Palestinian children are starving to death while bombs fall around them. Some believe the world should intervene militarily. But is that possible?
– A humanitarian intervention in Gaza is clearly necessary, says Dag Henrik Tuastad, Middle East professor at the University of Oslo.
A humanitarian intervention involves one or more states entering the territory of another state, usually by using military force. The purpose must be to protect the civilian population.
Tuastad calls for a public debate and receives support from international law expert Cecilie Hellestveit.
“Now is the time for a discussion,” she says.
Risk of ethnic cleansing
– The situation has been very serious since May and clearly serious enough for the Security Council to have acted, says Hellestveit.
She refers to Israel's military offensive that began on May 18. Israel intensified its bombing of Gaza and moved in with ground forces in the north and south. In ten days, 180,000 Palestinians were displaced again. According to Israeli officials, the goal of the offensive is to conquer Gaza, then displace the Palestinians.
On Tuesday, the Israeli government's Minister of Research and Technology, Gila Gamliel, published an AI-generated video on X that shows what she believes are Israel's plans for the Gaza Strip:
Gamliel refers to a so-called voluntary migration plan for the Palestinians, which is in violation of international law. This is one of the reasons why Hellestveit believes the situation is serious enough that a humanitarian intervention should be discussed – also by the United States, Israel's closest ally.
– When government members are so clear that they are going to remove a population group from Gaza in order to settle the area themselves, and the means seems to be starvation, then there will be strong expectations that the United States will take action or not sabotage other states' measures to prevent it from continuing, says Hellestveit.
So far, the US has blocked all proposals to recognize Palestine as a state, in addition to demands for an immediate ceasefire.
Sadistic death trap
– What do you think the consequences will be if you don't intervene?
– We are already seeing that, says Tuastad.
Images of starving Palestinian children have dominated the international news landscape over the past week.
In a statement on Friday evening, the German government, along with France and Britain, called for an end to what they call the humanitarian disaster in Gaza.
When Israel's military offensive was launched in May, Israel had already blocked all emergency aid to Gaza for over two months.
In May, Israel took over responsibility for distributing food to Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. The new food stations have been described as sadistic death traps after more than a thousand Palestinians were killed while trying to obtain food.
Does the world have a responsibility to intervene?
– Sanctions work in the longer term, but here we are faced with an ongoing mass killing of civilians, says Tuastad.
The question is what responsibility UN member states have to protect Palestinian lives.
After the genocides in Rwanda and Srebrenica in the 1990s, the UN established a commission to find out how to prevent similar atrocities from happening again. The result was a new principle in international law known as the responsibility to protect.
It is about states having an obligation to do everything in their power when civilians are subjected to international crimes by other states.
– Then the question becomes what is in their power. Here international law sets the framework, says Hellestveit.
According to international law, a humanitarian intervention can only be carried out in two ways:
- The Security Council declares the situation in Gaza a threat to peace and security and decides to intervene. So far, no country has put forward such a proposal in the Security Council.
- Palestine becomes a member of the UN. Then they can ask other countries to intervene by invoking the right of self-defense.
Against all odds, the United States would have vetoed both proposals. The United States has steadfastly supported Israel throughout the war.
Increased pressure on the US
But Hellestveit believes that several things have happened recently that increase pressure on the US and make an intervention slightly more likely:
- Several states have changed their approach over the summer. One is that the United States' closest allies have imposed sanctions on members of the Israeli government. In addition, France has announced that they will recognize Palestine as a state in September.
- An American citizen has been lynched by Israeli settlers.
- In addition, the Gaza plans of sitting members of the Israeli government express an intention to remove the Palestinian population in Gaza, i.e. the condition for genocide.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs also points out that the diplomatic landscape is in flux. State Secretary Maria Varteressian writes in an email that several Western countries that have previously supported Israel's right to self-defense are now sharpening their criticism and considering clearer measures against Israel.
The US must be involved
According to Hellestveit, two questions must be answered before a humanitarian intervention can be discussed: Who will carry it out, and what will happen afterwards?
NATO's intervention in the popular uprising in Libya in 2011, approved by the Security Council, was heavily criticized for its lack of planning. The bombing was crucial to regime change, which was not the UN's stated goal. The country was sent into chaos and a protracted civil war.
According to Hellestveit, work is underway behind the scenes to flesh out plans for what an intervention in the Gaza Strip might look like. The most important thing will be to secure humanitarian support for the Palestinians.
– The Gulf states and Egypt will have a central role as military actors on the ground, she says.
But the United States must be on board if an intervention is to be made legal.
If you intervene without Security Council approval, you risk that international law will lose legitimacy, says international law expert Gro Nystuen. There is a risk that states will intervene at any time where they themselves believe it is right, as Russia did in Ukraine.
– Don't you think that international law can also lose legitimacy if no intervention is made?
“It is clear that the composition of the Security Council, with veto power for each of the permanent members, leads to situations where the international community cannot intervene, even in absolutely terrible situations. This could probably contribute to undermining confidence in this part of international law,” she says.
If one intervenes without the approval of the Security Council, one risks that the great powers, which have veto power for that very reason, will take opposing sides in the conflict. This increases the risk of a great-power war.
