Mexico and Chile’s recent referral to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for an investigation on crimes against civilians in Gaza during the current Israeli campaign (and the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks in Israel) is another sign of increasing support in the Global South for an international legal route against the ongoing war and siege of Gaza.
The question of whether Israeli troops are committing war crimes in a continuing and devastating war has been met with deep resistance and anger in Israel and among its supporters in the United States. As the core backer of Israel’s war, there are reputational implications for the United States here, too.
Several developing countries have explicitly come out in support of South Africa’s case (or “application”) against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in late December 2023 on the even more serious charge of genocide, while others have done so indirectly, as a part of resolutions passed by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the Arab League.
And in November, South Africa, Bolivia, Bangladesh, Comoros, and Djibouti made their own referral to the ICC on possible crimes committed against Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza strip.
There is also another case making its way through the ICJ on an advisory opinion “in respect of the Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem.” The case is the outcome of a UN General Assembly resolution asking for such an opinion adopted on December 30, 2022. Indonesia has recently announced that the foreign minister herself, Retno Marsudi, will fly to the Hague to make oral arguments backing Palestine in this case.
Mapping the increasing recourse to international legal action by Global South states against Israel’s actions in Palestine is revealing, indicating that time does not seem to be on Israel’s side when it comes to winning friends in this space. States either leading or supporting such actions span across almost all of the Global South, including Latin America, Africa, West Asia, South Asia, and Southeast Asia. And the actions initiated by South Africa, Mexico, and Chile, and the wide support for the UNGA resolution of December 2022, shows that this sentiment extends well beyond Arab or Muslim-majority states.
When tallied by the populations of these states, about 59% of the Global South has now led or backed international legal action against Israel. Moreover, as our mapping of the UNGA resolution of December 12 showed, a vast majority of Global South states have gone on record supporting an unconditional humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza.
Sarang Shidore is Director of the Global South Program at the Quincy Institute, and member of the adjunct faculty at George Washington University. He has published in Foreign Affairs and The New York times, among others. Sarang was previously a senior research scholar at the University of Texas at Austin and senior global analyst at the geopolitical risk firm Stratfor Inc.
Dan M. Ford is a junior research fellow at the Quincy Institute's Global South Program. Previously he served as a research and communications associate at the Global Interagency Security Forum in Washington, D.C.
In his 1971 classic “Every War Must End,” Fred Charles Iklé painfully reminded every would-be commander and statesman of the wrenching tragedies that result from confusing military means with political ends.
Thus, from Vietnam to Afghanistan, any U.S. veteran counterinsurgent listening to President Trump’s press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday evening had to measure clearly the spoken words against such warnings and shudder.
"The U.S. will take over the Gaza Strip, and we will do a job with it, too. We'll own it and be responsible for dismantling all of the dangerous unexploded bombs and other weapons on the site. Level the site and get rid of the destroyed buildings. Level it out," the president said. "Create an economic development that will supply unlimited numbers of jobs and housing for the people of the area," he added. "Do a real job. Do something different."
These are the terms of a successful real estate developer and epoch-changing politician. They are filled with similar emotions raised by others who have also sat in the same office, especially next to a needful friend and flush with an electoral victory from which he believes he has a powerful mandate to bend the arc of history.
Yet these presidents are also not reflective of the American experience overseas. They instead represent the kind of nightmare that has awakened every American administration since Israel was recognized by President Truman in 1948.
For all its dynamism, America has long proven its structural inadequacies at this kind of security and development mission. It’s just not in its DNA, regardless of the clarity of the orders or willingness of its troops. No matter how well meaning at the outset, the United States has often failed its friends, not due to any perfidy but to lack of clear-eyed statesmanship towards Iklé’s famous ends and a repeated misreading of the unique relationship between America’s transient democracy and the sustained application of force necessary to compel an often invisible foe to submit to its will.
English philosopher John Gray recently noted that one of the positives from Trump’s election is that he was “not a war candidate” and was without “a universal mission” trying “to reshape” the world, but rather led with “a transactional realism.” Gray remarked that this realism is potentially more “morally clean” than the “negative soft power” results of both the neoconservative and liberal exercise of power (often intertwined) for 40 years since the end of the Cold War. Much of this exercise, if we haven’t yet forgotten, occurred in the killing fields of the Middle East.
Trump clearly wants to succeed where President Biden and his inept advisers clearly failed. Yet instinct must always be met by the rational, and both have practical, political, and global power ramifications that go well beyond one term of office.
On Wednesday his surrogates worked to dial his Tuesday remarks back, saying, he “doesn’t want to put any U.S. troops on the ground, and he doesn’t want to spend any U.S. dollars at all.” That would be smart, because otherwise the U.S. would be immediately involved in fighting a war that has not come to its natural political end, and likely never will. If American servicemembers touch the Gaza Strip, they are immediately in a state of war, surrounded not only by Hamas and other militant fighters and gangs, operating in a place where governing institutions now barely exist.
Strenuous rules of engagement for self-defense, which Trump bolstered during his first tenure, would mean more civilian harm and likely loss of life for our own soldiers. A carefully considered endgame here is not a choice, but a political and moral imperative.
Next, the mission has very little chance of immediate clarity or resolution. Lack of active-duty troop strength, exhaustion of weaponry in other overseas commitments like those in Ukraine, ship readiness and construction all mean that time would not be on America’s side in maintaining effective armed presence necessary to “clear, hold, and build.” Any presence in Gaza would immediately be opposed not just on all three sides facing land but also the one at the Mediterranean's edge requiring absolute naval command of the seas. The U.S. military’s history is filled with impossible odds when attempting to contain irregular adversaries with easy access to a porous border.
Much like in Iraq and Afghanistan, today’s readiness woes mean that the reserve component will be asked to do much of this work, if sustained. Although successful in many ways, America’s reserve force is still constructed from the same “total force policy” of General Creighton Abrams at the end of the Vietnam War, designed to prevent long-term commitment of overseas troops by dividing the necessary capabilities of such campaigns throughout the national guard and reserve. Consistently late and insufficient congressional budgets for defense has only increased uncertainty and added to strategic myopia.
Finally, the interplay of economic, diplomatic, and military statesmanship would require a deft coherence — and strategic honesty — that no American administration has successfully wielded since World War II. As the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction noted, “Yet over two decades — and even as Afghan provinces fell like dominoes in the summer of 2021 — I do not recall any senior official telling Congress or the American people that failure was a real possibility. … Self-serving delusion was America’s most formidable foe.”
Although the Army’s Counterinsurgency Field Manual 3-24, famously written by the generals of the Iraq War clearly states that “counterinsurgency is not a substitute for strategy,” for American leaders desperately looking for any success in a strategic vacuum, it became one. And no one was ready to say it wasn’t — or to offer any viable alternative. There is no reason to believe anything is different today in terms of opportunistic careerism or strategic hubris.
What then could work to accomplish the president’s vision? This would be the first real test of President Trump’s Joint Chiefs whom he inherited from former President Biden. What will they recommend to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, someone with “dust on his boots” from two failed counterinsurgencies himself? What have they learned from America’s ignominious departure from Afghanistan, or past efforts to resupply civilians in Gaza, and how are those lessons reflected in the plans they will present?
To truly “do something different,” as the president proclaimed, the United States might start by reviewing its own past playbooks on attracting allies to accomplish well-defined political objectives instead. That is why General Colin Powell regularly referred to Ikle’s book and urged his staff to study it, especially when determining recommended courses of action to then President George H.W. Bush about the desirable ends of ejecting Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait.
But these are not the early unipolar salad days of 1991, but rather a much more competitive and unpredictable world. This is a solemn test of a new administration, and for those serving in uniform today, especially those in our youngest generations — those who will never allow America to fail within their temporal power. The stakes couldn't be any higher.
keep readingShow less
Top image credit: U.S President Donald Trump welcomes Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the entrance of the White House in Washington, U.S., February 4, 2025. REUTERS/Leah Millis
President Trump’s most recent pronouncement about the Gaza Strip and the people who live there brings to mind Abraham Lincoln's definition of a hypocrite as a man who murders his parents and then pleads for mercy on grounds that he is an orphan.
Trump is correct in saying that the residents of Gaza are “living in hell.” But in the same breath he supports the policies and actions of the foreign state that has turned the Gaza Strip into hell. Trump is comfortable with the United States helping Israel to “murder” the Gaza Strip — and is increasing the supply of weapons to do so — while pretending to be merciful and compassionate toward the remaining people of Gaza who so far have survived the Israeli onslaught but are suffering immensely.
The hypocrisy only adds a further gloss to what already was morally indefensible support for ethnic cleansing. As debates about whether Israel is committing genocide get bogged down in semantics as a digression from substance, it is undeniable that Israel is conducting ethnic cleansing. The words as well as actions of senior Israeli officials make clear that removing Palestinians from Palestine is Israeli policy.
The United States formerly opposed ethnic cleansing. During the wars in the 1990s that followed the break-up of Yugoslavia, the United States, after some hesitation, decisively opposed Bosnian Serbs’ ethnic cleansing of Muslims, going so far as to lead a military intervention that ended the Serbs’ deadly campaign. But now the United States is not only condoning but actively supporting Israel’s campaign of ethnic cleansing.
The moral depravity of what is happening to the Palestinians is linked to multiple negative consequences for the United States to the extent Washington associates itself with the Israeli campaign. The consequences include lessened ability to achieve goals that require the cooperation of Arab states and increased motivation of terrorists to strike the United States.
Although these consequences had already existed due to longstanding U.S. toleration of Israel’s subjugation of the Palestinians, unwilling removal of the subjugated population from Palestine altogether would amplify the emotions involved and the related ill effects on the United States. Such removal evokes painful memories of the Nakba or “catastrophe” in which hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were driven from their homes in the war in 1948 that followed Israel’s declaration of independence.
Trump’s assertions that Palestinians would be “thrilled” to move out of Palestine and that other Arab states would be willing to accept them bear no resemblance to reality. The strong attachment of most Palestinians to their homeland despite the miserable conditions in Gaza has been demonstrated by the determination of internally displaced families to return to north Gaza during the current ceasefire despite awareness that many of their homes had been turned to rubble.
As for acceptance by other Arab states, when Trump last month suggested that Palestinians should go to Egypt or Jordan, both those states stronglyrejected the idea. Both have compelling reasons for their rejection involving their own internal security and domestic politics, in addition to repugnance over the injustice to the Palestinians.
Jordan sees a fresh mass influx of Palestinians as an existential threat. It would upset an already fragile internal situation that involves a large Palestinian population — many of them refugees from the original Nakba — living under a Bedouin-led regime. Such a displacement would be contrary to the understandings Jordan thought it had reached when signing its peace treaty with Israel in 1994. The displacement would risk collapsing a regime the United States has counted on as a reliable friend in a critical part of the Middle East.
When Trump said that some “really nice places” could be built for ethnically-cleansed Palestinians, he made it sound like moving from a crummy apartment in Queens to an attractive condo in mid-town Manhattan. Absent from his remarks was any appreciation for a sense of home and of place, especially for Palestinians who are attached to a homeland where their families have lived for centuries.
Some six million Palestinians, mostly displaced by Israel’s earlier wars, already live in other Arab countries. The conditions in which most of them live are not “really nice.” Many are refugee camps, in name, as well as in reality, with all the squalor that implies. Even with a turnover that has gone through multiple generations since 1948, the sense of being a Palestinian and being a refugee displaced from one’s homeland has, for most of these people, not been extinguished.
Moreover, as demonstrated by the massacre of Palestinians at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps by an Israel-backed militia during an earlier Israeli invasion of Lebanon country in 1982, even displacement to a neighboring Arab country does not mean safety from Israeli aggression. Such thoughts are probably going through the minds of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip who during the past year have been driven by Israel out of their homes only to be attacked again in what supposedly were “safe zones.”
Notwithstanding the unreality of Trump’s ideas about ethnically cleansing Palestinians out of Palestine, this does appear to constitute a major part of his administration’s policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He has now voiced the idea more than once, and it is consistent with his practice, dating back to his first term, of going all-in with the policies of the Israeli government. Thus the ill consequences of such ethnic cleansing, as summarized above, need to be a major part of policy debate going forward.
The other part of Trump’s comments following his meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — about the United States “taking over” the Gaza Strip — is no less outrageous but of a different character. Even some congressional Republicans — who so far have been in lock-step support, or at least tacit acquiescence with, almost everything else Trump has done so far this term — have expressed reservations about the idea. That alone should get Trump’s attention. So will the fact that such involvement runs counter to Trump’s own declared intention to reduce U.S. costs and commitments overseas, especially ones that involve a new war.
Thus the comment about taking over Gaza cannot yet be taken as administration policy. But for the record, such a policy would be a disastrous mistake. It would mean, besides taking on a huge reconstruction burden, a costly counterinsurgency in a militarily difficult area where Hamas is still alive and kicking. In some respects, such a military operation would be worse than the U.S. war in Iraq, because the United States could not even pose as a liberator opposing an oppressive regime but instead would be acting in concert with the oppressor.
Some have suggested that the “takeover” comment was a bargaining ploy — an extreme demand designed to get Hamas and Saudi Arabia to agree to something more moderate for the future of Gaza while giving Israel a reason to extend the current ceasefire. Possibly, but that theory gives Trump credit for more complex strategic thinking than he has displayed in the past. More likely, the comment reflected a combination of Trump’s focus on an individual idea that fascinated him, his instincts about what has served him politically or generated applause lines, and what the last person in the room said to him.
Trump’s vision for Gaza replays one that his son-in-law Jared Kushner voiced almost a year ago about how the “valuable waterfront property” in Gaza could be developed as long as the people could be removed first. As a fellow real estate developer, Trump can relate to that idea. The notion of a U.S. takeover also sounds consistent with the sort of imperialist designs that Trump already had regarding Greenland and Panama.
The fact that the comment came in a joint press conference after meeting with Netanyahu is significant. Some observers expected there would be friction and disagreement in the meeting, and behind closed doors there possibly was. But Trump’s default instinct on anything involving these issues is to continue to be seen going all-in with Israel. A beaming Netanyahu, who at the press conference piled compliments onto Trump, showed that this meeting met both leaders’ need for positive optics.
Trump’s declared doctrine may be “America First,” but on anything involving the Middle East his policy is Israel First. Or more accurately, it is a policy of deference to almost anything the government of Israel, with its right-wing extremists, wants, even if those wants run counter to the long-term peace and security of the Israeli people as much as the other people of the Middle East.
keep readingShow less
Top photo credit: Hebron, Palestine, November 7 2010. Israeli IDF soldiers check Palestinian woman at military check point by the Abraham mosque in old town of Hebron (Shutterstock/dom zara)
For the first time, a U.S. president has dispensed with even the pretense of supporting a two-state solution.
President Trump’s latest remarks — proposing the forced displacement of Palestinians to Jordan, Egypt, and other Arab nations — should not just be noted as another inflammatory statement. They are the final nail in the coffin of a policy Washington has long claimed to uphold. His words make clear the two-state solution is dead, and Palestinian displacement isn’t a byproduct of American policy — it’s the goal.
President Trump’s comments came as he welcomed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as the first foreign visitor to the U.S. in his second term. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt and national security advisor Mike Waltz characterized Trump’s remarks as an example of his "creativity" and willingness to break from past approaches.
At the press conference held with the Prime Minister, the President was asked, “You just said that you think all the Palestinians should be relocated to other countries. Does that mean that you do not support the two-state solution?” To which the President responded, “It doesn't mean anything about a two-state or a one-state or any other state. It means that we want to have — we want to give people a chance at life. They have never had a chance at life because the Gaza Strip has been a hellhole for people living there. It's been horrible. Hamas has made it so bad, so bad, so dangerous, so unfair to people… And I have to stress, this is not for Israel, this is for everybody in the Middle East -- Arabs, Muslims -- this is for everybody.”
His avoidance of answering the question speaks volumes.
The comments on the forced displacement of Palestinians from Gaza have rightly sparked shock and outrage for their blatant endorsement of ethnic cleansing, even as they are now being walked back and reframed as a mere humanitarian proposal.
What’s been lost in the coverage of Trump’s remarks is the deeper shift it signals: his proposal to occupy Gaza — whether permanently or not remains unclear — and relocate two million people to Egypt and Jordan isn’t just logistically impossible; it’s a declaration that Palestinian displacement is the goal, not the consequence, of U.S. policy.
The insanity of “doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results” remains in the way policymakers and pundits still pound the table, insisting that a two-state solution remains the official U.S. position — even as every action taken by successive administrations undermines that very possibility. Decades of unconditional military aid, diplomatic cover for settlement expansion, and willful disregard for Palestinian sovereignty have made clear that "two states" was never an actual policy — only a talking point meant to delay accountability.
If nothing else, President Trump’s bluntness should force an overdue reckoning. If the two-state solution is dead — and by all practical measures, it is, then what comes next? The only path forward is the one that dares to address the reality on the ground: a one-state solution, an end to occupation, and equal rights and freedom for Palestinians. Anything else is just more of the same — and we already know how that ends.
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.