Israel Kills Children as World Looks on

By Luigi Daniele 

Mark these words: South Africa is likely to win the genocide case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), but by then, it will be too late to save a single civilian life. The time for robust action is now.

The resumption of the exterminatory Israeli bombardments on Gaza has killed 174 Palestinian children and toddlers in less than 48 hours, according to Defense for Children International. UNICEF has also denounced the killing of more than 130 children in a single day, representing the largest single-day child death toll among Palestinians in years. This may be the deadliest episode in the history of Israeli military actions in Palestine.

Family members of slain Israeli captives, whose names and faces have repeatedly been used to justify further attacks on Palestinians, condemned their government’s actions as another betrayal of the hostages, with Yarden Bibas writing “military pressure endangers the hostages while an agreement brings them home”, and networks of Israeli families declaring Israeli Premier Benjamin Netanyahu chose Ben-Gvir’s return to the government over the return of the hostages from Gaza.

In the midst of this carnage, Israeli ministers declare “a society that tolerates Hamas sympathizers within it has no right to exist,” or ask the very population they are destroying to “return the hostages and remove Hamas” unless they want to pay a “far more severe price” of “total devastation.”

Ideology of destruction

The ideology of the Israeli leadership is becoming increasingly explicit: It promotes the notion that Palestinians deserve elimination and are responsible for their own destruction. It is a paradigmatically genocidal ideology, typical of all the genocides in history, construing the victim group’s existence as undeserved, its survival as an intolerable threat, brutalities against it inherently justified, ‘called for’, and the forcing of the group into inexistence as a way of restoring the natural order of things as they should have always been. After all, key Israeli ministers declared “there is no such thing as a Palestinian people.” Declaring the inexistence of a people equates precisely to posing the premises for its elimination.

The honesty of the genocidal narratives of the Israeli executive, coupled with the use of hunger, thirst, diseases as weapons of war, reinforces crucially the validity of South Africa’s arguments at the ICJ, and of those states intervening in support of those arguments. As an international lawyer, my guess is that South Africa, even more likely after these renewed atrocities, will win the genocide case at the ICJ.

Despite the all-time record of crimes against children, Western states keep refraining from legal action, even those intervening in other ICJ cases to affirm that, in their interpretation of the Genocide Convention, the victimization of children, as the most vulnerable and crucial component of victim groups, should bring special weight in ascertaining the existence of genocidal intent. Beyond hypocrisy and racist double standards, Palestinian children are portrayed as less human and less worthy of protection than other children.

The irresponsibility of political leaders of third states indeed continues to kill. Silent when not complicit, incapable of acting for a single sanction, some are even offering safe harbors from ICC arrest warrants to their political and business partners wanted for war crimes and crimes against humanity, violating their own obligations as state parties of the Rome Statute.

In sum, the lawlessness unleashed on Palestinians is indeed infecting the world (dis)order, and it is evident that Netanyahu has all the interest in descending the entire region into a state of permanent war to stay in power. The global instability deriving from the winds of regional and global wars (in which the EU is diving rather than shifting its disastrous strategic approaches) will inevitably increase authoritarian repressions against dissidents, oppositions, and alternative visions in many of the countries revolving around this tragic abyss of history. War and authoritarianism always nurture each other. It is therefore not only in the interests of the survival of Palestinians, but a political necessity against the oligarchic shifts in our own countries to demand robust action now.

Protecting lives

Palestinians need a humanitarian intervention of a multilateral coalition to protect civilian lives. This presence alone can tackle an alliance of savage powers devaluing the lives of Palestinians as less than human and extracting profits from their massacres now, while preparing to extract more profits from exterminatory wars globally tomorrow. This would offer an immediate opportunity for world powers genuinely committed to reforming the international order towards a new multilateralism based on sovereign equality, self-determination, and peaceful coexistence to prove that their words are not empty slogans.

In other words, the paradox we face is that even the selfish pursuit of national interests—let alone legal or moral obligations—should be enough to trigger decisive action like the one proposed in this reflection.

A multilateral military presence, under UN auspices, to protect Palestinian civilians appears necessary as never before, since none of them will ever be safe under occupation by forces making clear they consider their existence as a people an offense to be redressed by annihilation. Should a coalition of states promote such an action, it would enjoy the support of masses of citizens across the globe, and gain moral leadership in these dark times, marked by the unchecked rise of international criminality.

Luigi Daniele is a senior scholar at Nottingham Trent University

CrossFireArabia

CrossFireArabia

Dr. Marwan Asmar holds a PhD from Leeds University and is a freelance writer specializing on the Middle East. He has worked as a journalist since the early 1990s in Jordan and the Gulf countries, and been widely published, including at Albawaba, Gulf News, Al Ghad, World Press Review and others.

Related Posts

Trump: The Deal-Maker in Our Midst

By Dr. Ali Bakir

US President Donald Trump begun his Middle East tour on 12 May, starting in Saudi Arabia with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) summit, then moving on to Qatar and concluding in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Trump will be accompanied by a large delegation, including senior White House staff, several ministers, high-ranking officials, and an army of businesspeople. At the core of Trump’s tour to the influential and wealthy GCC states—Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE—will be investments, economic ties, business, and bilateral relationships. The Trump administration aims to attract hundreds of billions of dollars in investments from Gulf wealth funds into the United States.

Expected discussions include Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, Palestinian statehood, negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, and the ceasefire deal with Yemen’s Houthi group. Additionally, Syria and Lebanon may also feature on the agenda. Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa is reportedly seeking a meeting with Trump during his visit to Saudi Arabia, aiming to persuade him to lift sanctions and increase US involvement in Syria’s reconstruction, economy, and oil sector.

Trump critically needs this tour to project an image of a successful leader who has secured hundreds of billions of dollars in pledged investments and deals, as well as closer political and security ties with GCC states. Hundreds of agreements are anticipated during the visit, covering areas such as AI, transportation, minerals, energy, infrastructure, aviation, defense, and potentially broader agreements on semiconductors and nuclear energy.


Matter of prestige

The significance of this tour is heightened by the fact that Trump is facing both internal and external challenges, having yet to achieve any substantial victories in his ongoing struggles. These include the tariff dispute, Israeli involvement in Gaza, the Iran nuclear deal, Russia’s war in Ukraine, tensions with Canada and Greenland, and his ongoing conflict with China. An image of victory during his Gulf tour would help compensate for these setbacks. Gulf leaders are well aware of this and will arrange exceptional welcome ceremonies and generous hospitality for him. In other words, they will arrange a wonderful show for him. This not only caters to his personal ego but also enhances his standing both domestically in the US and internationally, where he is in dire need of a win. The outcome could create a win-win situation. However, it is important to note that not all the promises made during this tour will materialize. While some initiatives may come to fruition, others may remain merely part of the spectacle.

Unlike his first visit to the region during his initial term in the White House, which included Israel, Tel Aviv is notably absent from his current itinerary. This exclusion is quite significant. Under Netanyahu, Israel has little to offer the US president, aside from more problems, a negative image in the region, and a tarnished reputation for the president himself. It serves as a reminder of his failure to achieve a ceasefire in Gaza, largely due to Netanyahu’s unwillingness to pursue it.

In a previous interview following Biden’s election at the end of 2020, Trump explicitly blamed Netanyahu for the failure of his peace initiative with the Palestinians, stating, “Netanyahu never wanted peace.” Amid the ongoing conflict, initiatives aimed at encouraging Saudi Arabia to recognize Israel—an objective pursued by Trump during his first term—are likely to remain on hold. Riyadh has indicated that it requires tangible progress toward a Palestinian state first, a condition that Israel has not been willing to meet. However, Reuters reported this week that the US has shifted its stance and is no longer insisting that Saudi Arabia normalize relations with Israel as a prerequisite for advancing discussions on civil nuclear cooperation.

Desire to appear as dealmaker

Regardless, Trump’s Middle East tour represents more than just a diplomatic engagement with key US allies; it is a calculated effort to reclaim geopolitical momentum and project strength amid mounting domestic and international challenges. The emphasis on economic deals, defense cooperation, and strategic investments highlights Washington’s strategy of leveraging the Gulf’s financial and political capital to enhance Trump’s image as a dealmaker-in-chief. However, beneath the pomp lies a web of unmet expectations and unresolved conflicts.

While Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE are acutely aware of Trump’s need for a symbolic win, they remain cautious about committing to politically costly moves without tangible concessions, particularly concerning Palestinian statehood. Ultimately, this trip may provide short-term optics that bolster Trump’s leadership narrative, but its long-term impact will depend on whether these engagements translate into sustained commitments or fade into the background noise of global challenges.

Dr Bakir is Assistant Professor at Qatar University, and non-resident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council.

Continue reading
Trump’s Middle East Hour

By Mohammad Abu Rumman

President Donald Trump’s current visit to the Gulf holds substantial strategic significance, especially when compared to visits by previous American leaders or other political figures. This is due to two key reasons: the first relates to the current situation in the Arab region, which is undergoing an intense period of regional and domestic turmoil in several countries—making the future extremely difficult to predict. The second reason is Trump’s own personality, marked by unpredictability, surprise moves, and a disregard for the traditional constraints that bind other U.S. presidents.

While it may be premature to judge or fully grasp the surprises or major outcomes that Trump’s visit may bring for the next phase, the man has already, on the eve of his arrival, stirred the waters—overturning many expectations and analyses, particularly in relation to two major files: the Syrian issue and the war on Gaza, including U.S. relations with Israel and Arab states.

On the Syrian file, Trump announced that he is seriously considering lifting or easing sanctions on Syria and offering support to the new political regime there—reportedly at the request of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. This development is especially significant as it runs counter to the Israeli agenda, particularly in the south of Syria, where Israel has sought to incite minority groups, sow chaos, and even occupy parts of the country. It is clear that Trump has not embraced Netanyahu’s highly provocative approach toward the new Syrian regime. Instead, he seems more aligned with the Turkish and Saudi perspectives, despite Netanyahu’s earlier efforts during a visit to the White House to secure a green light for Israeli aggression in Syria and against Turkey—bait that Trump did not take at the time. Now, on the eve of his Gulf visit, Trump has drawn a clearer line by discussing the potential easing of sanctions on Syria.

The second file concerns Trump’s ongoing tension with Netanyahu. While this may appear to be a personal dispute with the Israeli Prime Minister and his political agenda, Trump seems to be distancing himself from Netanyahu’s grip—unlike in previous phases where Netanyahu appeared to dominate Trump’s outlook. How this rift will influence the next phase, particularly regarding the war on Gaza, relations with Iran, and the broader American vision for the region, remains one of the most critical questions—especially when assessing the growing divergence from the Israeli right-wing narrative.

Much has been said about the reasons behind this divergence—some even call it a crisis—between Trump and Netanyahu. Israeli and American media have widely covered the issue. However, what this writer leans toward is the idea that the Saudis have thoroughly studied how to deal with the new president. They found a way to draw him away from the Israeli perspective by offering him the deal of his dreams: the prospect of a peaceful resolution that would lead to the establishment of a Palestinian state—potentially bringing him a Nobel Prize—ending the war in Gaza with terms favorable to both Americans and Arabs, lucrative commercial deals, normalized relations with America and Israel, strong regional ties, and many other major gains. Why, then, would Trump reject all of that and blindly follow Netanyahu and his far-right team?

The Saudi leadership’s role in the current phase is crucial. They are driving a major shift in the Arab approach to regional policy. Their cooperation on several issues with Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, and the UAE is helping to correct the significant imbalances that have emerged since the Israeli war on Gaza.

That said, it would be inaccurate to claim that Trump has made a full pivot. He remains unpredictable—full of surprises and a master of reversals. Moreover, despite the wide latitude he often enjoys, there are boundaries he will not cross. He may be entering a phase of tension with Netanyahu, but he is unlikely to go so far as to harm Israeli or joint U.S.-Israeli interests. He is well aware of the entrenched domestic base, the powerful lobbies, and the political minefields involved. His room for maneuver is limited. Still, this moment may represent an opportunity to widen the gap between him and Netanyahu—even if the regional reality is complex and the current Palestinian reality even more so. We must also be careful not to raise expectations too high!

The writer is a columnist in Jordan Times

Continue reading

You Missed

Israel Kills 1 Woman Per Hour

Israel Kills 1 Woman Per Hour

Doha Signs Deals of $1.2 Trillion With Washington

Doha Signs Deals of $1.2 Trillion With Washington

Trump: The Deal-Maker in Our Midst

Trump: The Deal-Maker in Our Midst

Using Starvation as a Weapon of War

Using Starvation as a Weapon of War