Skip to main content

How could Ramadan affect the Israel-Hamas war?

In short: A cease-fire in the Israel-Hamas war was not reached before Ramadan, the Islamic holy month, after weeks of negotiations. U.S. officials had said they were hopeful that a Ramadan cease-fire could be a period of “calm” that allowed humanitarian workers to safely access the Gaza Strip, which has been ravaged by Israeli bombings. In Israel and the Palestinian territories – and other parts of the world suffering from conflict – the holy month has often correlated with heightened tensions and violence.

Why were there efforts to get a cease-fire before Ramadan?

Ramadan had become an unofficial deadline for U.S., Qatari, and Egyptian negotiators to broker a deal between Israel and Hamas due to the escalating scale of the conflict. Majed al-Ansari, a foreign policy adviser to the Qatari prime minister, said during negotiations that he feared the conflict could reach “the point of no return” if an agreement was not made before the holy month.

What is Ramadan?

According to the Islamic Networks Group, “Ramadan is considered one of the holiest months of the year for Muslims.” During this month, Muslims honor the revelation of the Qur’an, which they believe God revealed to the prophet Muhammad over a span of 23 years. For the duration of Ramadan, Muslims fast from sunrise to sunset, perform special prayers, and often increase philanthropic giving. According to The Washington Post, donations to Gaza aid are likely to go up during Ramadan because of the month’s emphasis on charity.

The Biden administration had expressed similar concerns and, accordingly, had harbored significant hopes for what a fighting-free Ramadan could have held. In a press briefing on Mar. 2, one White House official said that they hoped Ramadan could be a period of “calm” where there was the ability “to do the essential humanitarian work.”

The humanitarian crisis in Gaza is rapidly worsening. Since Oct. 7, an estimated 75% of Gaza’s population has been displaced and over half of Gaza’s buildings have been destroyed by Israeli bombs. Israel has also severely limited the amount of food, water, and medicine allowed to enter the strip – which, in northern Gaza, has left one in six children under two years old acutely malnourished.

“Humanitarian aid agencies like UNICEF must be enabled to reverse the humanitarian crisis, prevent a famine, and save children’s lives,” said Adele Khodr, UNICEF Regional Director for the Middle East and North Africa, in a statement.


The Overview newsletter

The news you need to navigate our world, delivered to your inbox every weekday afternoon.

 

Amid this crisis, there was also an “emotional goal for Muslims” to have a cease-fire by Ramadan, according to The Washington Post, because it is Islam’s most sacred month.

While Muslims around the world celebrate the holiday in their homes, displaced Palestinians in Gaza are now celebrating Ramadan in tent camps. An Al Jazeera video report shows that these celebrations are very different from how the holiday is usually marked. For example, children typically light fireworks to celebrate the holy month, but they can’t do so in the tent camps for fear of starting a fire.

Letting the conflict rage during Ramadan "adds a layer of distastefulness and outrage to an already pretty horrendous situation,” Khaled Elgindy, director of the Middle East Institute’s program on Palestine, told Foreign Policy. “It adds more pressure on Arab governments to at least look like they’re doing something.”

How has Ramadan affected Israel and the Palestinian territories in the past?

Ramadan has often correlated with increased tensions in Israel and the Palestinian territories. One specific point of tension is the Al-Aqsa Mosque in East Jerusalem, which holds religious significance both for Muslims and for Jewish people, who know the site as the  Temple Mount.

During Ramadan, many Muslims visit the mosque, which is considered one of Islam’s holiest sites. But, in the past, Israel has restricted how many Palestinians can visit the mosque during the holy month and has conducted police raids on the site. Israeli police raids and settler provocation at Al-Aqsa were one reason Hamas listed when explaining its motivations for the group’s Oct. 7 attack that killed about 1,200 Israelis and took more than 200 hostages.

How did Al-Aqsa Mosque come under Israeli control?

The Al-Aqsa Mosque is in East Jerusalem, which was captured by Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War, along with Gaza and the West Bank. Israel has maintained control of the area ever since.

Ahead of this year’s Ramadan, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected a far-right plan to restrict access to the mosque even further than what was typical in past years — but he also said that access to the mosque will be evaluated on a weekly basis.

Two of Israel’s past military operations in Gaza also started during Ramadan – Operation Protective Edge in 2014 and a 2021 conflict that erupted after Israeli police stormed Al-Aqsa Mosque.

How has Ramadan affected conflict in other parts of the world? 

The jihadist terror group the Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL) often ramps up violent attacks during the holy month.

Iraq and Syria, where the group conducts most of its operations, have been hit particularly hard by these Ramadan attacks over the years. In 2023, for instance, the Islamic State carried out fewer attacks during Ramadan than it had in years — but it still carried out 19 attacks each in Syria and Iraq.

Conflicts far outside the Middle East can also affect the region’s ability to celebrate Ramadan in typical fashion. Syria, for instance, imports large volumes of wheat and other food products from Ukraine. In 2022, the Ukraine war increased the price of these imports, exacerbating an ongoing economic crisis in Syria and making the food many Syrian Muslims would buy to break the Ramadan fast unaffordable.  

In Sudan, meanwhile, fighting between the Sudanese Army and the Rapid Support Forces has been ongoing for nearly a year, worsening the “world’s largest displacement crisis” and creating the potential for “the world’s worst hunger crisis,” according to the United Nations. The ongoing violence is likely to disrupt celebrations of the holy month for the majority-Muslim population of Sudan – which, as in the Israel-Hamas war, has led to calls for a Ramadan cease-fire.

Last week, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres appealed to both sides of the Sudanese conflict to cease fighting during Ramadan, saying, “A Ramadan cessation of hostilities can help stem the suffering and usher the way to sustainable peace.” 

This work needs your support

Your tax-deductible donation enables us to break down the most complex global issues so you have the info you need to build a better world.

Read Time (minutes)
5 minute read

Jordan is seen as a stable country in the Middle East, but fears the Israel-Hamas war could spill over to its borders

In short: Jordan, which shares a border with the West Bank and Israel, fears the Israel-Hamas war could spill over to its country. Of particular concern is the potential for an influx of Palestinian refugees, which Jordan has stated it would not accept. Jordan is already home to the world’s second-largest per capita number of refugees, and it has a large Palestinian population, due in part to past refugee resettlement waves dating back as far as the 1940s. Jordan has been a longtime U.S. ally and source of stability in the Middle East but is already facing challenges that could be exacerbated by any spillover from the Israel-Hamas war.

What role does Jordan play in the Middle East?

Jordan has long been considered one of the most stable countries in the Middle East. It has a deep history of allyship with the West, and it has cooperated with Israel on several notable occasions. Jordan signed an armistice with Israel in 1949 that ended the First Arab-Israeli War, and in 1994, it became just the second country in the Middle East to begin official diplomatic relations with Israel. The peace treaty that launched that diplomacy is considered one of the few successes of the peace talks between Israel and its neighbors in the 1990s, although Jordanian-Israeli relations have been eroding in recent years.

Jordan and the Abraham Accords

While Jordan was one of the first countries to have official diplomatic relations with Israel, it did not sign onto the U.S.-led Abraham Accords in 2020.

The overall perception of stability in Jordan has also been somewhat shaken recently, amid a struggling economy, high youth unemployment, and repressive freedom-of-expression laws. However, the United Nations Population Fund still defines the country as a steady force in the region, stating, “Jordan has a reputation for dynamism, moderation and peace brokering in the Middle East.”

Jordan also accepts many refugees, especially those from Syria, and is home to the second-largest number of refugees per capita – meaning that, of all the nations on Earth, it has the second-highest ratio of refugees compared to its entire population. According to the United Nations’ refugee agency, there are 760,000 refugees in Jordan, 88.5% of whom are from Syria.  

Why is Jordan concerned about conflict in the Palestinian territories?

Like most Middle Eastern countries, Jordan supports the creation of a Palestinian state. Because of this, Jordanians worry that the Israel-Hamas war and violence in the West Bank will lead to a forced “permanent expulsion” of Palestinians from the occupied territories, ending any chance of an independent Palestine. Such an expulsion would also send an influx of refugees into Jordan, which Jordan has stated it won’t accept.

Jordan and the West Bank

Between 1948 and 1967, Jordan was responsible for governing the West Bank. This administrative relationship ended when Israel occupied the territory – along with Gaza, the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula, the Syrian Golan Heights, and East Jerusalem – at the end of the Six-Day War. The West Bank sits on the west banks of the Jordan River and the Dead Sea, which is how the territory received its name.

Jordan’s King Abdullah II has pushed back on accepting any Palestinian refugees, saying “No refugees in Jordan, no refugees in Egypt,” and the country’s prime minister, Bisher al Khasawneh, has warned that any actions and conditions that lead to the mass displacement of Palestinians would pose an “existentialist threat” that violates Jordan’s 1994 peace treaty with Israel.


The Overview newsletter

The news you need to navigate our world, delivered to your inbox every weekday afternoon.

 

It’s important to note, though, that Jordan’s refusal to accept these refugees is not rooted in prejudice against Palestinians. Rather, as explained by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the policy is “a countermove to deny Israel the opportunity to empty the West Bank and Gaza of as many Palestinians as possible.”

In prior incidents where Palestinians have been displaced en masse, Jordan has been a top destination for refugee resettlement. During the 1948 Nakba, 750,000 Palestinians were forced to leave their homes after Israel declared itself an independent nation and began annexing land that had been set aside for a Palestinian state. Many of these Palestinians fled into the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, or neighboring countries, including Jordan, which saw its population triple.

What does Nakba mean?

Nakba means “catastrophe” in Arabic.

During the 1967 Six-Day War between Israel, Syria, and Jordan, 300,000 more Palestinians were displaced and once again fled to neighboring countries like Jordan.

According to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, there are over 2 million Palestinian refugees in Jordan today, the most of any country where the agency works. The permanent population of Jordan also includes many people of Palestinian descent. Overall, one in five people in Jordan is Palestinian, including Queen Rania Al Abdullah, who was born in Kuwait to Palestinian parents.

What challenges is Jordan already facing?

Jordan is already facing a stagnant economy and a youth unemployment rate of nearly 42%, along with an “authoritarian slide” in its government, a monarchy with one elected legislative chamber that “wields little power in practice,” according to U.S.-based nonprofit Freedom House,” according to U.S.-based nonprofit Freedom House.

Freedom House, which evaluates every country’s freedom level based on multiple criteria pertaining to political rights and civil liberties, listed Jordan as “partly free” in 2020, but has labeled the country “not free” in every year since.

There’s also concern that Jordan could soon face increased financial responsibility in the management of its refugee population. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which provides aid to the millions of Palestinian refugees in the Middle East, has faced significant funding cuts in recent months. Amid the agency’s budget issues, some fear that the cost of caring for refugees will increasingly fall on the countries that house them, including Jordan.

Amid the Israel-Hamas war, and the death toll in Gaza surpassing 30,000, new public opinion insights show that disagreement over the conflict could also pose challenges for Jordan.

There are signs of and concern for growing Hamas sympathies, and a recent study on public opinion in 16 Arab countries about the Israel-Hamas conflict – the first survey of its kind – found discernible opposition to Jordan’s role in the war. According to the survey, that Arabs are split on Jordan’s response to the war but are in a near-consensus in opposing Jordan’s recognition of Israel. Notably, 51% of poll respondents view the U.S. as the biggest threat to peace and stability within the region, followed by Israel at 26%.

This work needs your support

Your tax-deductible donation enables us to break down the most complex global issues so you have the info you need to build a better world.

Read Time (minutes)
5 minute read

What is the Palestinian Authority?

In short: The Palestinian prime minister announced on Feb. 26 that he and his council of ministers will resign from the Palestinian Authority (PA), which has limited governance over the occupied territory of the West Bank. The resignation comes amid declining support for the PA, which has been weakened by accusations of corruption, withdrawn financial aid, and the slow pace of progress toward Palestinian self-determination. The U.S. and many Arab nations have been pressuring the PA to reform itself in recent months, as its credibility plays a central role in how a post-war Gaza Strip – and a Palestinian state – could be governed.

What is the Palestinian Authority?

The PA was formed in 1994 as part of the Oslo Accords peace process between Israel and the Palestinian territories.

According to the agreement, the Israeli military was to withdraw from Gaza and parts of the West Bank, leaving the PA as those areas’ new governing authority. In return, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) – a preexisting political group that had represented the Palestinian people since the 1960s – would recognize Israel as a nation.

What is the PLO?

The Palestine Liberation Organization acts as the international representative of the Palestinian people, including at the United Nations. The PLO also runs the PA, both of which are dominated by Fatah, a secular nationalist political party headed by Mahmoud Abbas, who is also president of the PA. 

The PA was established with limits and was not intended to be a fully autonomous government. It was only meant to be part of the temporary, transitional arrangement brokered under the Oslo Accords, wherein the PA would govern parts of the West Bank for up to five years until further peace talks could convene.

As part of the Oslo Accords, the West Bank was broken up into three parts that were to be governed by different bodies. Area A was to be exclusively controlled by the Palestinian Authority, Area B would be controlled by the Palestinian Authority and Israel, and Area C would be controlled exclusively by Israel.  

More peace talks after the Oslo Accords were meant to create a permanent path to Palestinian self-determination. But, amid continuing violence, expanding Israeli settlements in the West Bank, and disagreements over who should control Jerusalem, the post-Oslo peace process fell apart, and a permanent agreement was never reached.

In the meantime, though, the PA did begin to govern. PLO chairman Yasser Arafat was selected as the PA’s first president, and he remained in that role until his death in 2004.

man on the phone
Undated photo of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat speaking on the phone, made available by the Palestinian Authority in Gaza City of the Gaza Strip. (Photo: Palestinian Authority / AP)

Mahmoud Abbas – who had previously served as the PA’s first prime minister – succeeded him and has been president since. Though the PA initially held elections for the presidency, there has not been a presidential election since Abbas was voted in in 2005.


The Overview newsletter

The news you need to navigate our world, delivered to your inbox every weekday afternoon.

 

Abbas recognizes Israel and supports a non-violent path to an eventual two-state solution. As president, he is also responsible for appointing the prime minister. The prime minister who resigned this week, Mohammad Shtayyeh, was appointed by Abbas in 2019, though Reuters says the premiership “holds little effective power” compared to Abbas.

What is the two-state solution?

The two-state solution would create an independent Palestinian state alongside the independent nation of Israel. A two-state solution was widely considered to be the ultimate goal of the Oslo Accords, had the accords been successful in arranging permanent governance for the region.

While the PA still nominally governs the West Bank, Hamas is the governing force in Gaza. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, Hamas has held “de facto authority” since 2005, when the Israeli military withdrew from Gaza, and it took official power in 2007. Hamas is a separate organization from the PA and, due to its history of violence, it does not represent the Palestinian people in any official international capacities like the PA and PLO do.

Why did the Palestinian prime minister resign?

Palestinian prime minister Shtayyeh announced on Feb. 26 that he and his cabinet would resign. Abbas accepted the resignation and said that he will appoint a new prime minister.

Who leads the PA?

Like many governments, the PA is made up of three branches – executive, legislative, and judicial:

  • The executive branch is led by the president, who appoints a prime minister. The prime minister then appoints a council of ministers, which is similar to the U.S. president’s cabinet.
  • The legislative branch is the Palestine Legislative Council and is made up of 132 members. Elections for the PLC have been held twice – in 1996 and 2006 – but the PLC hasn’t been active since 2007. New laws are instead made by presidential decree.
  • The judicial branch is made up of multiple courts under a High Judicial Council that regulates and supervises them. However, Abbas has made a number of changes to the judiciary in recent years via presidential decrees, giving him near-total control over the system.

The resignation comes amid pressure from the U.S. and Arab nations for the PA to reform itself. Since Hamas is not seen as a legitimate government among the international community, nations like the U.S. have mentioned the PA retaking control of Gaza after the Israel-Hamas war ends – and bolstering the reputation of the PA is seen as an essential step in that process.

In a statement to his cabinet, Shtayyeh said the next stage of the PA would “require new governmental and political arrangements that take into account the emerging reality in the Gaza Strip, the national unity talks, and the urgent need for an inter-Palestinian consensus.”

Though the PA has long had issues, the Council on Foreign Relations says the start of Abbas’s leadership is often thought to be the true origin of the PA’s decline. Abbas has been president of the PA for 19 years. In that time, he has dissolved the legislative branch to make laws by presidential decree, taken near-total control of the judicial branch, and blocked the West Bank’s 2021 election, which would have been its first in 15 years.

The PA relies on international aid to operate, but, in the wake of these controversies, countries including Saudi Arabia and the U.S. have reduced or cut their funding to the PA. In 2013, the PA received nearly $1.4 billion in international funding. In 2022, it received less than $350 million.

How do Palestinians feel about the Palestinian Authority?

Approval of the PA among Palestinians is typically low. To combat this, U.S. officials have been meeting with Abbas in the hope that he can transform the PA enough to earn local respect and resume the governance of Gaza. Officials from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt have also met with PA officials to discuss the PA’s ability to govern Gaza.

According to a 2023 survey from the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, which polled residents in the West Bank and Gaza Strip between November and December 2023, only 23% said they want the PA to govern Gaza at the end of the war, and 64% were against the PA participating in meetings with the U.S. and Arab countries to discuss post-war Gaza.

Historically the PA has coordinated with Israel on security issues, which the Associated Press says, “is extremely unpopular, causing many Palestinians to view [the PA] as a subcontractor of the occupation.” In March 2023, the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research found that 63% of Palestinians supported ending the PA’s security coordination with Israel – and, in January, that’s what happened. The PA suspended its coordination with Israel on Jan. 25 after nine Palestinians were killed in an Israeli raid in the West Bank.

This work needs your support

Your tax-deductible donation enables us to break down the most complex global issues so you have the info you need to build a better world.

Read Time (minutes)
5 minute read

Is the UN doing a good job? Just 33% of Americans think so, new Gallup poll shows

In short: New polling conducted by Gallup between Feb. 1 and 20 finds that, compared to last year, fewer Americans think the United Nations is doing a good job at solving the problems it has to face. The U.N. has been tasked with a growing number of global issues in the last year, including addressing the effects of the mounting climate crisis and dealing with an increasing need for global humanitarian aid. Along with these issues, the U.N. has also been faced with two major conflicts that have proven difficult to deescalate – the war in Ukraine and the Israel-Hamas war.

How has approval of the UN changed among Americans?

When asked the question, “Do you think the United Nations is doing a good job or a poor job in trying to solve the problems it has had to face?,” only one in three Americans (33%) this year told Gallup they think the U.N. is doing a good job. In 2023, 39% of Americans surveyed said the same.

The percentage of Americans that think the U.N. is doing a poor job has held steady at 58% since 2022.

The U.N.’s approval among Americans has not always been this low. In February 2002, nearly six in 10 Americans (58%) surveyed said the group was doing a good job - an all-time high among Gallup’s polling. Since then, though, its approval rating has decreased (albeit not always steadily). Approval of the U.N. dropped to its lowest level among Americans, 26%, in 2009, and since then it has rarely seen approval rates above 40%.

What is the U.N.?

The U.N. was founded in 1945 after World War II to try and “maintain international peace and security and to achieve cooperation among nations on economic, social, and humanitarian problems.” The organization initially had 51 member nations but has since grown to 193 members. Along with the General Assembly, the U.N.’s policymaking body, the organization also has a court (the International Court of Justice) and a Security Council. Both the Security Council and the ICJ can hand down legally binding orders to member nations.   

What global conflicts has the UN faced in the last year?

Along with the climate crisis and increasing humanitarian needs, the U.N. has been grappling with two global conflicts that it has so far been unable to deescalate – the war in Ukraine and the Israel-Hamas war.

Russia-Ukraine war

In February 2022, after Russia invaded Ukraine, the U.N. Security Council tried and failed to adopt a resolution calling on Russia to end its invasion. Russia, one of the permanent members of the Security Council, used its veto power to prevent the resolution from passing.    

Also in February of 2022, Ukraine brought a case to the U.N.’s court, the International Court of Justice, accusing Russia of misusing international genocide law to justify its invasion of Ukraine. Though the ICJ did not immediately rule in that case, it did order Russia in March 2022 to suspend its military operations in Ukraine while the case was under consideration. Russia has ignored that order, and according to the U.N., over 10,000 civilians have been killed in the war as of Feb. 28, 2024.


The Overview newsletter

The news you need to navigate our world, delivered to your inbox every weekday afternoon.

 

Nearly a year after Russia’s invasion, the U.N. again tried to put an end to the conflict, passing a General Assembly resolution that demanded Russia withdraw its troops from Ukraine. However, since General Assembly resolutions are not legally binding, Russia was again able to ignore the dictate with relative impunity.

Israel-Hamas war

The U.N. has been equally unsuccessful in its attempts to end the Israel-Hamas war, which started on Oct. 7 when Hamas launched an attack against Israel, killing about 1,200 Israelis and taking more than 200 hostages. In response to the attack, Israel launched a “complete siege” on the Gaza Strip that has now killed at least 29,000 Palestinians, most of them women and children, leading the Associated Press to declare the conflict “the deadliest and most destructive” military campaign in recent history.

The U.N. General Assembly has passed two legally nonbinding resolutions in response to the Israel-Hamas war: One on Oct. 27, 2023, calling for a “humanitarian truce” and one on Dec. 12 calling for an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire.”

The U.N. Security Council has also weighed in on the conflict. The council passed a resolution on Dec. 22 that called for “extended humanitarian pauses and corridors” throughout Gaza to allow aid into the region. Four other resolutions, however, have been vetoed by the Security Council’s permanent members, which include China, the U.S., France, the United Kingdom, and Russia.

Security Council resolutions are often ignored

While Security Council resolutions are legally binding, they are also frequently violated. The U.N. director for the International Crisis Group, Richard Gowan, told PBS NewsHour that past calls for cease-fires have been passed “with little or no impact.”

A 2002 analysis found that, at the time, at least 91 Security Council resolutions were being ignored. Israel and Turkey were ignoring the most, with 31 and 23 violations, respectively, according to research reported by the Los Angeles Times. Many of the resolutions Israel was ignoring pertained to its occupation of Palestinian territory.

The U.S. was responsible for three of those vetoes: those of an Oct. 18 resolution calling for “humanitarian pauses,” a Dec. 8 resolution that would’ve called for an “immediate humanitarian cease-fire,” and a similar cease-fire resolution from Feb. 20. The U.S. has vetoed resolutions critical of Israel more than any other council member has – 45 times as of Dec. 18, 2023, according to an analysis by Blue Marble.

The ICJ, meanwhile, has taken up two cases involving Israel and the Palestinian territories – an advisory case on the legality of Israel’s occupation of the territories and a case South Africa brought to the court accusing Israel of committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.

In January, the ICJ ruled that, for the duration of the case brought by South Africa, Israel must "take all measures within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide" as well as take immediate measures to allow for humanitarian assistance. But the judges stopped short of approving the request to end military action in Gaza, nor did they order a cease-fire.

What other factors are involved in how the UN is perceived?

Dina Smeltz, senior fellow of public opinion and foreign policy at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, told Blue Marble, a project of the Council, that the U.N.’s inability to deescalate the wars in Ukraine and Gaza has likely helped shape Americans’ views on the U.N., given how the public has viewed the group’s involvement in past conflicts.

“When we were doing surveys in Bosnia, for example, in the ’90s and the U.N. peacekeepers weren’t able to hold off some aggressive tactics … that definitely had some impact on American views,” she said. “What value does the U.N. have if its peacekeepers can’t even really keep peace?”

Gallup’s polling data also hints at the idea that wars can affect Americans’ perception of the U.N. Respondents’ approval of the U.N.’s handling of international issues took a sharp downward turn in 2003, around the start of the Iraq War, and it remained low for the next several years.

But global conflicts aren’t the only factors that contribute to how the U.N. is perceived by the public. Smeltz said that partisan politics and geographic location also play a role.

Political affiliation

Smeltz cited political affiliation as a key indicator of U.N. approval among Americans. She said that, after the U.S. war in Iraq, approval for the U.N. took on a partisan split that has persisted.  

“People who support the Republican Party tend to more often want to do things alone and think we can do better if we don't have to work with other countries,” Smeltz said. “While Democrats and younger people – I would say younger people also have a higher opinion of the U.N. than older generations – they see more value in working with other countries to solve global problems.”

Location

While not reflected in Gallup’s polling of Americans, Smeltz noted that those in developing nations might possess very different views of the U.N. as they are more likely to come into direct contact with a U.N. agency.

“Americans don't really see how the U.N. touches their daily lives,” Smeltz said. “But in some of these countries, it definitely is a lifeline.”

This work needs your support

Your tax-deductible donation enables us to break down the most complex global issues so you have the info you need to build a better world.

Read Time (minutes)
6 minute read

What is the land-for-peace principle some hope will resolve conflict in the Middle East?

In short: The U.S. testified at the United Nations’ court on Feb. 21, saying that Israel should not be “legally obligated to immediately and unconditionally withdraw” from occupied Palestinian territory. Instead, they said the International Court of Justice should work within the “land-for-peace” framework when issuing their legally nonbinding opinion. The “land-for-peace” principle grew out of a set of U.N. resolutions from the mid-20th century, and it asserts that, if Israel withdraws from the territory it occupies, the surrounding Arab countries will recognize Israel as a sovereign nation, leading to peace in the region.

What did the U.S. say at the ICJ’s hearing on Israel’s occupation?

The U.N. General Assembly approved a resolution at the end of December 2022 that condemned Israel’s behavior in the Palestinian territories and asked the ICJ, the U.N.’s main judicial body, to issue an advisory opinion on the legality of Israel’s decades-long occupation of the territories.  

What is an advisory case?

The ICJ handles two types of cases. Contentious ICJ cases are focused on issues between countries, and the court’s rulings on them are legally binding. Advisory cases arise when a U.N. agency (like the General Assembly) asks the court for a legal opinion. Advisory opinions are typically not legally binding, though exceptions can be made if the ruling pertains to an established U.N. convention.

After several months of preliminary written arguments, the ICJ began oral proceedings in the case on Feb. 19. During these hearings, which are expected to last about a week, representatives of 52 countries and three international organizations are making statements to the court about how they think it should rule.

The U.S. testified to the court on Feb. 21, saying that the ICJ should not try to “resolve” the conflict by issuing a broad advisory opinion, but instead use the land-for-peace framework to issue an advisory ruling that will “support and promote final realization of peace and stability,” which the U.S. believes is best accomplished through a two-state solution.

What is the two-state solution?

The two-state solution would create an independent Palestinian state alongside the independent nation of Israel. The U.S. has supported a two-state solution for decades, and President Joe Biden has said he supports the creation of Israeli and Palestinian states based on pre-1967 borders. Multiple Arab nations have made the creation of a Palestinian state a prerequisite to official diplomatic relations with Israel.

After oral proceedings conclude on Feb. 26, the court will begin its deliberation on whether they believe Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories is in breach of international law.

What is the land-for-peace principle?

At the center of the land-for-peace principle is the idea that, should Israel withdraw from the territory it occupies, peace will be made by the surrounding Arab countries in return.

two men standing
Israeli soldiers stand at the destroyed bridge at Geneffa looking over the Egyptian bank of the Suez Canal, June 1967. (Photo: Mario Torrisi  / AP)

According to the U.N. Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia, “The issue of land is at the core of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict,” dating back at least as far as the 1917 Balfour Declaration that called for “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.” Between 1922 and 1937, many Jewish people, particularly Eastern Europeans fleeing the Nazis, moved to what was then Palestine, which the League of Nations had put under British control in 1922. The Palestinian population pushed back against this and wanted independence.

In 1947, the U.N. attempted to solve this conflict and passed a resolution that proposed splitting the territory then known as Palestine into two states – one comprised mostly of Palestinian Arabs and the other made up mostly of Jewish people. But before this resolution could be enacted, conflict between Arab and Jewish groups broke out, and, in 1948, Israel declared itself a sovereign nation. A war ensued between Israel and its neighbors, and during the war Israel expanded its borders to include 77% of what was considered Palestine before 1947.


The Overview newsletter

The news you need to navigate our world, delivered to your inbox every weekday afternoon.

 

This war set off a long period of conflict in the region, both between Israelis and Palestinians and between the Israeli government and the governments of nearby Arab nations like Egypt and Jordan. The land-for-peace principle grew out of the U.N. Security Council Resolutions put forth in an attempt to end these conflicts.  

First, the 1967 Six-Day War between Israel and the Arab countries of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan saw Israel capture the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula, the Syrian Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem.

In response, the Security Council approved Resolution 242, which called on Israel to withdraw its forces from these areas and for all parties to respect the sovereignty of the countries involved in the conflict. This second demand was largely directed at the Arab states, which had refused to recognize Israel as a country. Though none of the countries abided by either stipulation, the resolution laid the foundation for the idea of “land for peace.” As legal scholars interpreted it, the stakes of this resolution were straightforward: If Israel gave back the disputed land, its neighbors would respect Israel’s right to peacefully exist.

The concept arose again in a 1973 resolution responding to the Yom Kippur War, which began when Egypt and Syria launched attacks on Israel to try and reclaim the land Israel had gained in 1967. The resolution reaffirmed the need for the nations to obey the terms set forth in Resolution 242, this time with some success: A temporary peace agreement was brokered between Israel and Egypt a few weeks later.

Israel and the Golan Heights

Syria tried and failed to retake the Golan Heights in 1973, and after a cease-fire was signed between Israel and Syria, a U.N. peacekeeper force moved into the region. Israel annexed the Golan Heights in 1981, and the territory’s ownership is now in dispute. Though the international community has not generally recognized the Golan Heights as part of Israel, the Trump Administration did.

The Camp David Accords — a set of two agreements between Egypt and Israel signed in 1978 and brokered by President Jimmy Carter — are generally considered to be the first example of "land for peace” in action. The accords created a more permanent peace between the two countries through an agreement that Israel would withdraw from the Sinai Peninsula, Egypt and Israel would resume diplomatic relations, and Gaza and the West Bank would become fully autonomous states within five years of the agreement.

However, not all of the stipulations of the Camp David Accords were carried out. Israel still occupies Gaza and the West Bank, although the Palestinian Authority was established as a partial governing system for the Palestinian territories as part of the later Oslo Accords in 1993.

As of this reporting, only five Arab states have official diplomatic ties with Israel.

What do the U.S., Israel, and Arab countries say about the land-for-peace principle? 

The U.S. has long been a proponent of the land-for-peace principle, which was reflected in their recent ICJ testimony.

The Arab League, an alliance of Arab nations, has also expressed interest in a land-for-peace solution. In 1967, for instance, the League signed the Khartoum resolution, which included what have been called the “three noes”: no peace, recognition, or negotiations with Israel while Israel occupies the Palestinian territories. These principles were endorsed again in 1982 and 2002, although some Arab nations have established official relations with Israel since. Before the Oct. 7 Hamas attack and Israel’s ensuing “complete siege” on Gaza, Saudi Arabia made the land-for-peace principle a necessary tenet of diplomatic relations between the two countries.

soldiers standing
U.N. troops guard tents where Israeli and Egyptian chiefs of staff are meeting to discuss the separation of their respective forces, at KM 101 on the Suez-Cairo highway, Jan. 20, 1974. (Photo: Max Nash / AP)

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, however, has rejected the possibility of a Palestinian state as part of a cease-fire deal in the Israel-Hamas war and said Israel will keep security control over Gaza and the West Bank.

Support for a two-state solution is also low among Palestinians. Though Palestinian support for a two-state solution reached a peak of 59% in 2012, it has since fallen dramatically. A Gallup poll conducted in the summer and fall of 2023 found that just 24% of Palestinians worldwide supported a two-state solution in which Israel would remain an independent nation. Support was even lower among Palestinians aged 15 to 25.

This work needs your support

Your tax-deductible donation enables us to break down the most complex global issues so you have the info you need to build a better world.

Read Time (minutes)
6 minute read

Israel has occupied Palestinian territories since 1967; UN court considers whether that’s legal

In short: The United Nations General Assembly has asked the organization’s court to give advice on what legal consequences Israel should face for its decades-long occupation of the Palestinian territories. On Feb. 19, the International Court of Justice began hearings, during which 52 countries and three international organizations are expected to provide their opinions to the court. Israel has opted to submit a written statement, while the State of Palestine made in-person remarks to the court on Monday. Israel first took control of the Palestinian territories in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as part of the 1967 Six-Day War, and it heavily restricts movement for the 5 million Palestinians who live in these territories.   

What is the ICJ case involving Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories?

The U.N. General Assembly approved a resolution at the end of December 2022 that condemned Israel’s behavior in the Palestinian territories and asked the ICJ, the U.N.’s main judicial body, to issue an advisory opinion in response to two questions:

  • What legal consequences could come from Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories?
  • Could Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories result in any legal consequences for the U.N. and its member nations?  
What is an advisory case?

The ICJ handles two types of cases. Contentious ICJ cases are focused on issues between countries, and the court’s rulings on them are legally binding. Advisory cases arise when a U.N. agency (like the General Assembly) asks the court for a legal opinion. Advisory opinions are typically not legally binding, though exceptions can be made if the ruling pertains to an established U.N. convention.

According to a 2001 U.N. convention, Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories could have legal consequences for the U.N. and other member nations if it is determined to be a “serious” breach of international law. In that case, other U.N. countries could be held responsible for collaboratively bringing an end to any unlawful activities.

After several months accepting preliminary written arguments, the ICJ began oral proceedings in the case on Feb. 19. During these hearings, representatives of various countries and international organizations will make statements to the court about how they think it should rule.

Statements are expected from the League of Arab States, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, the African Union, and 52 countries – more than have participated in any other case in ICJ history. Israel, notably, will not participate in the oral proceedings; instead, the country submitted a written statement to the court.

Has the ICJ taken up a case about Israel’s occupation before?

Short answer: yes. In 2003, the U.N. General Assembly asked the ICJ to evaluate whether Israel building a wall in and around East Jerusalem was a violation of international law. The ICJ ruled that it did violate international law, but the wall still stands in the West Bank today.  

In its statement, Israel said the questions the U.N. resolution posed to the ICJ “represent a clear distortion of the history and present reality of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

Palestinian interests, on the other hand, were represented in-person at the proceedings. The State of Palestine (as the Palestinian territories are known at the U.N., where they have non-member observer status) was the first party to testify in front of the court. They argued that Israel’s occupation breaches the U.N.’s founding charter by denying Palestinians the “right to self-determination” — a right that the charter says is fundamental to peaceful international relations.


The Overview newsletter

The news you need to navigate our world, delivered to your inbox every weekday afternoon.

 

“It has taken the Palestinian people decades of painful struggle to stand before you today,” said Riad Malki, the Palestinian minister for foreign affairs and expatriates, in Monday’s remarks. “We appeal to the Court to uphold our rights to self-determination, return and all other human rights, including by declaring that the Israeli occupation is illegal and must end immediately, totally and unconditionally.”

Other countries scheduled to participate in the oral hearings include the United States, China, Russia, and South Africa. South Africa brought another case to the ICJ at the end of 2023 accusing Israel of genocide against the Palestinian people for its military operations in the Gaza Strip since Oct. 7.

On Oct. 7, Hamas launched an attack against Israel, killing about 1,200 Israelis, mostly civilians, and taking more than 200 hostages. In response to the attack, Israel launched a “complete siege” on Gaza that has now killed at least 29,000 Palestinians, most of them women and children, leading some to declare the conflict “the deadliest and most destructive” military campaign in recent history.

How long has Israel occupied the Palestinian territories?

Before the establishment of Israel, the U.N. passed a resolution that proposed splitting the territory then known as Palestine into two states – one comprised mostly of Palestinian Arabs and the other made up mostly of Jewish people, including many from Europe who had settled in the area after fleeing the Nazis.

However, conflict between Arab and Jewish groups started after the U.N. resolution, preventing the proposal from coming to fruition. In 1948, Israel declared itself a sovereign nation, and war broke out between Israel and the surrounding Arab nations. Israel started annexing Palestinian territory during this war (known as the First Arab-Israeli War), and by the end of the conflict, Israel had expanded its borders to include 77% of what was considered Palestine before 1947.

What is the Nakba?

The Nakba refers to the displacement of an estimated 750,000 Palestinians who fled or were forced to leave their homes during the First Arab-Israeli War. Nakba means “catastrophe” in Arabic.

The remaining Palestinian territories – primarily the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem – were then brought under the control of Jordan and Egypt. Following two decades of smaller conflicts, Israel again went to war with its Arab neighbor states in 1967, during the Six-Day War.

The war was initially about a shipping conflict between Egypt and Israel, but it ended up reshaping the dynamics in the Middle East by establishing Israel’s military dominance over other nations in the region.  Israel began an occupation of East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank during the war that has held ever since – and it’s this half-century of occupation that the ICJ case is focused on.

Israel’s restrictions on each of these territories differ, but one practice that Israel has followed in every Palestinian territory is land confiscation to create Israeli settlements. According to the Israeli movement Peace Now, there are 146 settlements in the West Bank that have been sanctioned by the Israeli government and 144 outposts, which are settlements that don’t have government approval but remain occupied. There are also 14 settlements in East Jerusalem.

Israel does not currently have settlements in Gaza. The country removed its settlements and military from Gaza in 2005 under a plan of “disengagement” so that “there will be no basis to the claim that the Strip is occupied land,” according to a U.N. brief quoting Israel’s disengagement plan. At a recent convention of right-wing Israeli settlers, though, some called on the government to resettle the region.  

Most Palestinians who live in occupied territories are not granted Israeli citizenship, so they are not allowed to vote in Israeli elections despite living under full or partial Israeli rule. East Jerusalem is governed by Israel, while the West Bank is partially governed by the Palestinian Authority. Hamas currently governs Gaza. 

Israel has restricted movement in and out of Gaza since 2007 through the implementation of a blockade. In the West Bank and East Jerusalem, there’s no formal blockade, but an extensive network of checkpoints and barriers run by the Israeli military puts a similar restriction on Palestinian residents’ freedom of movement.

In 2022, a U.N. Commission of Inquiry declared that Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories was in violation of international law because of “its permanence and the Israeli Government’s de-facto annexation policies.”

Who supports a two-state solution?

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has rejected the possibility of a Palestinian state as part of a cease-fire deal in the Israel-Hamas war. The U.S. has supported a two-state solution for decades, and President Joe Biden has said he supports the creation of Israeli and Palestinian states based on pre-1967 borders. Multiple Arab nations have made the creation of a Palestinian state a prerequisite to starting official diplomatic relations with Israel.

Despite this, Israel’s settlement activity in the region has continued. According to Peace Now, a record number of housing units were “promoted in settlements” in the West Bank in 2023: 12,349.

What’s next?

After oral proceedings conclude at the ICJ on Feb. 26, the court will begin its deliberation on whether the occupation is legal.

While any ICJ ruling wouldn’t be legally binding, Vienna School of International Studies professor Holger Hestermeyer told TIME that it still carries weight.

“It is after all rendered by the highest court in the international system,” he said.

South Africa’s separate case against Israel is still making its way through the ICJ, but the court ruled on Jan. 26 that, while the case is under deliberation, Israel must take all the measures it can to prevent genocide in Gaza.

This work needs your support

Your tax-deductible donation enables us to break down the most complex global issues so you have the info you need to build a better world.

Read Time (minutes)
7 minute read

What it's like to rescues migrants at sea

“No one deserves to die at sea. No one deserves to die at external borders, seeking a safe and more humane life,” Leona Blankenstein, 30, told Blue Marble.

Blankenstein is the tactical coordinator of Sea Watch International, an organization dedicated to search and rescue in the Central Mediterranean Sea that “was founded in 2014 by volunteers who could just no longer stand witnessing people dying.”

Blankenstein and her team search for boats in distress, following a route that she said consists mainly of people trying to reach Europe from Libya or Tunisia.

1 in 5 young people around the world are NEETs. What are NEETs?

In short: From the United Kingdom to China, youth unemployment has long been a concern. But across the world there is also a growing number of young people who aren’t in school, don’t have a job, and aren’t in any sort of vocational training. These young people are considered NEET – not in employment, education, or training. There are many factors that could cause a young person to become NEET, from gender-based restrictions on schooling to the high cost of living in communities where jobs and schools exist. According to a recent U.K. survey, half of young people who are NEET feel “hopeless about their future.”   

What is a NEET?

NEET is an acronym meaning “not in employment, education, or training,” first used by researchers in the United Kingdom in the 1980s. According to author Massimiliano Mascherini of Eurofound, the term was adopted in 2010 as a trend indicator by the European Commission Employment Committee, and that's when the term – and what it represented – entered the public debate.

The category includes individuals who would traditionally be counted in a country’s unemployment numbers, such as those who are unemployed but looking for work, but it also applies to those who have stopped applying for jobs.

More than a fifth of people worldwide between the ages of 15 and 24 years old – 21.7% – were considered NEETs in 2023, according to the International Labour Organization.

Vice recently asked several young NEETs what prompted them to stop their employment search.

“After graduating high school, I started an apprenticeship in a warehouse of a car manufacturer, but it was so terrible I had to quit,” one person told Vice. “I wasn't treated like a human being there, more like a tool that could be easily replaced.”

A 2024 U.K. survey describes a growing group of young people who want to participate in the workforce but can’t because of financial or health barriers, challenging the perception that young people are “lazy” or simply don’t want to work. One in four NEET respondents in the survey referenced mental health as the reason they were unable to work, and 21% of all the young people polled said their mental health had worsened in the last year.

Finances are another common issue. The cost of education is prohibitive for some young people, and for others who do complete education or training, the high cost of living in the cities where job opportunities exist can keep them out of the labor market. The impact of economic factors is reflected in the fact that low and lower-middle income economies have a higher percentage of NEETs compared to high and upper-middle income economies, according to the International Labour Organization.

What countries have the highest percentage of NEETs?

According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), South Africa, Turkey, and Colombia had the three highest youth NEET rates of the countries where it collected data. The Netherlands, Norway, and Iceland had the three lowest youth NEET rates.

South Africa, though, is a particularly illustrative example. In 2022, the country had one of the globe’s highest percentages of NEETs – 42%. The overall economy of South Africa helps explain this high rate of NEET youth. The country has one of the highest unemployment rates at nearly 30%, and the country’s average annual household income is $9,338, less than a third of the global average.


The Overview newsletter

The news you need to navigate our world, delivered to your inbox every weekday afternoon.

 

Many of the country’s young NEETs live in economically disadvantaged areas, which includes low-income urban neighborhoods and rural communities, and they’re overwhelmingly Black Africans, according to the South African government.    

South Africa’s government noted that most young NEETs have a 12th-grade education or below, meaning that a lack of education could be a barrier to access for these young people. To combat this, they said, diverse educational and training programs need to be offered to assist those who did not complete schooling.   

"The persistently high numbers of persons who are NEET in South Africa illustrates a socially explosive situation that requires urgent attention," the South African government said in a March 2023 NEETs factsheet.

NEETs and gender

One factor that impacts NEET rates in some countries is gender. For example, according to the International Labour Organization, Afghanistan had a youth NEET rate of 65% for women in 2021, compared to only 19.5% for men. This gender gap existed even before the Taliban retook control over the country in 2021 and began restricting women’s ability to work. The ILO said this gap can often be attributed to women disproportionately taking on unpaid household labor, like childcare and cooking.  

The Netherlands, by contrast, boast one of the lowest percentages of young NEETs, according to the OECD: 4.5%.

According to a 2020 European Commission report, the Netherlands’ ministries of education, culture and science, and social affairs and employment have worked together to tackle youth unemployment, resulting in a one percentage point drop in NEET rates between 2014 and 2020.

This concerted governmental effort is one reason for the country’s low NEET rates, but researchers Alexander Dicks and Mark Levels suggest that the Netherlands’ education system is another key factor.  

“The Dutch education system aims to sort pupils according to their ability, provide them with skills relevant to them, and provide them with a qualification that is meaningful and valuable in the labour market,” they explain.

But even the Netherlands’ system has it limits. Dicks and Levels note that the education system’s approach to sorting students makes it increasingly difficult for those who are initially unsuccessful in their transition from school to work. If a student who was very technically trained for a particular job is unable to find one, they often face a perception that they’re “fundamentally unfit for the labour market.” The system also creates challenges for young migrants in the Netherlands, as the European Commission notes.  

What impact does being NEET have on young people and society?

A high percentage of NEETs can reflect – or, in some cases, even cause – significant rifts in the social and economic fabric of a region or nation. 

According to a 2022 study that looked at northeastern African countries, high youth unemployment often contributes to political instability, and in developing nations it is often a reason for political and social movements developing.

“Too many young people around the world are becoming detached from education and the labour market, which can damage their long-term prospects, as well as ultimately undermine the social and economic development of their countries,” Sangheon Lee told the United Nations in 2020. Lee is the director of the employment policy department at the International Labour Organization.

There are personal impacts to NEET status as well as societal ones.  

Half of young NEETs surveyed in the U.K. said “the uncertainty of the past few years has made them feel hopeless about their future.” Studies have also found that being NEET is linked with symptoms of depression, anxiety, substance use, and suicidality.

“Young people are finding themselves in a vicious cycle,” said Jonathan Townsend, the chief executive of the Prince’s Trust, in the foreword to the Trust’s 2024 youth survey. “Poor mental health is having a negative impact on their work, and yet being unemployed has a negative impact on their mental health – this is a deeply concerning trap.”   

In 2016, the United Nations launched a global initiative to address youth unemployment as part of the 2030 sustainable development agenda.

This work needs your support

Your tax-deductible donation enables us to break down the most complex global issues so you have the info you need to build a better world.

Read Time (minutes)
5 minute read

How I went from revenge to reconciliation

Aziz Abu Sarah grew up in East Jerusalem. When he was 9 years old, his older brother was arrested on suspicion of throwing rocks  and died shortly after his release from internal injuries sustained during his time in prison.

“For eight years, my life was focused on revenge,” Aziz told Blue Marble. But when he was 18, he decided to study Hebrew.

“I realized that the students in that class didn’t know any Palestinian before, didn’t know my story, and I didn’t know theirs,” he said.

“Suddenly, we had this conversation where we were able to learn about each other and understand each other and realize this binary division of ‘us versus them,’ Israelis versus Palestinians, is not really accurate.” Today he runs a travel company with Scott Cooper, a Jewish American who he says became his best friend. Together they tell the story of the region from both perspectives. “Our staff are Israelis and Palestinians who work together every day, and they are not allowing even these moments to divide us.”

My mother's death on Oct. 7th shook me awake

Activist Vivian Silver dedicated her life to building a path to peace between Israelis and Palestinians. On Oct. 7, she was killed in the Hamas attacks.

Yonatan Zeigen told Blue Marble that his mother’s funeral was a gathering of Jews and Arabs who wanted to commemorate her and celebrate her life but “also come together and be hopeful with this notion that we want to continue in this path of peace.”

“Being a peace activist is not something to save you from being killed in war. It’s something to prevent a war from happening,” he said. “And to create reality where war is not an option.” He said his mother’s death made him understand that he “can't lead a life that is detached from trying to make change.”

Subscribe to