The following is a guest post by Thomas Obel Hansen and Felix Vacas Fernández. Felix is an Assistant Professor in Public International Law and International Relations at the Universidad Carlos III de Madrid (Spain). Thomas is the Maria Zambrano 2023-24 Distinguished Researcher with the Universidad Carlos III de Madrid (Spain) and a Senior Lecturer in Law with Ulster University Law School/ Transitional Justice Institute (UK).

Three months into Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, public debate remains mainly focused on the daily disaster that this campaign has brought with it. In a way, that’s understandable because of the large-scale and systematic targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure associated with a military campaign unparalleled in contemporary times both in intensity and level of disregard for international law. 

However, focusing primarily on the immediate violations and the suffering that comes with Israel’s actions runs the risk of distracting from lasting disaster of the potential ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian population in Gaza. In other words, the daily indiscriminate killing and pulverization of Gaza, as awful as it is, risks being the very means of achieving a more lasting objective consisting in ethnic cleansing, which in its own nature could amount to the crime against humanity of forcible transfer of the population, a crime set out in Article 7(1)(d) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The general failure of many to ‘see’ this crime unfolding before our eyes and understanding its full implications arguably has to do with how Western governments and media have generally sought to portray Israel’s campaign as ‘a hunt for Hamas’, a type of anti-terror campaign all too familiar in Western capitals. As countries in the West are now strongly encouraging Israel to take a more measured approach, public attention in the West is mainly focused on the methods – not the broader aims – of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza. When criticism has been levied by Western governments, it is on the manner in which Israel is conducting its military operations, not why it is doing so.

But one only needs to listen to what a litany of Israeli leaders say to understand that the overarching objective of the action taken is to fully destroy and empty Gaza of Palestinian citizens. What is being pursued involves the de-population of Gaza, and by extension an expansion of Israeli territory – or at least the areas under its control. 

Together with the ongoing expansion of settlements and the massive increase in settler violence in the West Bank, the ethnic cleansing ongoing in Gaza could amount to the completion of the Nakba involving the permanent displacement of the Palestine population out of Palestinian territories. If that happens, countries with the power to do so who failed to stop Israel would be liable, at least in moral and political terms and possibly also in legal terms through notions of complicity.

Even if some Israeli decision-makers are blunt about their intentions, the main narrative being presented to justify such a crime suggests that to avoid further humanitarian disaster – to ‘save’ the Palestinians from mass starvation and disease – it is necessary to move the population out of Gaza. ‘Solutions’ presented on that note involve suggestions of a ‘voluntary resettlement’ for ‘humanitarian reasons’, in the first place to Egypt and perhaps later also to other countries in the region, as proposed in a plan circulated among U.S. decision-makers. It takes little imagination to see how this could turn into a permanent displacement of the population in Gaza. 

Importantly, a ‘humanitarian’ narrative presented to justify such displacement overlooks that the already deteriorating humanitarian disaster is not some unforeseen bi-product of war – or one that can be attributed to Hamas – but is one of intentionality among Israeli decision-makers and extends back to the illegal blockade mounted against Gaza, a series of evacuation orders and denial of humanitarian aid. We need to understand this basic intention of the Israeli leadership to understand how the military campaign is being conducted – and its consequences. 

If not, people in the West – even those with good intentions – risk buying into a ‘humanitarian narrative’ likely to be presented in the near future to justify ethnic cleansing, as attention increasingly shifts towards the humanitarian catastrophe in Gazan evacuation zones. To be clear, most political leaders outside Israel are unlikely to endorse such international displacement, but there’s a substantial risk that Western powers and countries in the region could be co-opted into ultimately accepting it, perhaps through some economic incentives such as “payment and financial compensation for settling Palestinians”. 

There is a real risk that Israel will seek to achieve the plan of permanently displacing Gazans unless it is stopped by the actors with the power to do so. Stopping the Israeli government would require not just talk and condemnation of its actions, but clear and firm consequences for that leadership. The lesson so far has been that the Israeli leadership is disinclined to change its course of action under any form of pressure short of action that has significant policy or personal implications. Such measures could include a weapons export ban and the backing of independent judicial inquiries into international crimes by Israeli leaders. 

But that’s far from current reality, as current critique or warnings from the West continue to be coupled with the supply of weapons and support for Israel by the U.S. and a handful of others in the UN Security Council and General Assembly. At the same time, key players have so far resisted judicial scrutiny by international courts, including with regard to the ICC Palestine investigation as well as stated opposition to the proceedings recently initiated by South Africa before the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

Even if only Washington has the leverage to make Israel fundamentally change course, surely European countries and other global and regional powers can help push U.S. decision-makers to reach the conclusion that they should utilize the power that they have to affect Israeli decision-making. And they can create pressure independently too, as evidenced by the ICJ proceedings brough by South Africa.  

Already, the legitimacy of the Western-led global order has been severely undermined through its support for or acceptance of Israel’s military campaign and the double standards they so clearly display in terms of applying relevant international law. This comes alongside the ICC’s inconsistent approach to investigating crimes under its jurisdiction, seemingly depending on whether alleged perpetrators are backed by key Western actors. 

The moral and political price that Western countries are already paying is huge, as the voting at the UN General Assembly indicated, when a resolution demanding an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire” as well as “ensuring humanitarian access”, was overwhelmingly approved despite opposition from the U.S. and a small group of other countries. This illustrates a split in the West (including within the EU), as well as the loneliness of Israel’s supporters within the broader international community; yet, as the world order is currently constructed, the lonely minority has the decisive voice on what ultimately happens. 

In legal terms, if key players in the present Western-led global order end up accepting Israel’s intention to de-populate Gaza, they could be complicit not only in the war crimes already committed through providing the weapons with which they are carried out, but also in the crime against humanity of forcible transfer of population. 

It is about time the West stops being fooled by Israel’s intentions and it stands up collectively to immediately stop massive violations of international law and avoid the unlawful, permanent displacement of Gaza’s population. If not, this will present a devasting blow not only to the Palestinians forced out of their homelands, but also to the credibility and legitimacy of the current global order.