triggers duties for states and institutions that signed up to prevent and punish genocide.

The findings sit alongside the International Court of Justice (ICJ) provisional measures from January, March, and May 2024 ordering Israel to prevent genocidal acts while enabling humanitarian aid. These orders are legally binding and not just a piece of advice.

What States Must Do Now?

The Genocide Convention creates a duty for every state to prevent and punish genocide wherever there is a serious risk. After a UN genocide finding, the excuses thin out. Here is what action looks like in the real world:

1) Stop Feeding the Fire

Suspend weapons transfers, ammunition, and dual-use items that risk enabling unlawful attacks. Close loopholes in export licenses and re-exports. This applies first to Israel’s closest backers, including the United States and European states. Continuing diplomatic cover, like the sixth U.S. veto of a ceasefire, does not erase responsibility, but it deepens it.

2) Force Open the Lifelines

Use leverage so that aid, fuel, and medical supplies may move now, especially to the north. De politicize access and back neutral monitoring. Protect UNRWA shelters that have been hit again and again.

3) Back the Courts

Cooperate with the ICJ as a state responsibility and the International Criminal Court as an individual responsibility. Preserve and share evidence. If arrest warrants are issued, assist rather than obstruct.

4) Tell the Truth at Home

Launch transparent parliamentary reviews of your government’s role. Publish what was sold, licensed, trained, or shared during this war, and what will stop today.

What Must Change on the Ground?

Law only matters if it touches the day, and in Gaza, that day looks like this:

A Ceasefire that actually holds. Not a pause or a window but a complete halt to bombing that lets ambulances move, families sleep, and aid surge without fear. Moreover, reopening and securing corridors, including the northern ones, where hunger is worst, is a must-have. Restore fuel for hospitals, bakeries, water desalination, and sewage pumps. End the ritual of “approved” lists that starve clinics of surgical kits.

Protect people where they stand by stopping demolitions that erase neighborhoods and block return. Demine unexploded ordnance so children can walk to water without losing limbs. Shield health care from such attacks. Let families find the missing and bury the dead while supporting DNA identification, power labs, and safe access to cemeteries.

“Human dignity is not a luxury.”

The Ledgers that Don’t Lie

Numbers are not feelings, but they make denial harder. The ICJ told Israel to prevent genocidal acts and enable aid, which was a binding order as discussed earlier. It should have been taken seriously. UNRWA also reported multiple shelters struck within days in mid-September, killing and injuring people who fled for safety.

Satellite analysis for the UN found roughly three-quarters of structures in Gaza damaged or destroyed by now, with Gaza City suffering fresh tower demolitions later in the month. We do not list numbers to numb you, but rather to document a few so that history cannot pretend it did not know.

Accountability that Counts

Real accountability is a sequence and not just a slogan. It is the responsibility of states to enforce existing orders of the ICJ. If the Security Council blocks action, take the case to the UN General Assembly under the Uniting for Peace resolution to recommend collective measures, including the suspension of arms, guarantees of aid access, and reliable monitoring.

When it comes to individual accountability as per the ICC rulings, one should support investigations into war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. Share satellite imagery, export records, and military-aid timelines. Do not host or welcome officials under credible suspicion and prepare to act on arrest warrants when they come.

Application of universal jurisdiction is compulsory, including travel bans and asset freezes on specific officials and entities tied to unlawful attacks. Ensure reparations and return while documenting destroyed homes, clinics, and schools. The right to safe, voluntary return cannot be bombed out of existence.

So, if law still means anything, it means ceasefire, access, protection, and true justice. It means the phones in Gaza do more than carry bad news. When the law works, a generator coughs back to life, a surgeon’s lamp stays on, and a shelter door stays standing through the night.

Post Views: 9