Authors: Muhammad Izzuddin Al Haq and Nur Afeerah Azman*
The collapse of the ceasefire agreement, which could have offered renewed hope for the livelihood of the Palestinian people, appears to be worsening the situation. This is evident in the ongoing airstrikes and the blockade of humanitarian aid, actions that may be classified as genocide and have contributed to the soaring death toll. The world has dated back to the failure of the implementation of the Oslo Accords of 1993, as a prominent example. Despite both past efforts and the upcoming initiative by Saudi Arabia and France to co-chair UN talks on a potential two-state solution, growing numbers of people are now calling for military intervention to halt the genocide in Gaza.
Peacekeeping Mission Calls Ring Louder
The growing trend signals a broader international acknowledgement of the brutal genocide being carried out in Gaza, as more states seek diplomatic solutions to the crisis. Despite numerous negotiations and resolutions spearheaded by the UN Security Council, diplomacy appears to have reached a dead end overnight. This situation raises critical questions about the effectiveness of international mechanisms when one or more permanent members of the Council cast their veto power to block action, even in the face of mounting evidence of violations of international humanitarian law.
The implementation of Chapter VII of the UN Charter is often crippled by the lack of consensus among Security Council members. In cases of genocide, when diplomacy fails, compound mechanisms should be enforced not only to punish the actor, but also to prevent the ongoing discourse, as it was stated in Article 1 of the Genocide Convention in 1948. Though traditional UN peacekeeping requires the consent of conflicting parties and their commitment to a political process, there are circumstances where armed missions may be necessary to protect civilians. The absence of political will must not be an excuse for inaction. Instead, it should compel bold, collective efforts to stop violence and uphold justice. Military intervention is a mechanism built into the very structure of international law
Humans are not geopolitical tools
Despite the overwhelming evidence of the war crimes, the gut of Trump with his plan to displace Palestinians to other lands is inhumane. This plan, which gained support from Prabowo, ultimately pictures the greater form of violation of international law as a political tool played by the US in supporting under-the-table business with Israel. To them, such an opportunity is seldom encountered to implement all the support of Israel’s nuclear operation. Again, after bombs, white phosphorus, and burning down refugee camps, they would never hesitate to use nuclear weapons in flattening Palestine and its surroundings. This selective silence reveals a disturbing double standard where Palestinian lives are valued less than Israeli lives, and where the principle of sovereignty is misused to shield states from accountability even when they perpetrate or allow mass atrocities.
War crimes, genocide, and ethnic cleansing have been shown in this conflict by Israel towards the Palestinians, yet the international actors remain silent. In contrast with mass atrocities happened in Libya, UNSC passed resolution 1970 and 1972 within weeks authorizing NATO’s use of force to protect civilians. A similar rapid deployment happened in Lebanon following the 2006 war where approximately 1,200 Lebanese and 160 Israelis died. As response, UN quickly expanded UNIFIL’s mandate to monitor the ceasefire. However, in Gaza alone, over 35,000 Palestinian which mostly women and children have been killed since October 2023, yet no peacekeeping force has been deployed. The question is no longer about feasibility, but about political will. How UNIFIL is possible in Lebanon but not for Palestine where the humanitarian toll is far greater?
What Intervention Could Look Like in Palestine
Intervention should begin with a permanent ceasefire and a complete halt to violence against civilians. Putting aside the division of the land, humanity must stand first. Humanitarian access must be restored by lifting blockades on food, water, and medical aid. Justice should be applied impartially to those responsible for war crimes. The roots of this conflict lie in long-standing historical hatred, demanding comprehensive conflict resolution and management. The international community must serve the UN’s purpose, including deploying peacekeeping to maintain humanity in Gaza. Such intervention does not imply full-scale war, but rather decisive measures. Such enforcing no-fly zones, securing humanitarian corridors, and forming peacekeeping under UN forces with comprehensive mandates to protect civilians and uphold human rights. Morally, it reaffirms that certain values, which integrate the protection of innocent lives, are non-negotiable. When diplomacy turns into complicity with injustice, principled intervention becomes necessary. The very design of international law acknowledges that, at times, force may be necessary to preserve peace.
*Nur Afeerah Azman is an Undergraduate Student in International Affairs Management at the School of International Studies, Universiti Utara Malaysia. She is currently the Lead Analyst at World OrderLab, where she leads strategic research on global affairs, diplomacy, and international conflict. She is passionate about youth engagement and peacebuilding. Afeerah combines critical thinking with impactful storytelling to make complex global issues more accessible and meaningful to the public.
