Durgham Saif

The bloody Battle of Solferino between France and Austria in 1859 is considered a turning point in the history of international humanitarian law concerning armed conflicts. The battle was notorious for its brutality and horrific aftermath—thousands of dead and tens of thousands of wounded were left to their fate on the battlefield. This ultimately led to the establishment of the Red Cross in 1863 and the formulation of international agreements that set rules for the conduct of war, establishing what is permissible and what is prohibited in warfare. The most significant of these agreements are the four Geneva Conventions of 1949. This article argues that the Battle of Gaza marks a pivotal moment in modern international law, overshadowing the brutality of the Battle of Solferino and necessitating a reevaluation of the international conventions governing warfare and the mechanisms for enforcing these agreements.

It has been a year since the genocide in Gaza, a year marked by the sound of devastating bombs and the fading of the voice of international law. Israel has taken international humanitarian law back to the Stone Age—not only in the sense that the strong devours the weak, but that the strong does whatever it wants to the weak with no consequences. In a previous intervention on this platform (“The War on Gaza and the Fall of the Citizenship Discourse,” July 1, 2024), I argued that Israel is a rogue state, as it defies the authority of international law and threatens peace and security in the Middle East. It can also be added here that Israel threatens global peace and security.

We are in an era where right-wing forces are on the rise in many “civilized” and developing nations. The rhetoric of these forces is based on power, racism, and a love for domination and control, as seen in Israel. The Israeli case is not unique in that it, as a rogue state, does as it pleases without accountability; it also receives support from “civilized” and globally dominant nations, which pave the way for and legitimize the excessive use of force in international conflicts. Modern international organizations, including the United Nations and its institutions, such as the International Court of Justice, are struggling to prevent or even manage this behavior. The failure of the international system in the Israeli case reflects its failure in other cases, largely due to a loss of credibility.

The world after the genocide in Gaza needs a new global system. Until that happens, if we apply the principle of reciprocity, targeting civilians becomes permissible, bombing residential neighborhoods becomes permissible, destroying hospitals becomes permissible, destroying universities becomes permissible, bombing schools becomes permissible, forcibly displacing populations becomes permissible, starvation becomes permissible, torturing prisoners becomes permissible, and genocide becomes permissible. If we imagined a shift in the balance of power, could one justify targeting Tel Aviv for the presence of military leadership in the city center, or bombing Ichilov Hospital nearby for treating Israeli soldiers, or bombing Tel Aviv University for the presence of students engaged in the army, or torturing prisoners of war, or committing genocide against all Israelis because they support an occupying government? Of course, the answer is no, but who will enforce international law when its credibility has been buried in the sands of Gaza?

Have we reached the point of no return in international law? Not yet, but we are close. The international system can still play an active role against the rogue state, beginning with the prosecution and trial of war criminals, crimes against humanity, and genocide through the International Criminal Court. This could be followed by the condemnation of Israel for committing genocide and punishing it through the International Court of Justice. Additionally, the perpetrators can be pursued through global justice mechanisms in dozens of countries, culminating in the activation of Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter against Israel to deter, restrain, and punish it. Of course, the prevailing political situation and the dominance of the United States over the United Nations will prevent this, but the alternative is a lawless state of nature or a new global system, new international agreements, and a new judicial framework.

The genocide in Gaza is a decisive moment; the world after it will not be the same, both locally and regionally, as well as internationally. The international system is currently experiencing a period of weakness and decline, much like the international system in its final years during the League of Nations, on the eve of World War II. This ultimately led to the death of the League of Nations and the emergence of the United Nations. Let us remember that the failure of the League of Nations to curb the arrogance of a rogue state at the time, and its loss of credibility, led to the outbreak of World War II. We hope that the failure of the United Nations and its institutions to curb Israel’s arrogance, prevent the genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, and hold the perpetrators accountable will not lead to a bloody regional or global war, one that does not adhere to international humanitarian law, as was the case in the Battle of Solferino, and as is the case in the Battle of Gaza.