Where are the peacekeepers for Gaza?

"It is high time for the deployment of international protection forces — i.e., for military intervention — in Gaza to end the genocide and protect the Palestinians"

Guest post by Maike Gosch, originally published in the German magazine NachDenkSeiten.

---

Many of us who consciously experienced the 1990s — I certainly did — have been asking ourselves for at least a year and a half why in the discussions and political statements of Western politicians there is so much talk of “outrage,” and more recently also of “horror,” at Israel’s actions in Gaza (and the West Bank), but almost never any mention of the possibility of sending peacekeeping forces, of an international intervention in Gaza or even of no-fly zones, in order to put an end to the war crimes and crimes against humanity being committed by the Israeli army. Why is this the case, and what options exist under international law?

Of course, the answer as to why this topic has largely been excluded from the discussion is obvious: Israel is an “ally,” and since the foundation of the United Nations, such measures have only ever been applied by Western states against non-allies.

Nevertheless, it is high time — if not already too late — to bring these options, which are provided for under international law, back into the debate.

Let us take a closer look at what the conditions set by international law for such an intervention actually are, and whether there is any realistic prospect that such an intervention will occur.

The foundations of international law

Chapter VII of the UN Charter, entitled “Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression”, grants the Security Council the authority to take enforcement measures to maintain or restore international peace and security.

The “Uniting for Peace” resolution of 1950 also establishes a mechanism allowing the General Assembly to act if the Security Council is unable to do so because of a veto by a permanent member. In such cases, the General Assembly may convene a special session to recommend collective measures.

Chapter VII: Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression

This chapter empowers the UN Security Council to determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression. It outlines a range of measures the Council can take, including provisional measures, non-military sanctions and, as a last resort, military action to restore peace.

The Security Council’s ability to act under Chapter VII is a cornerstone of the UN collective security system, but it can be blocked by the veto power of its permanent members. Between October 2023 and June 2025 alone, the United States vetoed five draft resolutions calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.

The “Uniting for Peace” Resolution (General Assembly Resolution 377(V))

The first “Uniting for Peace” resolution was adopted in 1950 during the Cold War as a response to the paralysis of the Security Council caused by the frequent use of the veto by permanent members.

It enables the General Assembly to meet in an emergency session to recommend collective measures when the Security Council fails to fulfil its primary responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security. The resolution was used to address situations such as the Suez Crisis of 1956 and is regarded as a significant success, since it gives the General Assembly a stronger role in preserving peace when the Security Council is deadlocked.

The “Uniting for Gaza” attempt in 2024

This happened on September 18, 2024, when the General Assembly convened a special session on Gaza and, based on the “Uniting for Peace” principle, asked the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to rule on the legality of the Israeli occupation and the resulting legal consequences.

The outcome was clear: 124 votes in favor, 14 against and 43 abstentions. The trigger for the new resolution was the ICJ’s ruling of July 19, 2024, which found the Israeli occupation to be unlawful and ordered that it must be ended “as soon as possible”, and no later than September 2025. One year later, Israel has so far “failed” to comply with any of the demands made by those 124 states. On the contrary, it has expanded its genocide and deliberately caused a massive famine.

A new attempt

On September 9, the next session of the UN General Assembly will take place in New York. Many well-known experts — such as US politician and former Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein; US military expert and former chief of staff to Colin Powell, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson; human rights lawyer and former director of the New York office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Craig Mokhiber; director of the Center for United Nations Studies at the University of Buckingham, Mark Seddon; and legal scholar and UN Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, Francesca Albanese — are now advocating for another “Uniting for Peace” resolution against Israel, this time calling for the deployment of international protection forces, i.e., for military intervention.

The decisive letter to the Security Council

Is this legally possible, even though the General Assembly can only make recommendations that have no binding force under international law? An important and often overlooked point is that, under international humanitarian law (the Fourth Geneva Convention), Gaza is still legally considered occupied territory, even though Israel declared a “complete withdrawal” in 2005; and that the Palestinian Authority (PA), or more precisely the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which is recognized by the UN, is legally the legitimate representative empowered to decide on the deployment of forces on the sovereign territory of the Gaza Strip. Traditional UN peacekeeping missions require the consent of all parties to the conflict. If the Palestinian representative explicitly requests and authorises the deployment of international protection forces, the legal hurdle of consent would be fulfilled.

On August 22, 2025, the Palestinian representation at the UN sent a letter to the Security Council requesting such an international intervention and the deployment of protection forces to end the genocide and protect the Palestinians.

The establishment and deployment of such international protection forces would therefore likely be legally possible.

A military scenario

The US military expert Col. Wilkerson recently outlined in an interview with Nima R. Alkhorshid a possible scenario of what could follow:

We figure we need 40 to 50,000 [troops] for this. And we would ask China to be the dominant power and to lead with the major troop contribution. And other countries could contribute as necessary. For example, you could have Turkish troops, you could have Indian troops, you could have Pakistani troops. We had some good Indian and Turkish troops in Somalia in 1991 and 1992. This would put a stop to Gaza on a dime. Deploy these troops with the rules of engagement that say you can tell the IDF to get out of your way and if they don’t get out of your way, you can shoot, you can use your weapons. Well, I think if you put that kind of a force on the ground, suddenly put it on the ground in Gaza, I think you would either have a confrontation that would come out very negatively for Israel, if not completely negatively, or you’d have a dropping of arms, you’d have a ceasefire immediately enforced, because I don’t think Netanyahu is stupid enough to take on a force that might have 30 or 40,000 Chinese in it.

However, Wilkerson also added:

Now, is there any real chance that we’ll achieve this? Probably not. I’d give it one in 50 because, first of all, Abbas is going to be very afraid to do it. And second, the UN Secretary General and the UN Security Council, at least the United States in it, are going to be very adamant about not doing it, as are the other members like France and Britain. But I think it would send a signal that would so shame the United Nations and so shame Washington and Brussels and Europe in general, that we would get something positive out of it even if the force were not deployed. But I would like to see the force deployed and I’d like to see China do it. And I’d like to see one other move, too. I’d like to see a powerful suggestion at the next SCO conference [Shanghai Cooperation Organisation], if you will, that the United Nations headquarters be moved to Shanghai from New York. It’s time. These are the kinds of moves that probably need to be made to accommodate this power shift and this power change, because it’s happening.

No visas for Palestine

The demand to relocate the United Nations headquarters from New York to Shanghai has gained additional relevance from a recent event: a few days ago, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio revoked the visas of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas as well as 80 other Palestinian officials ahead of the annual UN General Assembly meeting on September 9, which prevents them from attending the session. This step, like so many others taken by the US, violates international law. The reasoning is downright bizarre. Rubio accuses the Palestinian representatives of undermining peace efforts in the Middle East by, among other things, seeking unilateral recognition of their Palestinian state.

When the United Nations was founded in 1947 and chose New York as its headquarters, it was agreed that US immigration policy could have no effect on individuals traveling to New York for official UN purposes.

With friends like these, who needs enemies?

In addition, there is an initiative by Saudi Arabia and France that aims to launch a kind of alternative approach to this issue. French President Macron has announced that at the next General Assembly session, France will become the first G7 nation to formally recognise Palestine. Belgium has also joined this initiative. Keir Starmer has likewise announced that Britain would recognise Palestine if Israel refuses to agree to a ceasefire.

However, this initiative and these declarations are viewed by many commentators — such as Soumaya Ghannoushi of Middle East Eye — as a tactic to prevent truly effective measures against Israel. France’s Macron and Britain’s Starmer present symbolic gestures as breakthroughs, but according to Ghannoushi, what is being offered is not a sovereign state, but an empty shell under occupation: no borders, no army, no control over resources.

In light of Israel’s ongoing war against Gaza and the expansion of settlements in the West Bank, she continues, these declarations must be understood as a distraction from applying real pressure on Israel — with recognition being offered not as a right, but as a bargaining chip.

“A state that needs its oppressor’s permission to exist is not a state”, Ghannoushi states. “It’s a diplomatic mirage sold over mass graves”.

She warns that every time the Palestinians rise up, the “peace process” is revived — not to achieve justice, but to bury it.

We are the UN

But if even this last resort is not taken, one must conclude, as a participant in the Global Sumud Flotilla put it: international law is dead. We, the peoples of the world, must be the “united nations” to enforce law and justice.

---

Thanks for reading. Putting out high-quality journalism requires constant research, most of which goes unpaid, so if you appreciate my writing please consider upgrading to a paid subscription if you haven’t already. Aside from a fuzzy feeling inside of you, you’ll get access to exclusive articles and commentary.

Thomas Fazi

Website: thomasfazi.net

Twitter: @battleforeurope

Latest book: The Covid Consensus: The Global Assault on Democracy and the Poor—A Critique from the Left (co-authored with Toby Green)