World Peace

What is current with Hamas and Gaza?

GoogleAI Mode: “A fragile ceasefire under the first phase of a U.S.-backed peace plan is currently in effect in Gaza, with ongoing negotiations for the next phases despite repeated violations by both Israel and Hamas. A catastrophic humanitarian situation persists, with widespread destruction and famine conditions in parts of the territory. 

Key Developments

Ceasefire and Peace Plan: An ongoing ceasefire, part of U.S. President Donald Trump’s multi-phase peace plan, has been in place since October 10, 2025. The first phase included the release of all remaining living Israeli hostages in exchange for nearly 2,000 Palestinian prisoners and a partial Israeli military withdrawal from Gaza.

Ongoing Clashes and Violations: The truce remains highly fragile, with both sides accusing each other of violations. Sporadic clashes continue, including Israeli strikes in response to alleged militant activity and Palestinian fire on Israeli troops. Israeli forces have killed several Palestinians near the ceasefire lines, and a targeted strike in southern Gaza on December 3 killed five civilians after militants wounded five Israeli soldiers.

Hostage and Body Exchange: The exchange of hostage and prisoner bodies is ongoing. The remains of a Thai hostage, Sudthisak Rinthalak, were identified by Israel last week, leaving one Israeli hostage body yet to be returned.

Humanitarian Crisis: The situation in Gaza remains catastrophic, with a high risk of famine, especially in the north. Over 70,000 Palestinians have been killed since the war began in October 2023, and 90% of the population has been displaced. Aid access has reportedly increased since the ceasefire but remains insufficient to meet the dire needs for food, shelter, and medical supplies.

Gaza’s Future Governance: A significant challenge is agreeing on Gaza’s post-war governance. A UN Security Council resolution endorsed a U.S. plan for an international stabilization force and a transitional government led by Palestinian technocrats. However, Hamas has rejected the parts of the resolution calling for its disarmament, and Israel opposes a role for Turkish troops in the international force.

Regional Tensions: The conflict has exacerbated regional tensions. Israel launched a ground invasion of Lebanon following months of cross-border skirmishes with Hezbollah, and Yemen’s Houthi rebels continue to fire on ships in the Red Sea.

Internal Palestinian Dynamics: Yasser Abu Shabab, a prominent anti-Hamas militia leader who Israel sought to empower as an alternative to Hamas rule, was killed in Gaza this week, a setback to Israel’s plans for local governance.”

Is it true that Hamas is willing to store or put down their weapons given an agreeable deal involving statehood for Palestine?

GoogleAI Mode: “Yes, senior Hamas officials have stated recently that the group is willing to discuss “freezing or storing” its weapons and could even eventually lay down its arms as part of a process leading to the establishment of an independent, sovereign Palestinian state along the 1967 borders. 

This position represents a potential shift for the group, which is rooted in an ideology of armed resistance. Key details and conditions include: 

Temporary vs. Permanent: Hamas has suggested a long-term truce of five to ten years during which its weapons could be frozen or stored while negotiations take place. The full disarming would only happen once an independent, fully sovereign Palestinian state is established and the Israeli occupation ends.

Integration: A Hamas official mentioned that the group’s armed wing (Al Qassam) could be integrated into a future national army of a Palestinian state.

International Force Role: Hamas welcomes an international force to monitor borders and supervise the ceasefire but rejects any mandate that would authorize this force to forcibly disarm the group inside Gaza.

Israeli Stance: Israel considers the full, unconditional disarmament of Hamas a key condition for any deal to end the conflict and a vital security need, a demand that could hold up progress in negotiations. Israeli officials have expressed skepticism about Hamas’s offer, noting that Hamas leaders have publicly rejected the disarmament clauses in the current U.S.-backed peace plan. 

Ultimately, while Hamas has expressed openness to the idea of disarming under specific, far-reaching conditions, this remains a highly contentious point and a major obstacle in the ongoing peace process.”

What are Hamas’s stated conditions for disarming?

GoogleAI Mode: “Hamas officials have publicly stated that the group’s disarmament is contingent on specific conditions, primarily the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state. 

Hamas’s stated conditions for considering the surrender or “freezing” of its weapons are:

Ending Israeli Occupation: Full cessation of the Israeli military occupation of Palestinian territories.

Establishment of a Palestinian State: The creation of an independent, fully sovereign Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, along the pre-1967 borders.

Right of Return: Preservation of the right of return for Palestinian refugees.

Integration into a National Army: The group’s armed wing, the Al Qassam Brigades, would be willing to integrate into a future national army of the new Palestinian state.

Rejection of Forced Disarmament: Hamas rejects any plan where an international force is mandated to operate within Gaza and forcibly disarm the group. It might accept an international presence only as a “separating force” on borders to monitor a ceasefire. 

Hamas officials have recently indicated a willingness to discuss “freezing or storing” their weapons during a potential long-term truce (5-10 years) to allow for negotiations, but permanent disarmament would only follow the fulfillment of the conditions for statehood. 

Israel, however, considers the full, unconditional disarmament and dismantling of Hamas’s military infrastructure a key condition for any final deal and has expressed skepticism about Hamas’s proposals.”

Which one is correct: “Hamas’ conditions” or “Hamas’s conditions?”

GoogleAI Mode: “Both “Hamas’ conditions” and “Hamas’s conditions” are widely used and considered correct depending on the style guide being followed. 

Which is correct?

The choice between the two forms depends primarily on the style guide:

“Hamas’s conditions” is generally preferred by most modern style guides, including the Associated Press (AP) Stylebook and The Chicago Manual of Style. The rule is to add an apostrophe and an “s” (‘s) to form the possessive of singular proper nouns, even those that end in “s”, “x”, or “z”, unless the addition would cause difficulty in pronunciation. This is the more common usage found in contemporary journalism and publishing.

“Hamas’ conditions” follows the traditional style rule (often associated with older British English usage or the AP prior to some revisions) of adding only an apostrophe to a singular noun that ends in “s” to avoid an extra sibilant sound. This form is also still used by some publications, especially in headlines or specific contexts. 

Summary

Form
Hamas’s conditions

Style Guide Preference
Most modern style guides (AP, Chicago, etc.)

Form
Hamas’ conditions

Style Guide Preference
Some traditional or specific style guides

In most general writing contexts, “Hamas’s conditions” is the more typical and recommended usage.”

Considering IL and IHL, how are Hamas’ conditions related?

GoogleAI Mode: “Hamas’s conditions for disarmament relate to international law (IL) and international humanitarian law (IHL) in complex and often conflicting ways, touching upon core principles of statehood, the right to self-determination, and the conduct of hostilities. 

Hamas’s Position in Relation to IL/IHL

Right to Resist Occupation: Hamas’s position that it has the right to use military force stems from a controversial interpretation of IL that peoples seeking self-determination may use force to achieve their goals, particularly against an occupying power. This is a debated area of law, but the group and its supporters invoke this principle to justify retaining weapons until the Israeli occupation ends and statehood is achieved.

Statehood and Sovereignty: Hamas’s ultimate condition for full disarmament is the establishment of a sovereign, independent Palestinian state. The existence of a sovereign state, with full control over its territory and a national army, is a cornerstone of international law (UN Charter, Article 2(4)). From this perspective, the group would transition from a non-state armed actor to a component of a legitimate state’s security apparatus.

“Right of Return”: The demand for the “right of return” for Palestinian refugees is a deeply political issue rooted in UN resolutions and human rights principles, but it is not a direct IHL rule governing the conduct of war or the immediate post-conflict disarmament process. 

Obligations under IHL (regardless of conditions)

Crucially, under IHL, the legal obligations to protect civilians and adhere to the laws of war apply to all parties in an armed conflict, regardless of whether they are a state or a non-state armed group, and irrespective of the conflict’s origins or the justifications for using force. 

Absolute Compliance: IHL violations by one party do not relieve the opposing party’s obligation to comply. This means Hamas’s ongoing IHL obligations (e.g., prohibiting the taking of hostages, avoiding indiscriminate attacks, treating prisoners humanely) are separate from its political conditions for disarmament. Hamas’s current actions, such as hostage-taking, are considered war crimes under IHL, which applies at all times during the conflict.

Disarmament in Post-Conflict: In typical peace processes, the disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration (DDR) of non-state armed groups is a standard, often internationally supervised, component. However, this process usually follows a political agreement on the final status of the territory and a plan for a legitimate, recognized security force. The legal challenge in this context is the lack of a final, internationally recognized political agreement on the Palestinian state’s status and borders. 

In summary, while Hamas links its disarmament to a political outcome it argues is supported by the international legal principle of self-determination, its actions during the conflict remain subject to the strict, unconditional rules of international humanitarian law, which cannot be used as bargaining chips in negotiations. 

AI can make mistakes, so double-check responses.”

Considering IL and IHL, how is Israel’s conditions related?

GoogleAI Mode: “Israel’s condition for Hamas’s unconditional disarmament is rooted in the international law principles of state sovereignty and the inherent right to self-defense, while simultaneously being subject to the strictures of international humanitarian law (IHL) concerning the conduct of hostilities and protection of civilians. 

Israel’s Position in Relation to IL/IHL

Right to Self-Defense: Under Article 51 of the UN Charter, Israel, as a sovereign state, has the “inherent right” to defend itself against armed attacks. Israel views Hamas as a terrorist organization that has repeatedly launched armed attacks, including the October 7, 2023 attack, against its territory and civilians. From this perspective, requiring the full disarmament and dismantling of Hamas’s military capabilities is a necessary measure for national security and to prevent future attacks, which aligns with the principle of self-defense.

State Sovereignty and Monopoly on Force: A foundational principle of international law is that a sovereign state maintains a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within its borders. Israel’s condition is consistent with the idea that non-state armed groups operating outside of state control must disarm to ensure peace and security.

IHL Compliance (Jus in Bello): Regardless of the justification for the war (jus ad bellum) or the political conditions, Israel is bound by IHL, also known as the laws of armed conflict. These laws dictate how the war must be fought.

Distinction and Proportionality: Israel has the obligation to distinguish between combatants and civilians and ensure that force used is proportionate to the military objective. The military campaign to achieve disarmament must still adhere to these rules.

Civilian Protection: While pursuing the military objective of disarmament, Israel must take all possible measures to minimize civilian casualties and destruction of civilian infrastructure, which has been a major point of international scrutiny during the current conflict.

Hamas as a Non-State Actor: There is an ongoing debate among legal scholars about the full extent to which IHL treaty provisions apply to non-state actors like Hamas. However, it is widely accepted that customary international humanitarian law applies to both states and non-state armed groups equally. This means Hamas, too, has obligations to follow the laws of war (e.g., prohibiting hostage-taking, indiscriminate attacks).

Post-Conflict Disarmament (DDR): In a post-conflict scenario, an internationally supervised Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration (DDR) process for non-state armed groups is a standard part of transitioning to peace. Israel’s demand for unconditional disarmament is a key political prerequisite for engaging in such a process, aiming to ensure a permanent end to hostilities and a guarantee of its security before political negotiations (like the two-state solution Hamas proposes) can proceed. 

In essence, Israel’s condition for disarmament is firmly grounded in its perceived right to defend its citizens and maintain national security under the UN Charter and customary international law, even as the methods used to achieve this objective are continually judged against IHL standards.”

Which one is correct: “how are Israel’s conditions related” or “how is Israel’s conditions related?”

GoogleAI Mode: “The correct phrasing is “How are Israel’s conditions related?”

Here is the grammatical explanation:

“Conditions” is a plural noun.

The subject of the sentence is “conditions,” so the plural verb “are” must be used to agree with the subject. 

“How is Israel’s condition related?” would be correct if you were talking about a single, singular condition.”

Considering IL and IHL, how are Israel’s conditions related?

GoogleAI Mode: “Israel’s condition for Hamas’s unconditional disarmament is related to international law (IL) and international humanitarian law (IHL) through the principles of state sovereignty, self-defense, and the universal application of the laws of war to all parties in a conflict. 

State Sovereignty and Self-Defense (IL)

Israel’s demand is primarily grounded in its inherent right to self-defense as a sovereign state, recognized under Article 51 of the UN Charter. Key legal justifications include: 

Responding to Armed Attacks: Israel views the October 7, 2023 attack and ongoing militant activity as “armed attacks” that trigger its right to use force in self-defense to eliminate the ongoing threat.

Monopoly on Force: The principle of statehood in international law implies a government’s exclusive right to the legitimate use of force within its territory. Israel’s condition aligns with the goal of dismantling a non-state armed group operating outside state control to ensure long-term national security.

Preventing Future Attacks: Israel argues that disarming Hamas is necessary to prevent future attacks and protect its citizens, a goal considered a legitimate end of self-defense under international law. 

International Humanitarian Law (IHL)

IHL governs the conduct of hostilities and applies to all parties in an armed conflict, including both state actors like Israel and non-state armed groups like Hamas, regardless of the conflict’s origins or the justifications for resorting to force. 

Unconditional Application of IHL: Israel’s conditions for peace are political and distinct from its IHL obligations during the conflict. IHL requires both sides to adhere to the laws of war at all times, without condition or reciprocity.

Key Principles: The military operations aimed at achieving disarmament must still comply with IHL principles:

Distinction: Forces must distinguish between combatants and civilians, only targeting military objectives.

Proportionality: Attacks must not cause incidental civilian harm that is excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from a strike.

Necessity: Force used in self-defense must be necessary to avert the threat, and the scale of the response must be proportionate to the overall security threat posed. 

In summary, Israel’s condition for disarmament is consistent with its right to self-defense under international law, but the methods used to achieve this objective remain subject to rigorous scrutiny under international humanitarian law principles.”

Have both Hamas and Israel complied with the unconditional application of IHL?

GoogleAI Mode: “Independent human rights bodies, the United Nations, and the International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor have stated that both Hamas and Israel have allegedly committed violations of international humanitarian law (IHL) and war crimes during the ongoing conflict. Neither party is considered to have fully complied with the unconditional application of IHL. 

Allegations against Hamas and Palestinian Armed Groups 

Hamas has been accused of systematic and grave IHL violations, which are considered war crimes: 

Deliberate Targeting of Civilians: The deliberate killing of Israeli civilians, as seen in the October 7 attack, is a fundamental breach of IHL.

Hostage-Taking: The taking of hostages is a serious war crime under the Geneva Conventions and customary international law.

Indiscriminate Attacks: Firing rockets indiscriminately toward Israeli civilian population centers violates the principle of distinction.

Using Human Shields: Hamas has been accused of launching attacks from densely populated civilian areas and protected sites (such as schools and hospitals), thereby putting Palestinian civilians at risk.

Mistreatment and Sexual Violence: Reports have documented cruel and inhumane treatment of civilians and soldiers, including sexual violence and desecration of corpses. 

Allegations against Israel

Israel has also been accused by numerous international bodies of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity during its military operations in Gaza: 

Disproportionate Force and Civilian Casualties: The immense number of civilian casualties and widespread destruction of civilian infrastructure are cited as consequences of Israel’s chosen strategy for the use of force, which allegedly disregards the IHL principles of distinction and proportionality.

Collective Punishment: Israel’s extensive blockade and restrictions on essential goods like food, water, electricity, and medical supplies are considered by some to be a form of collective punishment of the civilian population, which is a war crime.

Attacks on Protected Objects: There have been numerous reports of attacks on hospitals, UN shelters, and journalist premises, raising concerns about systematic violations.

Use of Certain Weapons: Israel has been accused of using weapons like white phosphorus in densely populated areas, which can cause severe harm and is a potential IHL violation. 

Overview

The consensus among many international legal experts and human rights organizations is that adherence to IHL has been a significant challenge throughout the conflict, with both sides committing actions that fall under the category of potential war crimes. The unconditional application of IHL has not been fully met by either party. The International Criminal Court (ICC) is currently investigating the situation and has applied for arrest warrants for both Israeli and Hamas officials.”

What are the key principles of IHL that parties to a conflict must follow?

GoogleAI: “Parties to an armed conflict, whether state militaries or non-state armed groups, must adhere to the core, unconditional principles of International Humanitarian Law (IHL), which are designed to limit human suffering. 

The key principles are:

Distinction: Parties must at all times distinguish between combatants and civilians, and between military objectives and civilian objects. Attacks may only target combatants and military objectives; deliberately targeting civilians is prohibited and constitutes a war crime. Civilians lose their protection only for “such time as they take a direct part in hostilities”.

Proportionality: Attacks on a legitimate military objective are prohibited if they are expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, or damage to civilian objects that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. This principle seeks a balance between military goals and civilian protection.

Military Necessity: This principle acknowledges that the use of force is permitted to achieve a legitimate military objective (like defeating the enemy). However, it does not provide an excuse to ignore humanitarian concerns. Force used must be limited to what is necessary for the goal and not otherwise prohibited by IHL.

Humanity (or Unnecessary Suffering): This principle prohibits the use of means and methods of warfare that cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering. It underpins bans on certain types of weapons, such as chemical and biological weapons.

Precautions: Parties must take all feasible precautions in the planning and execution of attacks to minimize harm to civilians and civilian objects. This may include providing effective advance warnings to civilians of impending attacks, unless circumstances do not permit. 

Additionally, IHL mandates the humane treatment of all persons in the power of an adversary (e.g., wounded, sick, prisoners of war, detainees), which includes a strict prohibition on murder, torture, cruel treatment, outrages upon personal dignity, and the taking of hostages. 

AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional.”

What war crimes are alleged against both sides?

GoogleAI Mode: “Independent human rights organizations and UN bodies allege that both Hamas and Israel have committed war crimes during the ongoing conflict. The International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor has applied for arrest warrants for senior leaders from both sides. 

War Crimes Alleged Against Hamas

Allegations against Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups primarily stem from the October 7, 2023 attack and their subsequent conduct: 

Deliberate Targeting and Killing of Civilians: Intentionally directing attacks at civilians and civilian locations, resulting in mass casualties.

Hostage-Taking: Abducting civilians, including women, children, and the elderly, and holding them in Gaza, which is explicitly a war crime.

Inhumane and Cruel Treatment: Reports of torture, sexual violence, and other forms of mistreatment of hostages and those in custody.

Indiscriminate Attacks: Firing rockets toward Israeli civilian areas without regard for civilian life, which violates the principle of distinction.

Using Human Shields: Operating from within densely populated civilian areas and civilian infrastructure (such as hospitals), putting the local population at risk. 

War Crimes Alleged Against Israel 

Allegations against Israel primarily concern the conduct of its military campaign in Gaza and the impact on the civilian population: 

Starvation as a Method of Warfare: Impeding the flow of essential humanitarian aid, food, water, and fuel into Gaza, which has created famine conditions.

Indiscriminate and Disproportionate Attacks: Using heavy weaponry in densely populated areas, resulting in immense civilian casualties and widespread destruction of civilian objects, raising serious questions about adherence to the principles of distinction and proportionality.

Forcible Transfer and Displacement: Mass displacement of nearly all of Gaza’s population, with concerns that “evacuation orders” lead to unlawful forced transfers and potential ethnic cleansing.

Collective Punishment: Imposing a comprehensive blockade on Gaza, which is considered a form of collective punishment against the civilian population.

Attacks on Protected Objects: Targeting or damaging hospitals, UN shelters, and other protected civilian infrastructure without clear evidence of military necessity.

Summary Executions and Abuse of Detainees: Allegations of summary killings of unarmed or surrendered Palestinians, as well as widespread abuse, torture, and sexual violence in detention centers. 

Both sides deny the allegations against them.”

How many lives are both sides responsible for taking?

GoogleAI Mode: “Since the start of the current conflict on October 7, 2023, the total number of lives lost is estimated at over 70,000 Palestinians and approximately 1,200 Israelis. 

Lives Lost Attributed to Israel’s Military Actions 

The majority of deaths in the conflict have occurred in the Gaza Strip due to Israel’s offensive, with the figures primarily sourced from the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry (GHM), which are generally considered reliable by UN and independent bodies like Human Rights Watch. 

Palestinians Killed: As of late November/early December 2025, over 70,000 people have been killed in Gaza. Thousands more are missing and presumed dead under the rubble.

Civilian Proportion: Analysts estimate that a significant majority of those killed, possibly between 70% and 80%, are civilians, including a high number of women and children. One analysis estimated that children under 16 made up the first 187 pages of a GHM document listing individual names of the dead.

Indirect Deaths: These figures do not account for thousands of “indirect” deaths from preventable disease, malnutrition, and a collapsed healthcare system resulting from the war and blockade.

Israeli Military Deaths: The Israeli military has reported approximately 346 of its soldiers killed during ground operations in Gaza since the offensive began. 

Lives Lost Attributed to Hamas’s Actions

Hamas’s actions are primarily responsible for the casualties in Israel, overwhelmingly during the initial October 7 attack: 

Israelis and Foreign Nationals Killed: Around 1,200 people were killed in Israel during the initial Hamas assault and subsequent attacks.

Civilian Proportion: The majority of those killed on October 7 were civilians.

Hostages: Hamas and other militant groups took approximately 251 hostages on October 7, many of whom have since been returned or recovered dead. Around 97 are believed to remain in Gaza, with at least 33 presumed dead. 

The high ratio of Palestinian casualties to Israeli casualties, and the large percentage of civilian deaths in Gaza, are points of significant international concern and scrutiny regarding adherence to IHL principles by both sides.”

What are the implications of Israel (a state actor) and Hamas (a non-state armed group) both violating IL and IHL?

GoogleAI Mode: “The implications of both Israel (a state actor) and Hamas (a non-state armed group) allegedly violating international law (IL) and international humanitarian law (IHL) are profound, impacting the legal accountability of both parties, the future of the international legal order, and the prospects for peace in the conflict.

Legal and Accountability Implications

Universal Application of IHL: The primary legal implication is the confirmation that the laws of war apply universally. IHL does not distinguish based on a party’s status as a state or non-state group; all parties have an unconditional obligation to adhere to the rules, and all can be held accountable for breaches, which are designated as war crimes.

International Court Interventions: The extensive allegations have triggered significant international legal actions:

International Criminal Court (ICC): The ICC is actively investigating the situation in Palestine and the Prosecutor has applied for arrest warrants for senior leaders from both Hamas and Israel for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.

International Court of Justice (ICJ): The ICJ is hearing a case brought by South Africa alleging that Israel is committing acts of genocide. The court has issued legally binding provisional measures, ordering Israel to take steps to prevent genocide and allow humanitarian aid.

Challenging the Rules-Based Order: Perceived impunity for violations, particularly by a powerful state actor with strong allies, undermines the authority of international law. It suggests that political power, rather than legal principles, determines accountability, which can weaken the global rules-based order.

Domestic and Universal Jurisdiction: Victims can initiate domestic legal actions in third-party countries under universal jurisdiction laws, where specific war crimes can be prosecuted regardless of where they occurred.

Political and Systemic Implications

Complicating Peace Efforts: Mutual accusations and the reality of IHL violations make a political resolution incredibly difficult. The lack of trust is absolute, and ongoing atrocities make it harder for either side to agree to a ceasefire or a future political arrangement.

Weakening the UN System: Repeated failures by the UN Security Council to pass meaningful resolutions demanding compliance and a ceasefire, often due to political vetoes (notably from the U.S. in support of Israel), demonstrate the limitations of the current international system in addressing major conflicts involving allied states.

Sanctions and Aid Review: Violations trigger consequences like sanctions or review of military aid. The continued provision of U.S. military aid to Israel, despite consistent reports of IHL violations and the obstruction of aid, has led to intense political debates and legal challenges in the U.S. under statutes like the Leahy Laws.

Cumulative Civilian Harm and Regional Destabilization: The systemic violation of IHL principles (distinction, proportionality, precaution) leads to immense, cumulative civilian harm, the collapse of civilian infrastructure, and the massive displacement of populations. This severe suffering destabilizes the entire region and creates long-term grievances that fuel future conflicts and extremism.”

How much is the United States involved in the Gaza war?

GoogleAI Mode: “The United States is heavily involved in the Gaza conflict through significant military, financial, and diplomatic support for Israel, as well as through brokering ceasefire negotiations and providing humanitarian aid to Palestinians. It is not directly engaged in combat operations within Gaza itself. 

Key Areas of U.S. Involvement

Military Aid and Arms Transfers: The U.S. is Israel’s primary military backer.

Since the war began on October 7, 2023, the U.S. has provided over $21.7 billion in military assistance to Israel. This includes the transfer of advanced weaponry like 2,000-pound bombs, precision-guided munitions, and artillery shells, which are essential for Israel to sustain its war effort.

The U.S. has also provided billions of dollars for the replenishment and development of Israel’s missile defense systems, such as the Iron Dome and David’s Sling.

Diplomatic Support: The U.S. has used its significant diplomatic influence to support Israel.

The U.S. has repeatedly used its veto power in the UN Security Council to block resolutions calling for an immediate and permanent ceasefire, providing Israel with diplomatic cover against international pressure and accountability.

The current Trump administration brokered the multi-phase ceasefire plan, which the UN Security Council endorsed, and is leading negotiations for post-war governance and an international stabilization force.

Military Presence and Deterrence: The U.S. has bolstered its military presence in the broader Middle East since the war began to deter regional escalation.

U.S. forces in the region have engaged in operations, primarily against Houthi rebels in the Red Sea and Iranian proxies, to protect shipping lanes and U.S./allied interests, which has become an intense running sea battle.

The U.S. has also deployed aircraft carriers, fighter jets, and air defense batteries to the region and conducted reconnaissance flights providing intelligence support to Israel.

Humanitarian Aid: The U.S. provides substantial humanitarian aid to Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank through the UN and other organizations, focusing on food, water, and medical care. This involves pushing Israel to allow more aid into the enclave, which remains insufficient to meet the dire needs. 

In essence, the U.S. is not a direct combatant in Gaza but is a critical enabler of the Israeli military campaign and the central mediator in political and humanitarian efforts to resolve the crisis.”

Who are the senior leaders from both sides that the ICC Prosecutor applied for arrest warrants?

GoogleAI Mode: “The International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor, Karim Khan, initially applied for arrest warrants for five senior leaders in May 2024. Warrants were subsequently issued by a pre-trial chamber in November 2024 for three individuals. 

Israeli Leaders

Arrest warrants were issued for the following Israeli officials: 

Benjamin Netanyahu: Prime Minister of Israel.

Yoav Gallant: Former Defense Minister of Israel. (Netanyahu dismissed Gallant from his position in November 2024). 

They are accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity, including using starvation as a method of warfare, willfully causing great suffering, murder, and persecution. 

Hamas Leaders

The Prosecutor initially applied for warrants for three Hamas leaders. Due to subsequent events, warrants were ultimately issued for only one: 

Mohammed Diab Ibrahim al-Masri (known as Mohammed Deif): Commander-in-Chief of the al-Qassam Brigades (Hamas’s military wing). He is accused of crimes against humanity and war crimes including extermination, murder, taking hostages, rape, and torture. The court noted that it was not in a position to determine whether he was alive or dead when the warrant was issued, though Israel claimed to have killed him in an airstrike in July 2024. 

The applications for the other two Hamas leaders were withdrawn after their deaths were confirmed: 

Yahya Sinwar: The top Hamas leader in Gaza, killed in combat with Israeli forces in October 2024.

Ismail Haniyeh: Head of Hamas’s political bureau, assassinated in Tehran in July 2024.”

Essentially, two human rights violators, Hamas and Israel, have caused civilian deaths at the start of the conflict as well as to the present day?

GoogleAI Mode: “Yes, that is an accurate summary of the situation according to numerous international legal and human rights bodies.

The core of the matter is:

Both sides have been accused of violating IHL: International human rights organizations, UN agencies, and the International Criminal Court Prosecutor allege that both Hamas and Israel have committed serious violations of international humanitarian law and war crimes.

Civilian casualties throughout:

Hamas was responsible for the initial mass civilian deaths during its October 7, 2023 attack on Israel.

Israel’s subsequent military campaign in Gaza has resulted in massive Palestinian civilian casualties from the start of its offensive to the present day.

Warrants for leaders: The ICC has issued arrest warrants for senior leaders from both sides—Benjamin Netanyahu, Yoav Gallant, and Mohammed Deif—on charges related to these alleged war crimes.”

Tell me more about the ICJ’s ruling against Israel

GoogleAI Mode: “The International Court of Justice (ICJ) did not issue a final “ruling against Israel” on the merits of the genocide allegations, as that process takes years. Instead, it issued several sets of legally binding provisional measures (court orders or injunctions) in an ongoing case brought by South Africa, finding that the Palestinian people in Gaza have a plausible right to be protected from genocide and that there was a real risk of irreparable harm. 

Key Orders (Provisional Measures)

The Court has issued three main orders of provisional measures, requiring Israel to take steps such as preventing acts of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and ensuring its military complies with this. Israel must also prevent and punish incitement to genocide, allow urgently needed humanitarian aid, and preserve evidence related to the allegations. A May 2024 order also instructed Israel to halt its military offensive and any actions in the Rafah governate that could lead to the physical destruction of Palestinians in whole or in part. 

What the ICJ Did Not Rule (Yet)

The ICJ has not yet made a final ruling on whether genocide is occurring, as the full case takes years. Initially, the court did not order a general ceasefire, though the later Rafah order has been interpreted by many as requiring a halt to offensive operations there. The ICJ lacks an enforcement mechanism, relying on compliance from the parties and pressure from other states and the UN Security Council. 

Israel has provided reports on its compliance but has faced criticism from human rights groups and UN bodies for not fully implementing the measures, especially regarding aid.”

Has there been an order for both sides to ceasefire?

GoogleAI Mode: “There is not a universal, permanent, and legally enforced order for both sides to ceasefire in the Gaza war. However, a fragile, multi-phase ceasefire agreement is currently in effect. 

Here is a breakdown of the current situation regarding ceasefire orders:

Current Ceasefire Agreement: A U.S.-backed, multi-phase ceasefire deal is currently in effect, having started around October 10, 2025. This agreement was accepted by both Israel and Hamas in an effort to end the war, facilitate hostage/prisoner exchanges, and allow for humanitarian aid. However, it is fragile, with both sides accusing each other of violations, and sporadic violence continues.

UN Security Council Resolution: The UN Security Council endorsed the U.S. three-phase peace plan, which calls for an “immediate, full and complete ceasefire” in its first phase and aims for a “permanent end to hostilities” in the second phase. The resolution is legally binding, but its implementation has faced challenges, particularly over how Hamas and Israel interpret the guarantee of a permanent end to the war.

International Court of Justice (ICJ): The ICJ has issued several legally binding provisional measures in South Africa’s genocide case against Israel, ordering Israel to take all measures to prevent genocidal acts, allow humanitarian aid, and to halt its military offensive in Rafah if it risks destroying the Palestinian population. However, the ICJ has not issued a general, explicit order for a full, permanent ceasefire across all of Gaza.

Lack of Enforcement: No international body has a police force to physically enforce its rulings or resolutions. Compliance depends on the parties’ willingness to adhere to the agreements and rulings, as well as international political pressure and leverage. 

In summary, while a negotiated ceasefire agreement is technically in place and endorsed by the UN, a general, internationally mandated, and fully complied-with cessation of hostilities for the entire conflict has not been achieved.”

Have both sides complied with the order to ceasefire?

GoogleAI Mode: “Neither side has fully complied with the terms of the current ceasefire agreement. Both Israel and Hamas have accused each other of repeated violations since the truce began on October 10, 2025, and sporadic clashes and strikes continue. 

Allegations of Violations

Hamas Accusations against Israel: Hamas claims Israel has failed to meet key requirements under phase one of the agreement, notably not fully opening border crossings (like Rafah) to allow sufficient humanitarian aid into Gaza. Hamas has also accused Israel of conducting deadly strikes since the ceasefire started, killing hundreds of Palestinians, which it views as a fundamental breach.

Israel Accusations against Hamas: Israel has accused Hamas of violating the deal, specifically by not immediately returning the bodies of all deceased hostages as agreed upon. Sporadic fire by militants on Israeli troops is also cited as a violation.

Ongoing Clashes: Tensions remain high, with Israeli forces responding to perceived threats near the agreed-upon withdrawal lines within Gaza. Hamas leaders have stated they are unwilling to move into the second phase of the deal until Israel stops its violations of the first phase.

Logistical Hurdles: Hamas claims that the extensive destruction caused by Israeli bombing makes locating and retrieving the remaining bodies of both hostages and Palestinians under the rubble extremely difficult without heavy equipment, which also affects the return of aid. 

In essence, while the overall large-scale hostilities have paused, the ceasefire remains highly fragile and is frequently strained by accusations of non-compliance and localized violence from both sides.”

What constitutes ‘starvation as a method of warfare’ under IHL?

GoogleAI Mode: “Starvation as a method of warfare is a serious violation of international humanitarian law (IHL) and a war crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. It applies in both international and non-international armed conflicts. 

It is defined not just as causing death by hunger, but as the act of depriving civilians of objects indispensable to their survival (OIS) with the specific intent of using that deprivation as a method to wage war. 

Key Components and Actions

What constitutes this violation includes a range of actions and omissions:

Attacking, Destroying, Removing, or Rendering Useless OIS: Prohibited acts include targeting infrastructure critical for survival, such as:

Foodstuffs and agricultural areas.

Crops and livestock.

Drinking water installations and supplies, and irrigation works.

Other essential commodities like medicines, bedding, and means of shelter.

Willfully Impeding Humanitarian Relief Supplies: Unlawfully blocking or delaying the rapid and unimpeded passage of impartial and essential humanitarian aid intended for civilians in need is a core component of this war crime.

Arbitrary Denial of Access: Denying consent for humanitarian relief operations, particularly when the civilian population is already inadequately supplied, can be considered arbitrary and a violation if done with the intent to starve the population.

Forcing Movement: Actions taken against OIS intended to force the civilian population to move away from an area can also fall under this prohibition.

Sieges and Blockades: While sieges and blockades are not illegal per se, they become a violation of IHL if the specific purpose is to starve civilians. The besieging party must allow the free passage of essential supplies for civilians.

Intention (Mens Rea): Proving the war crime requires demonstrating a specific intent to starve the civilian population as a method of warfare. This intention can be inferred from the perpetrator’s actions, policies, speeches, and the surrounding circumstances, such as the scale and persistence of the deprivation. 

In essence, any act or omission that systematically and intentionally deprives civilians of the means to live, in order to achieve a military or political objective, constitutes ‘starvation as a method of warfare’ under IHL. 

AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional.”

Is Israel engaged in an act or omission that would constitute as starvation as a method of warfare that would be considered a serious violation of IHL?

GoogleAI Mode: “Yes, numerous independent human rights organizations, UN experts, and the International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor allege that Israel’s actions and omissions in Gaza constitute the war crime of using starvation as a method of warfare. 

This is considered a serious violation of international humanitarian law (IHL) and has led to an “immediate possibility” and “high risk of famine,” particularly in northern Gaza. 

Basis for the Allegations

The claims are based on several actions and policy statements that allegedly demonstrate the intent to use starvation as a weapon: 

Total Blockade: Immediately after the October 7 attack, Israeli officials announced a “complete siege” of Gaza, cutting off electricity, food, water, and fuel. While some access was later restored, access remains severely restricted and well below pre-war needs.

Impeding Aid Supplies: Israel has been accused of consistently and arbitrarily restricting the entry and distribution of life-saving humanitarian aid, including food, medicine, and fuel, through border crossings. This includes classifying essential food items like peanut butter as “luxuries” and blocking them.

Destruction of Essential Civilian Objects: Israeli military actions have resulted in the widespread destruction of objects indispensable to civilian survival, including bakeries, water desalination plants, irrigation systems, agricultural land, and the last operational wheat mill in Gaza.

Public Statements of Intent: High-ranking Israeli officials have made public statements that, according to Human Rights Watch and other observers, explicitly reflect an intent to deprive Gazan civilians of basic needs. Examples include the Defense Minister stating, “No electricity, no food, no water, no fuel – everything is closed,” and the National Security Minister saying that the only thing that should enter Gaza is “hundreds of tons of air force explosives – not an ounce of humanitarian aid”.

Lack of Access for Aid Workers: Aid organizations report being repeatedly denied access to areas in need, particularly the north, and face a high risk of danger, with a record number of UN staff killed during the conflict. 

International Court Action

The ICC Prosecutor, Karim Khan, has specifically cited “causing starvation as a method of war, including the denial of humanitarian relief supplies,” as one of the charges in his applications for arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. 

Israel denies these allegations, stating it allows aid into Gaza and that delays are a result of security checks necessary to prevent aid from reaching Hamas, or due to Hamas interfering with aid distribution. However, the UN and aid agencies counter that the volume of aid entering is insufficient and the inspection processes are arbitrary and designed to obstruct rather than facilitate relief. 

AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional.”

How is the current president of Israel responding to the ICC arrest warrants for the former senior leaders?

GoogleAI Mode: “Israel’s President, Isaac Herzog, has strongly condemned the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) decision to issue arrest warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, calling it an “outrageous decision” and a “dark day for justice and humanity”. 

In his official statements following the issuance of the warrants in November 2024, Herzog expressed the following key points:

Rejection of Equivalence: He stated that the decision creates a false and outrageous equivalence between the democratically elected leaders of Israel and the leaders of Hamas, which he described as a “terror and evil” organization.

Defense of Israel’s Actions: He emphasized that Israel was barbarically attacked and has the fundamental duty and right to defend its people. He maintained that Israel is a vibrant democracy operating under international humanitarian law and going to great lengths to provide humanitarian aid to civilians.

Accusations of Bias: Herzog suggested the decision was “taken in bad faith” and turned “universal justice into a universal laughing stock,” accusing the ICC of choosing the side of terror over democracy.

Focus on Hostages: He highlighted that the decision ignores the plight of the Israeli hostages still held captive by Hamas in Gaza and the group’s use of its own people as human shields. 

In the Israeli system, the role of the President is largely ceremonial, while the Prime Minister holds the executive power. Therefore, the primary official response has come from the Prime Minister’s Office, which has formally rejected the ICC’s jurisdiction, labeled the move as “antisemitic,” and submitted a notice of intention to appeal the warrants.”

How likely is it that the ICC is choosing “the side of terror over democracy?”

GoogleAI Mode: “The International Criminal Court (ICC) is not universally choosing “the side of terror over democracy,” but rather is facing criticism from specific parties who use this rhetoric in response to the court’s recent actions, particularly the prosecutor’s request for arrest warrants for both Israeli and Hamas leaders. The perception of whether the ICC is biased depends heavily on an observer’s political perspective. 

The Source of the Claim

The claim that the ICC is choosing “the side of terror over democracy” has been made by Israeli officials, including Israel’s president, and some of its allies and supporters. This is in response to ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan’s application for arrest warrants in May 2024 for: 

Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, and Yoav Gallant, the former Minister of Defense.

Yahya Sinwar, Mohammed Deif, and Ismail Haniyeh, leaders of Hamas. 

The Context and International Reaction

The central point of contention is the perceived “moral equivalence” created by simultaneously seeking warrants for leaders of a democratic state (Israel) and a designated terrorist organization (Hamas). 

Critics’ Argument: Critics, including the US, argue there is no equivalence between a democracy and a terrorist group, and that the ICC is overstepping its bounds by intervening in a state’s right to self-defense. They believe the court should defer to national investigations under the principle of complementarity.

ICC’s Position: The ICC prosecutor, Karim Khan, insists that the law applies equally to all individuals and that the decision was based purely on evidence gathered by his office, not political considerations. He emphasized that the court will act when national authorities are unwilling or unable to conduct genuine, impartial investigations themselves.

Broader View: The ICC’s supporters argue that the court’s legitimacy rests on its ability to apply international law without fear or favor, regardless of a state’s power or political alignment. Other nations, particularly in the Global South, often view the ICC as a crucial tool for accountability, especially for actions taken by powerful Western states or their allies. 

In summary, the characterization of the ICC as supporting “terror over democracy” is a political criticism arising from a specific, highly controversial legal action. It does not reflect a universal consensus on the court’s function or intentions.”

What are the implications of the response from the senior leaders of Israel towards the ICC’s actions?

GoogleAI Mode: “The response from senior Israeli leaders, which involves condemnation, rejection of the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) legitimacy and jurisdiction, and claims of antisemitism, has several significant implications across legal, diplomatic, and domestic fronts. 

Legal and Diplomatic Implications

Challenged Enforcement: Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC, and does not recognize its jurisdiction. Senior leaders have explicitly stated they will not be bound by the court’s actions. Consequently, Israel is unlikely to comply with any arrest warrants or domestic legal enforcement. The ICC has no police force and relies on member states to execute warrants.

Travel Restrictions: A key practical implication is that Israeli officials with outstanding warrants would theoretically face a risk of arrest if they travel to any of the 124 ICC member states. While some allies like the US have supported Israel’s stance, many European nations, as ICC members, have stated an obligation to comply with the court’s decisions, creating potential diplomatic crises during official visits.

Strained International Relations: The strong rejection has exacerbated tensions with the global community. While allies like the US have also criticized the ICC’s actions and even imposed sanctions on ICC officials in response to protect American and Israeli personnel, the situation highlights a divide between countries supporting the court’s independence and those prioritizing alliances with non-member states.

Undermining International Law: Critics argue that Israel’s rejection, coupled with US sanctions, could weaken the ICC’s standing and credibility. This may create a dangerous precedent where powerful nations or their allies feel they can ignore international legal processes with impunity, potentially emboldening other alleged war criminals.

Reinforced Political Stances: The Israeli response has largely solidified pre-existing international opinions. For those who view Israel’s actions as just self-defense, the ICC’s move is seen as politicized and a “prize for terrorism”. For those who advocate for accountability, it is seen as a necessary step to end impunity for powerful individuals. 

Domestic Political Implications

Political Unity and Internal Support: The ICC’s actions have, in some cases, unified Israel’s fractured political spectrum in a shared condemnation of the court. Leaders across coalition and opposition parties signed a joint statement against the prosecutor’s announcement.

Increased Domestic Pressure: The international pressure could add to existing legal and civil challenges faced by the Prime Minister within Israel, potentially leading to increased scrutiny of his leadership and wartime strategy.

Potential Policy Shifts: Some analysts speculate that the increased international pressure could eventually incentivize Israel to end the Gaza conflict to diffuse some of the allegations and political instability, though senior leaders have publicly vowed to continue the war until their objectives are met. 

In sum, the Israeli leadership’s defiant response is a stand against external legal authority, but it comes at the cost of potential diplomatic isolation and significant travel constraints for the named officials, while also testing the resolve of the international system to enforce its own laws.”

What actions has the United States taken against the ICC in support of Israel including in the UN?

GoogleAI Mode: “The United States has taken several punitive and diplomatic actions against the International Criminal Court (ICC) in support of Israel, primarily involving the re-imposition and expansion of financial and visa sanctions against ICC officials and affiliated organizations. 

Sanctions

Following the ICC prosecutor’s request for arrest warrants for Israeli leaders in May 2024, the U.S. government, under President Donald Trump’s administration, responded with strong sanctions. (Note: These sanctions were re-imposed after the Biden administration had lifted previous ones related to the Afghanistan probe). 

Specific actions include:

Executive Order: In February 2025, President Trump signed a new executive order, E.O. 14203, authorizing asset freezes and U.S. entry bans against ICC officials and others supporting what the U.S. deems “illegitimate actions” by the court against American or Israeli personnel.

Targeted Individuals:

ICC Prosecutor: U.S. sanctions were re-imposed on the ICC’s chief prosecutor, Karim Khan.

Judges and Prosecutors: In June and August 2025, the U.S. sanctioned a total of six ICC judges and two deputy prosecutors who were involved in the Israel-Palestine or Afghanistan investigations.

UN Special Rapporteur: The State Department announced sanctions against a top U.N. Human Rights Council official who had called for the prosecution of companies tied to the Israeli government.

Palestinian Human Rights Groups: In September 2025, three leading Palestinian human rights organizations (Al-Haq, Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights, and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights) were sanctioned for advocating for ICC investigations into Israeli officials.

Impact: These sanctions block the targeted individuals’ access to U.S. property and financial systems, effectively cutting them off from much of the global financial infrastructure. The move has severely disrupted the court’s operations, even affecting basic services like email access for the chief prosecutor. 

In the UN

In the United Nations, the U.S. has a history of using its diplomatic power to support Israel, including leveraging its veto power in the Security Council. 

Diplomatic Condemnation: The U.S. has vocally condemned the ICC’s actions against Israel at the UN and other international forums, arguing the court has no jurisdiction over non-member states like the U.S. and Israel.

Challenging the Court’s Authority: U.S. officials, including the UN ambassador and Secretary of State, have maintained a consistent stance that the ICC’s efforts to investigate Americans and Israelis infringe upon national sovereignty and undermine the court’s legitimacy. 

Legislative Efforts

In addition to executive actions, U.S. lawmakers in the House of Representatives voted to advance a bill, the “Illegitimate Court Counteraction Act,” to sanction the ICC as an institution.”

What are the implications of the United States supporting Israel in the Gaza war?

GoogleAI Mode: “The United States’ ongoing military and diplomatic support for Israel in the Gaza war has several profound implications, including fueling the conflict, exacerbating a humanitarian crisis, damaging America’s global standing, increasing regional instability, and creating domestic political divisions. 

Regional and Global Implications

Humanitarian Crisis and Displacement: U.S. aid, including billions in military assistance, has enabled Israel’s prolonged military campaign, which has resulted in massive civilian casualties, widespread displacement, and famine in Gaza. The conflict has reportedly displaced over 5 million people in the wider region since October 7, 2023.

Regional Instability and Conflict Escalation: The unconditional U.S. support has been cited as a factor in enabling Israel’s military actions across the Middle East, increasing the risk of a wider, direct U.S. involvement in regional conflicts, as almost occurred during U.S.-Iran tensions. This has led some regional partners to diversify their security relationships (e.g., Saudi-Pakistani defense pact) due to concerns about the U.S.’s focus and Israel’s actions.

Undermining U.S. Credibility and Soft Power: The unwavering U.S. support makes it significantly harder for American diplomats to credibly champion human rights issues or promote a “rules-based international order” in other parts of the world. This has led to a decline in global respect for U.S. foreign policy.

Challenges to International Law: U.S. actions, such as imposing sanctions on International Criminal Court (ICC) officials investigating Israeli actions, undermine international legal institutions and norms, potentially setting a dangerous precedent for powerful nations to ignore international accountability.

Reinforcing the U.S.-Israel Alliance as a Force Multiplier: Proponents of the U.S. policy argue that a strong Israel serves as a cost-effective force multiplier that enhances America’s own deterrence and advances vital national interests in a critical region. 

Domestic U.S. Implications

Deepening Political Divisions: The U.S. public is increasingly divided along partisan lines regarding support for Israel and the amount of military aid provided. Younger Americans, in particular, express strong opposition to Israel’s actions and favor a ceasefire, a contrast to the views of older generations.

Erosion of Public Support: Overall, American support for Israel’s military operation in Gaza has reached new lows, posing a challenge for U.S. policymakers navigating the conflict.

Economic Impact: The aid provided to Israel has a domestic economic component, with funds used to purchase U.S.-made military goods, creating jobs within the American defense industry and demonstrating the interdependence of the two nations’ economies.”

What are the solutions to the conflict between Israel and Hamas?

GoogleAI Mode: “Solutions to the Israel-Hamas conflict are complex and face significant obstacles, with various frameworks proposed by international actors, most of which center on two main approaches: a two-state solution or some form of single-state/confederation model. Immediate efforts focus on implementing a sustainable ceasefire and addressing the humanitarian crisis. 

Immediate and Short-Term Actions

Current efforts are primarily aimed at de-escalation and stabilization: 

Permanent Ceasefire: Mediators are working to transition the current “reduction in fire” into a permanent cessation of hostilities to allow for large-scale humanitarian aid delivery and recovery efforts.

Hostage and Prisoner Exchange: A key component of recent peace plans is the release of all remaining Israeli hostages in exchange for Palestinian prisoners held by Israel.

Disarming Hamas: International proposals call for the disarmament or demilitarization of Hamas’s armed wing, a major security requirement for Israel. Hamas has indicated a willingness to discuss “freezing or storing” weapons under specific conditions but resists full disarmament.

International Stabilization Force: A U.S.-backed international force composed of troops from partner nations (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey) is proposed to maintain security in Gaza during a transitional phase and train Palestinian police.

Transitional Governance: Plans suggest establishing a Palestinian technocratic committee or a reformed Palestinian Authority (PA) to govern Gaza’s day-to-day affairs, eventually allowing for the PA to take over. 

Long-Term Political Solutions

The fundamental, long-term solutions fall into several categories, each with strong proponents and detractors:

Two-State Solution: This internationally favored framework proposes the creation of an independent Palestinian state (in the West Bank and Gaza, with East Jerusalem as its capital) existing peacefully alongside Israel.

Challenges: Major obstacles include the status of Jerusalem, the expansion of Israeli settlements, the Palestinian right of return for refugees, and Israel’s security demands. Support for this solution has declined among both Israelis and Palestinians due to decades of failed negotiations and mutual distrust.

One-State Solution (Binational): This approach advocates for a single, binational state encompassing all of historical Palestine, with equal rights for all inhabitants, regardless of ethnicity or religion.

Challenges: It is largely opposed by many Israelis who argue it would compromise Israel’s status as a Jewish state. Concerns exist about peaceful coexistence given the long history of conflict and the potential for an Islamist-dominated government.

Confederation Model: A variation of the two-state solution suggests a confederation of two sovereign nations with shared institutions and open borders, allowing for some level of movement and residency rights in the other state.

Other Alternatives: Less common ideas include the “three-state solution” (Gaza to Egyptian control, West Bank to Jordan) or plans for a new city-state on the Sinai Peninsula, which have generally received widespread opposition. 

Ultimately, for any solution to succeed, observers agree it will require significant political will, new leadership on both sides, and sustained, coordinated international pressure and guarantees.”

Considering IL and IHL, what is an appropriate response from Israel if the state wished to comply?

GoogleAI Mode: “To comply with International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and International Law (IL), Israel must adhere to several core principles governing the conduct of hostilities and its obligations toward the civilian population in Gaza. These actions are non-reciprocal, meaning Israel’s obligations remain even if Hamas violates the same laws. 

Conduct of Hostilities

Israel’s military response must be guided by the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution: 

Distinction: Israel must at all times direct its attacks only at combatants and legitimate military objectives, strictly avoiding targeting civilians or civilian objects such as homes, schools, and medical facilities.

Proportionality: Attacks expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life or damage to civilian objects must not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. This requires a careful, good-faith, pre-attack analysis of likely civilian harm versus military gain for every strike.

Precaution: Israel must take all feasible precautions to minimize harm to civilians before, during, and after an attack. This includes:

Providing effective advance warnings of attacks when the situation permits, giving civilians a realistic chance to evacuate.

Ensuring that civilians who do not or cannot evacuate after a warning remain protected and are not targeted. 

Humanitarian Obligations

As the occupying power or a power exercising effective control over Gaza, Israel has specific obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention: 

Allow and Facilitate Aid: Israel must allow and facilitate the rapid and unimpeded passage of impartial humanitarian relief for civilians in need, and not arbitrarily refuse consent for aid operations. Deliberately impeding relief supplies is prohibited, as is the use of starvation as a method of warfare. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled that Israel is legally obligated to allow UN aid into Gaza.

Ensure Basic Needs: Israel must work to ensure that the population of the occupied territory is supplied with essentials for daily life, including food, water, and medical care.

Protect Medical Infrastructure: Medical personnel and facilities must be respected and protected, not targeted unless they are being used for military purposes and the appropriate warnings and procedures have been followed to waive their protection. 

Treatment of Persons in Custody

Any person taken into custody must be treated humanely, protected against violence, torture, and degrading treatment, and have their fundamental rights respected.

The taking of hostages is strictly prohibited. 

Accountability

To fully comply, Israel must conduct genuine, impartial, and transparent domestic investigations into alleged violations of international law to determine responsibility and hold perpetrators accountable. This can help address concerns about impunity and the need for international intervention. 

AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional.”

Considering IL and IHL, what is an appropriate response from Hamas if the armed group wished to comply?

Google AI Mode: “To comply with International Humanitarian Law (IHL), Hamas, as an organized armed group, must adhere to fundamental rules of warfare that protect civilians and regulate the treatment of all persons not participating in hostilities. These obligations are non-reciprocal, meaning they apply regardless of the actions of the opposing side. 

Core Principles and Actions

Cease Attacks on Civilians and Civilian Objects: Hamas must immediately stop all direct or indiscriminate attacks targeting civilians, civilian areas, and civilian infrastructure (such as residential buildings, hospitals, schools, and places of worship). Launching rockets at Israeli population centers that cannot distinguish between military and civilian targets is prohibited.

Release All Hostages: The taking of hostages is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions and a war crime. Hamas must immediately and unconditionally release all civilians held captive. Until released, hostages must be treated humanely, and their families have the right to know their fate.

Stop Using Human Shields: Hamas must not use civilians or civilian objects (including its own population) to shield military objectives or operations from attack. It must avoid locating military assets within or near densely populated civilian areas to the greatest extent feasible.

Distinguish Between Combatants and Civilians: Fighters must distinguish themselves from the civilian population at all times, for example, by wearing military uniforms or specific emblems during military operations. They cannot blend in with civilians to gain a military advantage.

Treat Detainees Humanely: Any persons in Hamas’s custody who are no longer actively participating in hostilities (including captured combatants or civilians) must be treated humanely. All forms of violence, torture, cruel treatment, and degrading treatment are strictly prohibited.

Respect Medical and Humanitarian Personnel: Hamas must respect and protect medical workers, humanitarian personnel, and their facilities and transportation. They lose this protection only if they are used to commit “acts harmful to the enemy,” and even then, only after an effective warning has been issued and gone unheeded.

Facilitate Humanitarian Aid: Hamas must allow and facilitate the rapid and unimpeded passage of impartial humanitarian relief for the civilian population in Gaza. 

In essence, compliance requires Hamas to entirely cease tactics that inherently target or put civilians at disproportionate risk, which is a core tenet of international humanitarian law.”

Considering IL and IHL, what are the solutions to Palestine’s quest for statehood?

GoogleAI Mode: “Solutions for Palestine’s quest for statehood, within the frameworks of international law (IL) and international humanitarian law (IHL), focus on the two-state solution and international diplomatic and legal pressure to facilitate its realization. A single-state solution also exists as an alternative but faces significant political opposition. 

The Dominant Solution: The Two-State Framework

The primary solution supported by the international community, including the United Nations and many Western nations, is the two-state solution. 

Basis in International Law: This framework is rooted in the principle of self-determination, a fundamental right repeatedly affirmed by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). It calls for the establishment of an independent, sovereign Palestinian state encompassing the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip, based on the pre-1967 borders, existing peacefully alongside Israel.

Legal Compliance: For this to comply with IL and IHL, it would require:

Ending Occupation: The complete withdrawal of Israeli forces and the dismantling of all Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, which have been declared illegal under international law.

Sovereignty and Contiguity: The new state must be geographically contiguous and have genuine sovereignty, meaning it can exercise effective government and control over its territory.

Negotiated Resolution: The final status issues (e.g., borders, status of Jerusalem, refugee rights) must be resolved through negotiations that respect the rights and aspirations of both peoples. 

Diplomatic and Legal Pathways

Beyond the core framework, international law provides specific pathways to advance statehood:

UN Recognition and Membership: Palestine is currently a non-member observer state at the UN. A key pathway is gaining full UN membership, which would be a de facto recognition of statehood by the international body.

This requires a recommendation from the UN Security Council, where the U.S. has historically used its veto power to block full Palestinian membership.

Despite the U.S. veto, recent diplomatic pushes in 2024 and 2025 have seen a wave of individual countries (e.g., UK, Canada, Australia, France, Spain) unilaterally recognize Palestine as a state, an act of “historical justice” and a reaffirmation of the right to self-determination.

International Conferences: High-level international conferences, such as those co-chaired by France and Saudi Arabia in 2025, aim to build international consensus and pressure the parties to implement the two-state solution based on existing UN resolutions and international law.

Leveraging International Courts: The ICJ’s advisory opinion in July 2024, which determined that Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories since 1967 is illegal under international law, provides legal leverage for Palestinians to pursue justice and statehood through legal routes. 

The Single-State Alternative

A less prevalent, but existing, legal argument considers a single, binational state with equal rights for all citizens. 

Legal Basis: Proponents argue this approach could maximize human rights obligations for the greatest number of people.

Challenges: It is largely rejected by mainstream Israeli and Palestinian political leaders and is unlikely to be implemented without the free consent of both parties, as IL dictates respect for both peoples’ right to self-determination. 

In summary, the primary solutions involve both a negotiated end to the occupation within a two-state framework and the use of international legal and diplomatic pressure to compel compliance with existing international law standards and UN resolutions.”

Considering IL and IHL, are reparations due for the Gaza war and from whom to whom?

GoogleAI Mode: “Yes, under international law (IL) and international humanitarian law (IHL), reparations are due for victims of serious violations of these laws. The obligation to provide full reparation for internationally wrongful acts is a fundamental principle of international law, covering material and moral injury. 

From Whom (Responsible Parties)

Reparations are primarily owed by the parties responsible for the violations: 

Israel: As a state and, specifically, as the occupying power of the Palestinian territories, Israel has obligations to protect the civilian population and adhere to the law of occupation. When it breaches international law—for example, through the destruction of civilian property, the impeding of humanitarian aid, or the killing of civilians in violation of IHL principles—it incurs a duty to make reparation. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has issued advisory opinions that Israel is under an obligation to make reparation for damage caused by its policies and practices in the occupied territories.

Hamas and other Palestinian Armed Groups: As non-state armed groups, Hamas is also bound by customary IHL. They have a responsibility to provide reparations for their serious violations of IHL, which include the taking of hostages, the deliberate targeting of civilians in Israel, and the use of human shields.

Third States/Other Entities: Countries that provided support (e.g., weapons) to the parties in the conflict despite awareness of grave abuses may also have an obligation to contribute to reparations. The home countries of businesses that have contributed to or benefited from violations might also be implicated. 

To Whom (Victims)

Reparations are due to the victims who have suffered harm: 

Individuals: Victims, both Palestinian and Israeli civilians who have suffered gross human rights violations and serious IHL breaches, are entitled to effective remedies, including compensation for material damage (e.g., property loss, injury, loss of life) and moral injury.

States/Populations: The obligation may also be owed to states or the international community as a whole, although current legal mechanisms make it easier for states to claim against other states than for individuals to claim directly in international courts. The ICJ has held that Israel must make reparations to “all natural or legal persons, and populations” having suffered damage.

The Palestinian people: The ICJ has ruled that reparations should be made to the Palestinian people for damages caused by the illegal occupation. 

Implementation Challenges

Despite clear legal principles, the implementation of reparations faces significant political and institutional obstacles: 

Denial of Liability: Both Israel and Hamas are unlikely to acknowledge legal liability or provide compensation voluntarily.

Jurisdiction and Enforcement: The International Court of Justice (ICJ) determines responsibility between states but cannot award reparations to individuals. The International Criminal Court (ICC) can order reparations, but only after a conviction, and the accused often lacks the assets to fulfill such orders.

Status of Palestine: The complicated status of Palestine as a state affects its ability to directly bring a claim for reparations against Israel in the ICJ.

Voluntary Payments (Ex Gratia): Payments might occur as discretionary “ex gratia” gestures rather than as legally mandated reparations, often influenced by political pressure. 

Designing victim-centered mechanisms that bypass traditional political blockades is considered a potential way forward to ensure justice for victims. 

AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional.”

Who are the Third States/Other Entities who owe reparations in the Gaza war?

GoogleAI Mode: “Under international law and international humanitarian law, third states or other entities may have a secondary obligation to contribute to reparations if their actions or omissions can be proved to have significantly aided or assisted in the commission of serious violations of international law. 

Liability for third parties is complex and depends on proving their specific contribution to an internationally wrongful act. Legal and human rights organizations have argued that the following entities may incur a reparations obligation: 

Third States

States that have provided substantial military or diplomatic support to either Israel or Hamas, despite knowing that serious violations of IHL were occurring, could be seen as potentially liable for complicity or aiding and abetting those violations. 

United States: As Israel’s largest military supplier and main diplomatic ally, particularly given its historical use of the UN Security Council veto and provision of billions in military aid, the U.S. has been specifically named by human rights organizations as potentially owing reparations.

European States (e.g., Germany, UK, Italy, France): Several European countries that have continued to provide arms or military cooperation to Israel have been highlighted as being at risk of complicity charges.

Iran: Iran provides financial and military support to Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups, and thus may also be considered to have a reparations obligation for the IHL violations committed by those groups.

Other Arab Nations (e.g., Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE): While some have provided humanitarian aid or facilitated negotiations, certain individuals or entities within these nations might have provided financial support that could be tied to violations, though this is primarily discussed in the context of reconstruction funding rather than legal reparations. 

Other Entities

Corporations and financial institutions can also face liability: Defense Corporations: Companies domiciled in third states (especially the U.S. and Germany) that supply weapons and military equipment used in operations deemed to violate international law could be found complicit in war crimes or crimes against humanity.

Financial Institutions: Banks and other institutions that finance companies selling arms or provide funds directly to the Israeli state, which are then used to fund the war effort, also risk charges of complicity. 

Important Caveat:
It is crucial to note that no international court has yet formally determined that any specific third state or non-state entity owes reparations in the context of the current Gaza war. These are arguments made by international law experts, human rights organizations, and advocates, who are using existing legal principles to push for accountability. Any such determination would likely require complex legal proceedings and significant political will to enforce.”

How long has the Israeli blockade lasted? What’s the impact of it? In terms of blockades, besides Israel, what other countries have used this tactic?

GoogleAI Mode: “The Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip has been in place in varying forms since 1991, with the current comprehensive land, sea, and air blockade significantly intensified since June 2007. In October 2023, the blockade was tightened into a “total blockade” during the current war. 

Impact of the Blockade

The blockade has had a devastating and widely condemned impact, leading to a humanitarian crisis described by critics as turning Gaza into an “open-air prison”. 

Humanitarian Crisis: The blockade has led to famine conditions, the highest level of food insecurity ever recorded, and a severe water crisis, with 78% of piped water unfit for consumption. In August 2025, famine was confirmed in one of the five governorates in Gaza.

Economic Collapse: Gaza’s economy has been hollowed out, with the GDP shrinking by over 50% between 2007 and 2015. As of 2024, unemployment was nearing 80%, and virtually all exports were banned for long periods. The war has caused an estimated 350-year setback for the economy to return to pre-conflict levels.

Infrastructure Destruction: The lack of access to essential construction materials has prevented the repair of homes, hospitals, and schools destroyed in recurrent hostilities, exacerbating living conditions.

Movement Restrictions: The blockade severely limits the movement of people, including patients needing specialized medical treatment outside Gaza, with some reportedly dying while awaiting permits.

Aid Dependency: Over 80% of Gaza’s population became dependent on international aid even before the current war. The recent intensified blockade has systematically obstructed aid, leading the International Criminal Court (ICC) to issue arrest warrants for Israeli leaders, partly for the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare. 

Other Countries That Have Used Blockade Tactics

Blockades are a common historical and modern military and political tactic used by various nations: 

Egypt: Maintains its own strict land blockade of the Gaza Strip via the Rafah crossing, which has been largely sealed for extended periods.

Saudi Arabia (and allies): Led a coalition that imposed a land, sea, and air blockade on Qatar (2017-2021) and a severe naval and air blockade on Yemen (since 2015), the latter contributing to a massive famine.

Azerbaijan: Imposed a blockade of the self-declared Republic of Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh) in 2022, trapping the population and blocking vital supplies.

Turkey: Has maintained a coordinated land blockade of Armenia since the early 1990s.

Russia: Blockaded Ukraine’s Black Sea ports after its 2022 invasion to impact grain exports.

United States: Historically used blockades during the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Vietnam War.”

Considering only IL and IHL (each on its face), are the Gaza blockades legal?

GoogleAI Mode: “Under international law (IL) and international humanitarian law (IHL), the legality of the Gaza blockades is widely considered illegal, primarily because they violate core principles against collective punishment and humanitarian obligations toward a civilian population.

The legal analysis is centered on the application of specific international laws:

Israel’s Blockade: Deemed Illegal Under IL and IHL

The prevailing legal interpretation from UN bodies, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and major human rights organizations is that the blockade is illegal on its face due to the following:

Collective Punishment (IHL): This is the strongest argument. Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention explicitly prohibits collective penalties and all measures of intimidation or terrorism. Because the blockade impacts the entire civilian population of Gaza indiscriminately, it is considered collective punishment, which is illegal.

Humanitarian Obligations (IL/IHL): Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel retains obligations as an occupying power or a power exercising effective control. IHL requires the occupying power to ensure food, medical supplies, and basic necessities are provided to the civilian population. Deliberately impeding humanitarian aid is a violation of this duty, and doing so by creating conditions of famine has been classified as the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare under the Rome Statute.

Proportionality and Distinction (IHL): While blockades can be a legitimate naval tactic of warfare, their implementation must be proportionate. Critics argue the extreme level of civilian suffering and the prevention of essential goods vastly outweigh any legitimate military advantage, making the blockade disproportionate and therefore illegal.

Principle of Self-Determination (IL): The blockade contributes to the prevention of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination by restricting their ability to form a viable, independent state, which is a violation of international law.

Egypt’s Blockade: Also Criticized Under IL and IHL

Egypt’s blockade on the Rafah crossing is also criticized under international law:

While Egypt is not the occupying power of Gaza, it still has obligations under general international law to not contribute to violations of IHL.

By participating in the comprehensive blockade and preventing the free flow of humanitarian aid, Egypt is arguably complicit in the collective punishment of the civilian population.

Counter-Arguments and Legal Nuances

A minority of legal scholars and some government officials argue that:

Legitimate War Tactic: A naval blockade is, on its face, a legal tactic in an armed conflict, provided it adheres to the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea.

Security Justification: Israel argues the blockade is a necessary security measure to prevent Hamas from importing weapons and materials to build military infrastructure.

Compliance with Inspection: Proponents argue that if aid is allowed in after security inspections, the blockade can be considered compliant.

However, the consensus among legal experts is that the actual application of the Gaza blockade fails to meet these standards, primarily because it consistently impedes essential humanitarian goods and inflicts severe harm on the civilian population as a whole.

AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional.”

Considering only IL and IHL (each on its face), using a scale of 1 out 5, how illegal are the Gaza blockades?

GoogleAI Mode: “Under international law (IL) and international humanitarian law (IHL), considering each on its face and based on the prevailing consensus of legal experts and international bodies, the Gaza blockades would be rated as 5 out of 5 (meaning highly illegal).

Legal Analysis (On Its Face)

The determination of “illegality” stems from the consistent violation of fundamental, non-derogable principles of IHL in the blockade’s implementation: 

Legal Principle
Prohibition of Collective Punishment (IHL)

Description (On its face)
Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention explicitly forbids collective penalties against a population for actions they are not personally responsible for. The comprehensive blockade impacts all civilians.

Rating Justification
Highly Illegal. The blockade inherently punishes the entire population of Gaza regardless of individual actions.

Legal Principle
Humanitarian Obligations of an Occupying Power (IHL)

Description (On its face)
Israel, as an occupying power, is legally obliged to ensure essential supplies and facilitate impartial humanitarian aid.

Rating Justification
Highly Illegal. The blockade has systematically obstructed aid, leading to widespread food insecurity and famine conditions.

Legal Principle
Proportionality and Distinction (IHL)

Description (On its face)
Military actions must be proportionate to the military advantage gained and must distinguish between civilians and combatants. 

Rating Justification
The extensive civilian harm and economic devastation are widely deemed disproportionate to the stated security goals.

Legal Principle
Starvation as Method of Warfare (IL/IHL)

Description (On its face)
Intentionally starving civilians as a method of warfare is a war crime under the Rome Statute.

Rating Justification
Highly Illegal. The systematic obstruction of aid has been cited by the ICC prosecutor as a basis for war crime charges.

Conclusion

While naval blockades can be legal under specific, highly regulated conditions (e.g., adhering to the San Remo Manual), the way the Gaza blockades have been enforced, leading to immense civilian suffering and the prevention of basic life necessities, fundamentally breaches multiple core tenets of international humanitarian law on their face. 

AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional.”