Gaza, Civilian Casualties, Antisemitism, and International Law

I hesitated for a long time before publishing this piece, which I finished just as the Israelis and Americans began bombing Iran last Saturday. I had spent several weeks compiling analyses and reflections on the subject, and I finally decided to publish it despite these new events, which will undoubtedly give rise to further conflicting debates. The future is indeed so unpredictable that current events risk overshadowing, for a time, the recent history I wanted to share with you. I will likely return to the sequence of events, that we are beginning to experience once I have had a little more perspective.

Although it's a difficult subject, I'd like to share some thoughts on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, at a time when calm seems to have returned, at least temporarily, to the Gaza Strip, and especially when the rest of the news cycle has pushed the issue aside. We all witnessed the horror of the events of October 7, 2023, and their terrible aftermath in Gaza.

Beyond the violence of the events themselves, the unique nature of the reactions to them truly struck me. Throughout Israel's war in Gaza, I wondered what accounted for the scale of these reactions compared to other current conflicts. I never felt that Russia's war in Ukraine generated such passionate reactions in the West, and especially in Europe, despite the proximity of the conflict, not to mention the war and the displacement of more than 13 million people in Sudan since April 2023.

To try to better understand the war in Gaza, and above all to gain a more detached perspective, I combined reading various books and articles. I particularly recommend a very good book, "Tenir Tête" (Standing Tall), by Paul Audi, on the conflict and the exacerbated antisemitism since then, even though I think, that it is not translated to English yet.

I also got interesting views and inputs from a collective work in the "Tracts" series published by Gallimard, "Gaza. Face à l'Anéantissement : Les savoirs de l'histoire, les principes du droit"

I have avoided the subject of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict until now, not because I don't have an opinion on it, but because we have been bombarded with a deluge of information and extremely polarized and divisive opinions on this conflict.

So I waited, hoping to find analyses with enough perspective to inspire me. "Tenir Tête" is a book written by a French philosopher of Lebanese origin, Paul Audi. Here is what the summary says about it:

« Shocked by the pogrom perpetrated by Hamas in southern Israel on October 7, 2023, and bewildered by the Israeli army's response in Gaza, two French friends exchange letters expressing their concern about the resurgence of antisemitic acts and rhetoric worldwide. By attempting to filter their emotions through reflection, they bear witness to the effects the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has had on non-partisan and non-belligerent minds, who yearn for justice to prevail, for the destruction of lives and cities to cease, and for calm to return both on the ground and in people's minds. Acknowledging the fictional elements in his book, Paul Audi takes on the challenge of stepping into the shoes of these two witnesses to the present, who could never have imagined that anti-Jewish sentiment would return with such force and pervasiveness. It goes back to the root of an ancient evil, one that has never disappeared, particularly in the Middle East where identity tensions are strongest. »

Although the backdrop of the book is the ongoing conflict in the Gaza Strip, the central theme remains antisemitism.

At the same time, I tried to extract legal principles from the collective work I cited earlier, in order to ground the reflections more in a legal context rather than an ethical or moral one, assuming that the legal question mitigates, to some extent, the very significant emotional impact of this conflict.

I am as appalled by the massacres and atrocities of October 7th perpetrated by Hamas terrorists, who subsequently hide behind their own people, as I am by the scale of the reprisals, which are unworthy of a country as developed as Israel. These reprisals would likely never have been so extremely violent were it not for an Israeli government that survives only thanks to a minority of radical and violent far-right extremists, also judging by the behavior of its settlers in the West Bank. We cannot help but notice that we are in a logic of eradication or displacement (but towards where?) of a people.

By the time I finished writing this introduction, current events had once again caught up with us, with the joint Israeli-American attack on Iran. However, although these events are connected, I will not attempt to link them in this paper.

The quotations in the text refer to passages from the correspondence between the two friends mentioned above. My comments are in italics below.

Finally, for those seeking a refresher or a better understanding of the history of this conflict, I recommend Georges Bensoussan's book, "The Origins of the Israeli-Arab Conflict (1870-1950)."

In his introduction, I think Paul Audi aptly summarizes the mindset of most of us, as well as the causes and consequences of these events:

“When I hand this book in to the publisher (May 2024), I won’t hide the fact that I’ve lost quite a few of my illusions. I’m no longer sure of anything. If I was, like many people, more than horrified by the Palestinian terrorism that savagely attacked the Jews of Israel, but not only them, I remain, like even more people it seems, bewildered by the humanitarian consequences of Israeli military decisions, namely the massive bombing of the Gaza Strip, where those who are not already dead no longer have a home.

Tens of thousands of Palestinian deaths, an absolutist Israeli government, the perpetual double-dealing of Palestinian politicians, the eternal double-speak of Arab politicians, a Palestinian and an Israeli political class both worn to a frazzle and lacking credibility, a carte blanche given to terrorists by the world's youth, an international tribunal that seems biased even in its impartiality, an Israeli war cabinet that is both opaque and divided, an Israeli society traumatized by an unprecedented pogrom and fearful of belonging to a pariah state, and this state itself forced to defend itself against a host of rogue states, a traumatized Palestinian society that no longer knows to whom to entrust the reins of its future, terrible military blunders galore, a West torn between negligence and incompetence, a dizzying increase in anti-Semitic acts worldwide—all of this is not at all conducive to generating hope."

Based on the sources I cited above (Gaza: Facing Annihilation), let's lay out the facts:

·      On the Hamas terrorist acts of October 7, 2023, and the Israeli response

To avoid, on the one hand, recounting events that everyone is familiar with, and on the other hand, engaging in an overly subjective debate, I propose that we approach this from the perspective of legal principles, with the support of law professors who contributed to the collective work cited above.

o   The Principles of Law by Evelyne Lagrange, Professor of Public Law at Paris Sorbonne University

Occurring during an unlawful occupation according to the International Court of Justice (ICJ, Advisory Opinion, July 19, 2024), the attacks of October 7—and the detention of hostages—are not excusable by the Palestinian people's right to resistance, which can only be exercised in accordance with international humanitarian law. Calling them “terrorists” accurately reflects the horror of their acts, but they also constitute, more precisely, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and even acts of genocide.

Furthermore, the war in Gaza is taking place within a context of ongoing violations of the Palestinian people's right to self-determination and the occupation of Gaza (or remote control since 2005). While Israel had the right and the duty to protect its population (ICJ Advisory Opinion, July 9, 2004, § 141), this should have been done by requesting the UN Security Council's intervention or by exercising its right to self-defense to repel attacks, taking into account the right to self-determination and the principle of proportionality. Disagreements persist on this principle, but in Gaza, there is no longer any doubt about the excessive, and therefore illegal, nature of the Israeli response.

Thus, a compelling body of evidence suggests that acts have been committed in Gaza that cannot be excused by Hamas's crimes, self-defense, or military necessity : war crimes, crimes against humanity, and even acts that foreshadow or constitute genocide. In addition to these “mass atrocities,” there are also arbitrary detentions possibly accompanied by acts of torture and various other violations of international human rights law.

o   The Principle of Distinction by Marina Eudes, Professor of Public Law at Paris Nanterre University

The principle of distinction prohibits any belligerent from attacking a civilian unless that civilian is directly participating in hostilities, thus becoming a legitimate military target for the duration of that participation. However, Hamas members have killed, wounded, raped, taken hostage, and mistreated hundreds of civilians, disregarding this fundamental rule as well as the principle of humanity that underpins all of International Humanitarian Law (IHL).

On the other hand, the IDF regularly bombs Gaza without respecting the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution in its attacks. The attacker must take all possible precautionary measures to avoid, or minimize, such harm. However, the overcrowding and isolation of Gaza are such that no military operation seems capable of respecting these rules and should therefore not even be considered.

Palestinian civilians are thus the main victims of the conflict due to attacks that either target them directly or result in the destruction of health facilities, agricultural tools and crops, and goods essential to their survival.

However, the deliberate destruction of these infrastructures and supplies, which are also protected by the principle of distinction, constitutes a war crime.

As an occupying power, Israel must, for the benefit of the civilian population, guarantee the functioning of medical and hospital facilities and services, as well as public health and hygiene; ensure a sufficient supply of food and medical products; and accept and facilitate relief efforts undertaken by impartial humanitarian organizations (Articles 55, 56, and 59 of the Fourth Geneva Convention). Yet, the Israeli authorities disregard these obligations, even using famine as a tactic of war, which constitutes a war crime (Customary International Humanitarian Law Collection).

o   Constitutive Acts of Crimes Against Humanity by Anne-Laure Chaumette, Professor of Public Law, and Thibault Fleury-Graff, Director of the Master 2 in Public International Law at Paris Assas University

Most of the acts committed by Hamas are murders, even acts of extermination given their scale, as well as acts of torture, rape, and sexual mutilation (UN Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict, March 6, 2024). The arrest warrant issued by the ICC against Hamas leader Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri, before being withdrawn following his death, cited these four offenses, which constitute crimes against humanity.

On the other hand, since the Israeli army's withdrawal in 2005, Gazan civilians have been 80% dependent on external aid for access to essential resources. By restricting access to water, closing crossings, and prohibiting food deliveries from March 2 to May 20, 2025, Israel could not have been unaware that they would be in mortal danger. The severe malnutrition and dehydration of Gazans, leading to their deaths, can therefore be classified as murder constituting crimes against humanity. Furthermore, the failure to provide medication meant that wounded and sick Palestinians were operated on without anesthesia, resulting in suffering characteristic of inhumane acts. These two crimes are accompanied by violations of the Gazans' rights to life and health solely because they are Palestinians, which constitutes acts of persecution.

These three charges were included in the ICC arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant. Two other crimes could also be identified : extermination and forced deportation.

In May 2025, Benjamin Netanyahu outlined his plan to seize control of Gaza, complementing the creation of the Emigration Authority, tasked with overseeing the forced displacement of Palestinians. Then, in July 2025, Israel Katz announced the creation of a "humanitarian city" where all Gazans would be confined and from which they could not leave except to emigrate. The implementation of such a project would undoubtedly constitute forced displacement amounting to crimes against humanity.

From a legal standpoint, it is clear that responsibilities are shared.

Let's examine a key historical reason why a Palestinian state still does not exist and why the timing of the Hamas attack was not a coincidence.

• A brief look back at history

"None of the Arab governments of the time wanted the partition plan for Palestine proposed in 1947. And none of these supposedly fraternal countries wanted an Arab state for the Palestinians, neighboring a Jewish state of Palestine. Yet the state proposed for the Palestinian Arabs would have been created on 44% of the territory of Mandatory Palestine." (Ten years earlier, the Peel Plan, also immediately rejected by all parties, proposed giving the Arabs 83% of the mandatory territory and 17% to the Jewish population.) It is worth recalling that if, at the time, the Arab leaders refused this arrangement, despite the considerable territorial advantages that the Arabs of Palestine could have benefited from due to their numbers (moreover, there was not yet any question of a Palestinian nation in the strict sense), it was because they could not conceive of Jews acquiring complete autonomy on this land.

• October 7, 2023: A Coincidence of Timing?

“If Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, 2023, it was because Saudi Arabia’s signing of the Abraham Accords was imminent. It was therefore essential to thwart them as quickly as possible. All commentators agree on this point. The stakes are indeed fundamental : Saudi Arabia’s signing of the accords would only serve to deprive the project of Israel’s very possibility. In fact, in the eyes of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is banned from entering Saudi Arabia, the existence of Israel, and the “impure” presence of Jews on that soil in particular, obstructs a broader project : the sanctification of the Middle East through the fight against infidels throughout the region, beginning, of course, with this territory—sacred because of the presence of holy sites—that stretches from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.” Furthermore, to achieve its goal, which extends far beyond Israel's borders, Hamas has always been prepared to sacrifice the idea of ​​an autonomous Palestinian state neighboring the Jewish state. It therefore prefers no state at all rather than an Arab state bordering territory "tainted" by Jews.

This leads to a necessary clarification regarding Hamas.

• The Palestinians and Hamas

“To survive, Palestinian society feels it necessary to turn a blind eye to the reality of Hamas. What reality? A few words of reminder. Hamas is a fundamentalist movement founded in Gaza by the Muslim Brotherhood. It is the only so-called “resistance” organization—that is, an organization of conquest—that does not include the name Palestine in its acronym (the name Hamas evokes the initials of words that can be translated as “Islamic resistance movement”). Indeed, the Palestinian question is secondary to the question of the expansion of Islam and the domination that this two-headed (political and military) movement aspires to exert over the entire Muslim world. Its modus operandi is radically anti-democratic (it does not tolerate political pluralism; it distrusts elections) and terrorist (it targets civilian populations).” But it is not limited to terrorizing Israeli civilians by launching indiscriminate rockets at cities : it also terrorizes the inhabitants of Gaza by forcibly extracting their support, depriving them of their democratic rights (elections are no longer held there), and by imposing Sharia law uncompromisingly. Promulgated in 1987, the movement's charter clearly states its theological and political objective : to destroy the State of Israel, which it seeks to do through repeated genocidal atrocities, and to establish an Islamic Palestinian state "from the river to the sea" (Article 2), whose longer-term aim is to expand to encompass the entire Arab world.

(…) The adversary is designated in Article 12 as “the enemy who tramples the land of the Muslims.” To clarify the target, the charter relies on a hadith (#3398), which designates the murder of Jews as a necessity, the Jew being, if not in his very existence, at least in his self-affirmation (that is, in his will to remain Jewish and therefore not to submit to Allah), an aggression against the Muslim faith.

Hamas thus buried the Palestinian cause from day one, its objective being exclusively the triumph of Muslim brotherhood and the establishment of a regional caliphate.

From this, we are led to question the hatred of Israel, a consequence of the region’s history and, more profoundly, of the history of the Jews. And, in the same vein, to question the “We are all Hamas” sentiment on American campuses…

• On the Hatred of Israel

“For many Palestinians and Arabs, as well as for many pro-Palestinians around the world, the need to destroy a state, which some of them have renamed the ‘Zionist entity,’ in order to create another, called Palestine, seems self-evident. This self-evidence is even reflected in the slogan chanted ad nauseam by emotional crowds who don’t really know what they’re talking about: ‘Free Palestine from the river to the sea!’ When, for world opinion, unrealistic thinking becomes the primary component of political discourse, and when, moreover, this discourse is fueled by fantasies of destruction and calls for genocide, one can legitimately be concerned about the mental state of humanity.

Whatever the Palestinians themselves, who are naturally uncomfortable with the situation, may say, the lack of resolution to the Palestinian problem is the eternal pretext seized upon by Islamists and Muslim fundamentalists to rekindle the flame of their primal anti-Semitism. Hatred (based on religious considerations) first, the "cause" (based on political stakes) second."

• “We are all Hamas”

“This identification, heard on American campuses in 2024, is not as surprising as it seems. If “We are all Hamas,” it is not because we adhere to the values ​​this movement defends : Sharia law, the persecution of homosexuals, the worship of Allah, etc. No, “We are all Hamas” despite everything Hamas represents! If this is the case, if “we” are this way, it is because we share with them, on one point, on one point only, called “the Jews,” the same vision. This vision is the cement of the identification. What does this mean? Hamas praises the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, its sole cultural reference. But what is this machination about this machination? A Jewish plot for world domination.” According to this text, this domination rests on the social structures of the West, on its value system, on its thought patterns, on the levers of power it has created, etc. It follows that the conspiracy, in order to succeed, needs everything that serves as a charge in the trial of the Westerner: money, force, the white race, capitalism, militarism, imperialism, colonialism, racism, universalism, double standards… In short, all the old anti-Semitic refrains that have recently been revived and are now united in a single word, which has become a litany, like rivers converging in the sea: “Zionism.”

The direct effect of the conflict in Gaza is the resurgence of antisemitism worldwide, but primarily in the West. "Tenir Tête" explores this topic consistently. Here are the key points I've taken away:

• Antisemitism

"Judeophobia is resurfacing all over the world, including in Europe and the United States, where it was supposed to have disappeared. The accusations, fueled by the wild speculations and associations of ideas that form the currency of lies, seem to have remained completely untouched, as if the train of history had never passed by.

On December 26, 1887, Nietzsche decided to tell his sister and her husband, both fanatical antisemites, that he wanted nothing to do with them and that they were harming him and his writing, if only because of the surname he shared with his sister." To her, he wrote, “(...) it is a matter of honor for me to maintain an absolutely clear and unequivocal stance towards anti-Semitism, namely: that of opposition, as I do in my writings.”

In the United States, during the Great Depression, anti-Semitism arose because Jews were seen as villainous capitalists; twenty years later, in the midst of the Cold War, it was because Jews were seen as communist sympathizers; today, anti-Semitism stems from the suspicion that Jews support Israel. A justification for hatred is always found, for without it, there would be shame. Shame for envy, resentment, and impotent rage. And this justification is always more or less closely tied to whatever, at that moment, is causing a global crisis.

In "Reflections on the Jewish Question," Sartre presents the anti-Semite as someone who never feels the need to demonstrate to anyone the validity of his judgment, or rather, his prejudices. The reason is clear: not only is this prejudice the product of belief, not knowledge, but the preconceived idea he has of Jews (…) is an idea that does not belong to him, nor does it stem from his personal experience. It is an idea of ​​which he is neither the author nor the originator, and which, moreover, completely transcends him. And if he always denies being its originator, it is because of his conviction that it is precisely to the extent that he is not its originator that it proves its truthfulness, its objectivity, and its universality. The philosopher concludes that: "if the anti-Semite is, as everyone has seen, impervious to reason and experience, it is not because his conviction is strong; but rather his conviction is strong because he has chosen in the first place to be impervious."

As historian Noah Feldman recently wrote, it is important to consider that, “in order to emphasize the narrative of Jews as oppressors, the new antisemitism (of which we are a contemporary) must also, in one way or another, gloss over not only two millennia of Jewish oppression, but also the Holocaust, the largest organized and institutionalized murder of an ethnic group in human history. On the far right, antisemites deny that the Holocaust occurred or claim that its scope has been exaggerated. On the far left, it is claimed that Jews use the Holocaust as a weapon to legitimize the oppression of the Palestinians.”

In this context, and to ensure clarity in this highly charged environment, it is necessary to recall, although this is obvious to most of you reading these lines, a few principles about Islamism.

• Islamism

“Islamists have a particular conception of Islam, far from being shared by all believers. Islam is tolerant and peaceful, but Islamists believe neither in tolerance nor in peace.

Insofar as Islamism needs to assert its political identity by standing against all the other political identities that surround it (starting with those that compete with it within Islam), insofar as jihad is consubstantial with it, few people—even among the most enlightened and peaceful Muslims—believe that Islam will ever be able to undertake a true aggiornamento. By aggiornamento, we mean a profound theological renewal that, through spiritual and hermeneutical means, would be capable of stripping of their normative power the verses of the Quran and the passages of the hadith in which anti-Jewish vengeance is clearly signified, that is to say, prescribed.” Paul Audi's pessimism is rooted in this place, ignored by some, taboo for others.

Let us now return to the situation of the Palestinian people, by quoting an excerpt from a contribution in the collective work cited above, written by Raymond Kévorkian, a French historian of Armenian origin.

• On the Treatment of the Palestinian Population

The treatment of the Palestinian population in Gaza is reminiscent of the mechanisms observed in other mass violence, whose primary objective is to sever the link between the individual and their land, the first step towards the disappearance of the group. The systematic destruction of educational and healthcare infrastructure leaves little doubt as to the intentions of the occupier, who deprives the entire population of basic services. The same is true of the strategy of organized starvation and the methodical destruction of buildings and infrastructure that provide water and electricity. The process of making the Gaza Strip uninhabitable is already well underway. The survivors, now homeless wanderers, are sent from one point to another in the Gaza Strip, losing all sense of identity, uprooted, dehumanized, and hastened towards their demise. In all mass violence, exclusion is achieved through territorial control and the impossibility for families to establish roots. What is termed displacement under various and fallacious pretexts is nothing other than deportation. Beyond the land itself, exclusion takes an economic and social form. The victim is condemned to beg for survival, while their real estate is destroyed, their professional activity annihilated, their material resources depleted, and their land rendered unusable. In more gradual, but persistent, forms, this same logic is at work in the West Bank.

Nothing can justify such treatment of civilians, not even the fight against the presence of Hamas, which only prospered because it thrived in a catastrophic socio-economic environment with no prospect of improvement.

Bringing a society to its demise will have a profound impact on the Israeli nation and its future, legally, internationally, historically, and morally.

In "Standing Tall," Paul Audi writes on this subject and poses the (new) existential problem that arises for Israel:

"The Palestinian people have the right to self-determination. But above all, they have a duty to do so, in that they must begin by no longer entrusting their destiny to tutelary powers (Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran, the United States, Russia, etc.), these foreign tutelaries who have only been instrumentalizing them and dragging them—for at least three-quarters of a century—into a tragedy whose end is still nowhere in sight."

But on the other hand, it is equally clear that Israel needs to clarify its Idea, that is, what it defends by defending its existence. This is the only way to give the word "Zionism" a clear and unambiguous meaning, one that resonates with our times, and to undermine all those who use it as a charge against it. Holy war has long been declared on a country that may have made the mistake, on a social and cultural level, of not wanting to believe in it. So the whole question could be summarized as follows : if, for religious and political reasons (the hostile environment) and for spiritual reasons (the sense of Jewish heritage), Israel cannot claim to be a state like any other, how can it, in the long term, assert its sovereign will in a country where its security and prosperity depend on international balances? »

In this context, the disproportionate nature of the Israeli response in the Gaza Strip is linked not only to the principle of the harm inflicted on Palestinian civilians, but also to the death toll.

• Does the number of victims delegitimize Israel?

“When an extremely high, exorbitant, scandalous number of deaths in Gaza and elsewhere results from a militarily asymmetrical war like the one Israel is currently waging, doesn’t this ultimately delegitimize its ‘just war’?” Following this serious question, the author quotes Henri Bergson, who wrote in The Two Sources of Morality and Religion: “When quantity changes, it is no longer the same quality.”

“This is indeed the problem of the moment. But it is also a problem that is not current, because it is fundamental. Quantity, when applied to the victims of war, cannot help but concern us at the very core of our humanity, all the more so as it can contribute to derealizing the conflict.” This is what the Spanish novelist Javier Mariás pointed out when he wrote: “Such is one of the perverse effects of quantity that the more aberrations or baseness there are, the less aberrant or base they appear, and the more difficult it is to differentiate them. Quantity completes the greatest of perversions, for it minimizes the gravity of the very serious; this is why losses are no longer counted during wars, or at least they are not counted as long as the war lasts and the dead continue to fall. Sometimes, too, those in charge prolong their war unnecessarily for a specific reason : to avoid having to count the dead who will be blamed on them.”

Personally, and this is one of the issues that troubles me most in this conflict, and which I find frankly unbearable, it's the notion that a life on one side is worth ten, a hundred, or a thousand on the other.

The United States will never abandon Israel; we know that perfectly well. However, the only optimism one could possibly claim stems from the fact that the current American administration, which has given the Netanyahu government a complete mandate, will not remain in power forever. Indeed, a much firmer stance from the Americans regarding what they will and will not tolerate from the Israelis in the region will be necessary to envision a return to calm and peace.

Paul Audi concludes with an unequivocal observation that this conflict has taken on an essentially religious character, not only on the part of Hamas but also on the Israeli far right, which offers no hope for a positive, "humane" solution in the short term. Finally, a last word from Bruno Cotte, member of the Institute, quoting Albert Camus, reminds us that only a return to respect for international law can provide a framework necessary for appeasement and a solution to the conflict.

• Reactions to the conflict

“In terms of reactions, those who systematically resort to praising some and blaming others, or accusing some and defending others, still seem not to have understood that this attitude, however detached or superficial it may be, leads nowhere. Incidentally, it reveals the extent to which, on the left as well as the right, in the North as well as the South, both domestically and internationally, all those who claim to be concerned by the current war are mistaking illusions for reality—that is, mistaking religion for politics and hatred for resistance—when they don’t already conclude, with utter pessimism, that the war will last a long, long time, until no one is left to attack their neighbor.” If, therefore, something were to break the wheel of misfortune in the Middle East, it would be, if not a miracle, the triumph of human genius – in both the anthropological and moral sense of the word “human”.

• On the Defense of Law and Freedom by Bruno Cotte, Member of the Institute, former President of a Chamber at the ICC

The sustained activity of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda at the turn of the millennium perfectly illustrated the role that law must play when, losing sight of the respect for commitments that were thought to be established, war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide are once again committed.

Other conflicts, unfortunately provoking only moderate reactions, had certainly erupted over the years, but the Gaza war, following Russia's aggression against Ukraine, served as a stark reminder that the grip of law remains fragile and that solemnly made commitments can quickly become mere scraps of paper.

Albert Camus issued this prescient appeal on November 10, 1956, during the Hungarian uprising against Soviet rule: “The weakness of the United Nations, and its divisions, are gradually leading us to the Third World War, which is already knocking at our door. It is knocking, and it will enter if international law is not enforced throughout the world to protect peoples and individuals. Yes, let us revive international law and, even more importantly, let us respect it.”

Unfortunately, the events of recent days, with the Israeli and American attack on Iran, do not bode well for any improvement in the respect for international law. Finally, it is worth recalling that in a situation where Israel is undeniably in a position of strength thanks to its American big brother, it is incumbent upon that country to propose a future solution, as Mendès-France stated back in 1976.

“Israel must create a new situation, and to do so, make a significant gesture, break the deadlock that is blocking everything. You know what this gesture should be : telling the Palestinians that we do not intend to obstruct their freedom and their rights,” Pierre Mendès-France, May 17, 1976