Introduction

Palestinian women in Gaza are subjected to overlapping forms of violence by Israel that converge into a single, coherent structure of domination. Starvation, sexual and gender-based violence, and reproductive violence do not occur as isolated abuses, but as an interlocking system enacted simultaneously and reinforcing one another. These practices operate across psychological, social, and biological dimensions of harm. While Palestinian women’s bodies are the immediate site of this violence, its intended target is Palestinian society as a whole. By systematically targeting women, Israel undermines collective survival, erodes social cohesion, and attacks the continuity of Palestinian life itself. Taken together, these practices constitute a gendered architecture of genocide that must be recognized and addressed as such.

The Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy (MIFTAH) has documented these three crimes throughout Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Firsthand testimonies collected from the Gaza Strip and the occupied West Bank reveal the distinctly gendered impacts of these violations and their cumulative effects on Palestinian women.

I. Sexual and Gender-Based Violence

Sexual and gender-based violence is systematically instrumentalized by Israel as a means of humiliating and isolating Palestinian women while dismantling family and community bonds. These violations should not be understood as isolated or aberrational incidents, but rather as part of a broader historical pattern in which sexual violence has been deployed as a tool of terror and social control against the Palestinian population.

Historical records document that during the 1948 ethnic cleansing of historic Palestine, Zionist paramilitary forces including the Haganah engaged in acts of sexual violence alongside mass killings and expulsions of Palestinians. The Haganah later became the institutional foundation of the contemporary Israeli military. This historical continuity underscores how sexual violence has long functioned as a weapon of war, embedded within military practices aimed at terrorizing civilians and facilitating population displacement.

Testimonies collected by MIFTAH fieldworkers across the West Bank and Gaza Strip reveal recurring patterns. Arrests conducted in family homes routinely transform domestic spaces into sites of domination. Soldiers storm houses, often in the middle of the night, restrain family members, destroy personal belongings, steal valuables, and dictate all movement within the home. Male relatives are frequently forced to witness or participate in the abuse of female family members, a tactic designed to emasculate men and dismantle the household from within.

Sexual violence also functions as a form of psychological torture in Israeli detention and interrogation settings. Alongside sleep deprivation, starvation, and physical assault, sexual violence is deliberately employed to induce psychological breakdown and assert total control. Testimonies describe forced strip searches, removal of hijabs, invasive bodily touching, slut-shaming, and explicit threats of rape against detainees or their relatives . Testimonies collected by the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) describe in detail the systematic use of secual torture in Israeil detention settings. Sexual violence is further enacted through blackmail, including the use of nude or indecent photographs taken during interrogation to coerce compliance or enforce silence. These practices aim to strip women of dignity, break them psychologically prior to or during interrogation, and inflict lasting harm that weakens their sense of self long after release.

The full extent of sexual violence against Palestinian women today remains difficult to quantify, as survivors rarely disclose sexual assault or rape causing underreporting to be widespread. This silence reflects structural, legal, and social barriers rather than the absence of abuse. Palestinian survivors of violence perpetrated by Israeli soldiers or settlers seldom pursue legal avenues due to the well-documented lack of accountability within Israeli law enforcement mechanisms, where investigations rarely result in prosecution or redress .

Social stigma also plays a role in silencing survivors. In a predominantly conservative social context, sexual violence carries stigma that extends beyond the survivor to her family and community. Israeli forces exploit this reality deliberately, using sexual violence and threats to women’s “honor” as mechanisms of coercion, intimidation, and social fragmentation. In this way, sexual violence operates not only as an assault on individual women, but as a strategic instrument of collective harm.

II. Reproductive Violence

Reproductive violence targets women’s capacity to give life through the systematic destruction of healthcare systems, maternity services, and the material conditions necessary for survival. It refers to deliberate actions intended to impair an entire population’s ability to reproduce and sustain itself. In Gaza, reproductive violence is not incidental to armed conflict; it is enacted through policy-driven destruction that reflects intentionality rather than collateral harm.

This violence is carried out through the systematic targeting of life-sustaining infrastructure, including hospitals, maternity wards, neonatal units, fertility clinics, and embryo preservation centers, as well as the blockade of medicines, medical equipment, and hygiene supplies. The consequences are visible in rising maternal mortality, increased miscarriages linked to malnutrition and extreme stress, untreated reproductive infections, and the repeated displacement of pregnant women seeking care within a collapsing healthcare system .

These measures directly undermine women’s ability to safely conceive, carry pregnancies to term, give birth, and raise children. Women’s reproductive health is further compromised by the deliberate obstruction of humanitarian aid and the collapse of sanitation and water infrastructure. The destruction of healthcare facilities, combined with ongoing bombardment and repeated displacement, has rendered movement dangerous and unpredictable, making access to medical care nearly impossible and severely limiting the ability of humanitarian organizations to provide reproductive and maternal health services.

As a result, there has been a sharp increase in preventable reproductive health complications. Women report rising cases of fever linked to untreated vaginal infections caused by inadequate hygiene and the absence of feminine hygiene products, as well as unnecessary hysterectomies . Women using intrauterine devices experience prolonged bleeding and infections due to unsanitary living conditions, yet no options for safe removal currently exist in Gaza, posing serious long-term risks to reproductive health and bodily integrity . Women have also been forced to undergo emergency hysterectomies to control excessive post- partum bleeding that could not be managed due to the lack of healthcare.

Reproductive violence in Gaza is therefore both biological and symbolic. It constitutes an assault on the present population and on the possibility of future generations. The objective of preventing Palestinian continuity is further evidenced by the sustained and disproportionate killing of children, who have consistently been the most targeted demographic group throughout the genocide. This killing is reinforced by an ideological framework that dehumanizes Palestinian women and children. Public statements by Israeli political and military officials have repeatedly framed the killing of women and children as militarily justified . Within this logic, women are targeted not for their actions, but for their reproductive capacity and their role in sustaining Palestinian continuity. Such rhetoric has informed and legitimized military operations in Gaza. Throughout the genocide, civilian spaces including schools, homes, and hospitals, have been deliberately targeted as a matter of state policy. These are precisely the spaces where women and children sought refuge. The systematic killing and endangerment of women and children is not a secondary effect of warfare but a central component of the broader genocidal strategy.

III. Starvation as a Weapon of Genocide

Another grave factor to the reproductive health of women in Gaza has been starvation. Prolonged malnutrition, combined with physical exhaustion, repeated displacement, and lack of healthcare infrastructure, have contributed to increased miscarriages, loss of amniotic fluid, and heightened maternal mortality . Numerous women have reported using prenatal supplements distributed by humanitarian organizations as meal substitutes for themselves or their families, or exchanging them for food and essential supplies. Breastfeeding has become increasingly difficult due to suppressed milk production associated with undernourishment, while infant formula remains largely inaccessible, placing newborns at heightened risk. Chronic stress and nutritional deprivation have also resulted in amenorrhea, fertility complications, and potential long-term reproductive harm.

For women in Gaza, starvation functions not only as a form of biological deprivation but as a structural assault on familial roles, social reproduction, and dignity. It undermines women’s capacity to fulfill caregiving responsibilities, destabilizes family life, and produces severe physical, reproductive, and psychological consequences. Women disproportionately experience the embodied impacts of hunger while simultaneously carrying the emotional labor associated with sustaining children and dependent family members.

Testimonies collected by MIFTAH from displaced women subjected to Israel’s forced starvation consistently begin with descriptions of pre-displacement life, including homes, employment, family routines, and domestic spaces. The loss of the home, particularly the kitchen, emerges as a recurrent theme, reflecting the erosion of women’s agency and identity. The destruction of homes and domestic spaces traditionally associated with women’s autonomy has contributed to a marked erosion of dignity and self-perception. Reported symptoms include anxiety, insomnia, hair loss, emotional dysregulation, and post-traumatic stress, with many women suppressing their own distress to maintain caregiving roles.

Repeated displacement has further exacerbated women’s vulnerability. Multiple forced relocations have resulted in the loss of personal possessions, kinship networks, and community-based support systems. Overcrowded shelters lack adequate privacy, sanitation, and safety, compelling women to manage childcare and food preparation under unsafe and degrading conditions. Everyday survival practices are thus shaped by constant exposure to risk and instability.

For women who serve as the primary caretakers of their families, providing for loved ones often comes at great personal risk. They are frequently reducing or skipping their own meals so that their children can eat, often continuing caregiving responsibilities despite severe physical exhaustion . In displacement, they prepare rudimentary meals using limited ingredients and improvised methods, such as cooking lentils over burning toxic materials like plastic. These practices function both as survival strategies and as efforts to maintain a sense of continuity and stability for children amid profound disruption. In these contexts, women disproportionately bear the responsibility of caring for sick, injured, or disabled family members, despite acute shortages of medical care, clean water, and shelter. Overcrowding and unsanitary conditions contribute to widespread illness, while attempts to obtain food or humanitarian assistance expose women and children to ongoing risks of injury or death.

Starvation has additionally intensified gendered pressures within households. Men’s inability to secure food or protection has been associated with increased psychological distress, thereby expanding women’s emotional and caregiving responsibilities. For women whose spouses have been killed, detained, or disappeared, starvation enforces sole provider roles under conditions that systematically undermine the possibility of survival.

Conclusion

MIFTAH has documented violations of sexual violence, reproductive violence, and starvation at various points during the genocide in Gaza. These violations, however, do not occur in isolation; they operate simultaneously, reinforcing and amplifying one another as part of a single system of control. Sexual violence isolates women from themselves and alienates them within their communities. Reproductive violence deliberately targets women because of their childbearing roles. Starvation acts as both a biological and psychological assault. Taken together, these crimes compound one another, deepening harm and undermining the survival of Palestinian women and their communities. A single woman may experience all three forms of violence, being violated in detention, displaced and denied healthcare, and later starved while unable to feed her children. Together, these crimes transform daily life into a persistent site of punishment. They attack the Palestinian female spirit, disrupt women’s societal roles, and, in doing so, fracture society across generations, making recovery increasingly difficult.

The failure to confront these violations reflects a long colonial history, in which the rhetoric of “saving women” was used to justify empire while violence against women perpetrated by colonial powers was silenced or dismissed. To resist normalization and impunity, these crimes must be recognized and addressed as mutually reinforcing acts of genocide. Understanding these violations as an interconnected system of oppression is essential to grasp their full impact on Palestinian society. These gendered crimes are not about women alone; they aim to dismantle the foundations of Palestinian life. Women are targeted not only as individuals but as mothers, community anchors, and bearers of generational continuity, while Palestinian society is systematically weakened and broken at its core.

Sources and References

Executive Summary

On 17 November 2025, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 2803, establishing a new governance framework for Gaza. The resolution endorses U.S. President Donald Trump’s Comprehensive Plan to End the Gaza Conflict (CPEGC) and the creation of a transitional international administration through a U.S.-led Board of Peace (BoP) and authorizes an International Stabilization Force (ISF). Rather than ensuring Palestinian sovereignty, this framework transfers control of Gaza’s civil administration, security, reconstruction, borders, and humanitarian aid to external actors, entrenching foreign oversight and further consolidating Israeli dominance over the occupied Palestinian territory.

This resolution raises grave legal and political concerns. It departs from foundational principles of international law and undermines the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination. By providing no mechanisms for accountability for Israel’s documented violations, offering no concrete safeguards for Palestinian rights, and presenting an undefined framework with no clear timeline or benchmarks, Resolution 2803 risks perpetuating systemic injustices, enabling a reconfigured form of occupation, and further entrenching the colonial-style control already in place.

To view the Full Policy Paper as PDF

Executive Summary

The outbreak of famine in the Gaza Strip has been a deliberate, man-made policy pursued by the Israeli government as part of its genocide. In August 2025, famine was declared by the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) for the first time in the region.

Evidence gathered by MIFTAH through sworn testimonies from women and girls demonstrates that starvation in Gaza is not an unintended by-product of war, but a deliberate and systematic policy used to subjugate and besiege the civilian population.

MIFTAH’s report, “Famine and the Violation of the Right to Food,” outlines the intersection of starvation, displacement, and bombardment, highlighting the gender-specific impacts these practices have on women. It situates the famine within the framework of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and acts of genocide under international law. Article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Rome Statute defines as a war crime the act of “intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including willfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions.” The report also shows how the militarization of humanitarian aid and the manipulation of financial systems have turned basic survival into a tool of political coercion against Palestinians, especially women.

To view the Full Policy Paper as PDF

There was visible and audible euphoria at the UN General Assembly in September when Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas announced Palestine’s application for UN membership, at UNESCO’s Paris headquarters in October when Palestine was admitted as a member state, and at UNESCO in December when the Palestinian flag was formally raised in Abbas’ presence.

Since then, nothing.

It is understood that Abbas agreed with the Quartet to freeze Palestine’s diplomatic initiatives until January 26 to permit a final effort to initiate meaningful negotiations with Israel. Predictably, that effort failed. However, January 26 has long passed, and still nothing. The Palestinian leadership was clearly surprised that with nine of the states on last year’s UN Security Council having already extended diplomatic recognition to the state of Palestine they could not line up even the nine affirmative votes for Palestine’s admission as a member state necessary to force the United States to choose between a veto (infuriating the Muslim world and much of mankind) and an abstention (infuriating Israel and its American supporters).

However, even though the turnover of five non-permanent members on January 1 does not appear to have changed the eight affirmative votes only, this does not mean that there is nothing that Palestine can constructively do to recover the initiative and positive momentum of last fall.

The leadership could proceed promptly to the UN General Assembly to obtain an overwhelming vote to upgrade Palestine’s status from “observer entity” to “observer state”. The membership in the UN and UNESCO is substantially identical, and only 14 states voted against Palestine’s admission as a UNESCO member state. Logically, even fewer states should oppose “observer state” status for Palestine at the UN.

Immediately after having Palestine’s “state status” confirmed at the UN, the leadership could make a formal — and historic — statement comprising at least the following three elements:

1. The announcement of the merger or absorption of the Palestinian Authority into the state of Palestine.

2. An undertaking by the state of Palestine, during a one-year period, in which it would seek in good faith to achieve a definitive agreement with Israel on all modalities for ending the occupation on a two-state basis, to assume and perform all the functions, rights and obligations previously assumed and performed by the Palestinian Authority under existing agreements between the PLO and the state of Israel, including security cooperation if Israel is willing to cooperate with the state of Palestine.

3. A commitment by the state of Palestine, in the event that a definitive agreement with the state of Israel on all modalities for ending the occupation on a two-state basis is not reached within this one-year period, to consult the Palestinian people by referendum as to whether they prefer continuing to seek an end to the occupation through partition, with a sovereign Palestinian state on only 22 per cent of the territory of historical Palestine, or henceforth seek the full rights of citizenship in a single democratic state in all of historical Palestine, free of any discrimination based on race, religion or origin, and with equal rights for all.

If there remains any hope of actually achieving a decent two-state solution on the ground, presenting the issue and the choice, both before Israel and before its Western supporters, in this manner should stimulate the most intensive effort imaginable to actually achieve it.

If, even with the issue and choice presented in this manner, a decent two-state solution were to prove impossible to achieve, the Palestinian leadership and people, having acted reasonably and responsibly, would be standing firmly on the moral high ground, ready to shift their goal to the only other decent alternative, with the maximum conceivable support of the rest of mankind.

During this decisive year, the leadership could also seek admission of the state of Palestine, successively, to several more carefully chosen UN agencies, such as the World International Property Organisation, the World Health Organisation and the International Atomic Energy Agency, as well as to the International Criminal Court, the International Court of Justice and, potentially, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and even the Commonwealth, choosing those targets which both appear most constructive in practical and strategic terms and in which success is highly likely.

The Security Council could be left waiting, always open for a vote at a moment of Palestinian choosing, perhaps after a change of government in a member state. In this context, it is worth, noting that François Hollande, tipped by the polls to become the next French president in May, has included in his campaign booklet “My 60 Pledges for France” the following pledge: “I will support international recognition of the Palestinian state.”

Necessarily, Palestine would stop issuing “Palestinian Authority” passports and start issuing “state of Palestine” passports. By proceeding in this way, the existence and reality of the state would be affirmed in multiple ways, through a steady succession of manifestations of statehood, while building a tangible record of “successes”, avoiding any visible “failure” and keeping Palestine and the imperative need to end the occupation on the “front burner” of the world’s attention.

In addition, an overwhelming General Assembly vote in support of “statehood status” for Palestine, coupled with a steady succession of “facts on the ground” manifestations of statehood, would make it more difficult for Security Council members to resist or block full UN membership for Palestine at such time as the leadership may deem it opportune to seek it.

The Palestinian leadership must show courage and wisdom by again seizing the initiative and setting the agenda so as to achieve, finally, some measure of justice and a decent future for the Palestinian people.

The number of UN member states extending diplomatic recognition to the state of Palestine has now risen to 131, leaving only 62 UN member states on the wrong side of history and humanity.

If one ignores small island states in the Caribbean and the Pacific, almost all of the non-recognisers are Western states, including all five of the settler-colonial states founded on the ethnic cleansing or genocide of indigenous populations and all eight of the former European colonial powers.

It appears that the current American strategy to defeat the state of Palestine’s UN membership application is to try to deprive Palestine of the required nine affirmative votes in the Security Council by convincing all five European members (including Bosnia and Herzegovina, which has recognised the state of Palestine) and Colombia (the only South American state which has not recognised the state of Palestine) to abstain, leaving only eight affirmative votes and thus making America’s lone negative vote not technically a “veto”.

Even though everyone knows that the Security Council would approve Palestinian membership unanimously if the United States announced its support, the explanation and expectation behind this strategy is, apparently, that in the absence of a “veto”, no one would notice America’s fingerprintsall over this result, no one (notably in the Arab and Muslim worlds) would be outraged by America’s blocking of Palestine’s membership application and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his colleagues would crawl back into the hamster cage from which they have so recently and dramatically escaped, duly chastened and docile, and resume running mindlessly on the Israeli-American exercise wheel.

This is not simply a breathtakingly naïve strategy but an extraordinarily dangerous one - and not only because the Ramallah leadership, having experienced enlightenment and a spine transplant, has also recovered its self respect and human dignity and will not be crawling back intoits cage.

An American veto would be neither a big deal nor a bad thing. It would unequivocally confirm the sad and humiliating reality, now almost universally recognised, that the United States of America is enslaved to Israel, paying tribute and taking orders. An American veto would definitively disqualify the United States from playing any significant role in any genuine Middle East “peace process” which would replace the fraudulent one which the United States has been controlling and manipulating on Israel’s behalf for the past 20 years and, thereby, would finally give peace a chance.

Indeed, since state observer status would confer on the state of Palestine virtually all the benefits member states have (most importantly, rightof access to the International Criminal Court, where Palestine could sue Israelis for war crimes, including settlement building, and crimes against humanity), an American veto in the Security Council followed by an upgrade to state observer status by the General Assembly might actually be the most constructive possible result for Palestine - even better than full UN membership with American acquiescence but with it maintaining its monopoly stranglehold on any “peace process”.

One might then realistically hope that the new, emerging international force, the “BRICS” countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa - all current members of the Security Council which have recognised the state of Palestine andare on record as planning to vote for Palestinian membership), and the European Union could jointly mobilise the true international community behind a genuine and urgent effort to actually achieve peace with some measure of justice.

On the other hand, America’s unanimous European abstention strategy, if successful, would have catastrophic consequences.

While the Arab and Muslim worlds have learned to expect the worst from the United States, they have, at least until now, maintained some hope that Europe is not their enemy. If Palestine’s membership applicationwere to be defeated by a united Western front, the world would be confronted by a fundamental clash of the “West against the rest”, resurrecting memories of the most arrogant and contemptuous periods of Western imperialism and colonialism and confirming the belief, already widespread in the Arab and Muslim worlds, that the Judeo-Christian world is at war with the Muslim world.

Of course, it is within the power of one man to prevent this ugly scenario from playing out. Are the prospects of a few more votes for himself and less campaign money for his eventual Republican opponent really more important to America’s multi-racialpresident than preventing a long-running clash of civilisations, cultures, races and religions, and permitting - indeed, promoting - progress towards a more peaceful, just and harmonious world?

The world will find out in the coming weeks.

The writer is an international lawyer who has advised the Palestinian negotiating team in negotiations with Israel. He contributed this article to The Jordan Times.

While many questions relating to the state of Palestine’s imminent application for UN membership are being raised and vigorously debated, one relevant issue was not raised: How American interests would be harmed if Palestine were to be admitted as the 194th member of the United Nations, as it clearly would be in the absence of an American veto.

Perhaps the question is not being raised and debated because no potential adverse consequences - at least for the United States and its people - can be envisioned and cited to justify a veto.

While legal considerations have never weighed heavily on the American approach to Israel and Palestine, it is worth noting that since November 1988, when the state of Palestine was formally proclaimed,the Palestinian claim to sovereignty (the state-level equivalent of title or ownership) over the remaining 22 per cent of mandatory Palestine, which Israel conquered and occupied in 1967 (aside from expanded East Jerusalem, to which Israel’s sovereignty claim is universally rejected), has been both literally and legally uncontested.

Jordan renounced its claim to sovereignty over the West Bank in July 1988. While Egypt administered the Gaza Strip for 19 years, it never asserted sovereignty over it. While Israel has formally annexed East Jerusalem and an arc of surrounding territory (an annexation recognised by no state), it has for 44 years refrained from asserting sovereignty over any other portion of the West Bank or Gaza Strip, an act that would raise awkward questions about the rights (or lack of them) of those who live there.

The four criteria codified in the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States for a state to exist under international law - a permanent population, a defined territory, government and a capacity to enter into relations with other states - are clearly met by the state of Palestine. The Montevideo Convention, as a ratified treaty that has not been renounced, has the status of domestic law in the United States and both domestic and international laws require the US government to respect and observe its provisions.

More than 120 UN member states (including 15 of the 20 most populous countries, encompassing the vast majority of mankind) have already extended diplomatic recognition to the state of Palestine, and more are expected to do so as the Security Council vote on its membership draws nearer.

Since there can be no credible legal argument that the state of Palestine does not yet meet the conventional and customary international law criteria for sovereign statehood, any decision to oppose its UN membership application would necessarily be based on purely political considerations.

Since few people alive can remember the last time the United States disobeyed Israel, it is widely assumed that it will inevitably veto the state of Palestine’s membership application. Indeed, many commentators assert that it has publicly pledged to do so. While the US government is desperately trying to prevent a Security Council vote on Palestinian membership, it is far from certain that it has pledged to impose its veto - or, even if it had, that it would actually do so.

When addressing a special Security Council session on the Middle East on July 26, the American representative stated with respect to Palestine’s UN membership initiative: “The United States will not support unilateral campaigns at the United Nations in September or any other time.”

Setting aside the Israeli-initiated absurdity of characterising an appeal for support to the entire international community as a “unilateral” action, what is important in this formulation is what it did not say. It did not say that the United States will oppose the Palestinian membership application and cast its veto to defeat it. If the United States had reached a firm decision to veto, this would have been the logical occasion to say so.

Furthermore, Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, when asked in an interview published on September 7 in the Los Angeles Times whether the Americans had told the Palestinians that they will veto, replied: “The US told us that the UN is not an option they will support. I hope they will not veto. How will they explain a veto?”

Indeed, while any potential harm to American national interests as a result of Palestinian membership in the United Nationswould be difficult to imagine, the adverse consequences for the United States of blocking Palestine’s membership are dazzlingly obvious. An American veto would constitute a shotgun blast in both of its feet, further isolating the United States from the rest of mankind and outraging the already agitated and unstable Arab and Muslim worlds (notably including Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Turkey).

In considering whether to veto or abstain, US President Barack Obama might wish to reread an article by Prince Turki Al Faisal, the long-serving Saudi Arabian intelligence chief and former ambassador to the United States, which was published on June 10 in The Washington Post and in which he warned: “There will be disastrous consequences for US-Saudi relations if the United States vetoes UN recognition of a Palestinian state. It would mark a nadir in the decades-long relationship as well as irrevocably damage the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and America’s reputation among Arab nations. The ideological distance between the Muslim world and the West in general would widen - and opportunities for friendship and cooperation between the two could vanish.”

Unless the president’s sole concern is his reelection prospects, it should not be ruled out that the US government just might, exceptionally, put American national interests ahead of the desires of the Israeli government and abstain when the time comes.

If the US government does decide to defy most of mankind by casting its veto, this would hurt the United States and Israel far more than it would hurt Palestine, definitively disqualifying the United States from maintaining its monopoly stranglehold on any “peace process”, which, since US objectives are indistinguishable from Israel’s, could only be to Palestine’s advantage. The September UN initiative is a win-win proposition for Palestine.

The question at the UN this month is not, as is still frequently misreported, whether Palestine will declare independence. It did so 23 years ago. The question is whether the United States of America will declare independence.

The writer is an international lawyer who has advised the Palestinian negotiating team at negotiations with Israel. He contributed this article to The Jordan Times.

As the Israeli-Palestinian “peace process” struggles to inch forward again in an atmosphere of profound pessimism bordering on hopelessness, what is most sadly missing is any compelling vision of how a Holy Land at peace could be structured so as to enhance not only the physical security of Israelis and the human dignity of Palestinians but also the future quality of day-to-day life for both peoples.

The Declaration of Principles so optimistically signed on the White House lawn in September 1993 proclaimed as its goal a “historic reconciliation” between the two peoples. Today, even optimistists seem to hope only for a definitive separation of the two peoples behind high walls and fences.

Can Israelis and Palestinians really do no better than this? Might it not still be possible to blend the practical and psychological preferences of both peoples for a twostate solution with some of the best aspects of a humane one-state solution to produce a vision of a possible future so bright and appealing that both Israelis and Palestinians would be inspired to act on their hopes and dreams, rather than their memories and fears, and to seize this future together and make it a reality?

Sharing the Holy Land is not a zero-sum game in which any development advantageous to one side must be disadvantageous to the other. One can envisage a society in which, by separating political and voting rights from economic, social and residential rights in a negotiated settlement, both the legitimate national aspirations of Palestinians and the legitimate security interests of Israelis could be simultaneously satisfied.

The Holy Land could be a two-state “confederation,” a single economic and social unit encompassing two sovereign states and one Holy City. Jerusalem could be an Israeli-Palestinian “condominium,” an open city forming an undivided part of both states, being the capital of both states and being administered by local district councils and an umbrella municipal council.

All current residents of the Holy Land could be given the choice of Israeli or Palestinian citizenship, thus determining which state’s passport they would carry and in which state’s national elections they would vote. All citizens of either state could vote in municipal elections where they actually live—a matter of particular relevance to current Palestinian citizens of Israel opting for Palestinian citizenship and to Israeli settlers choosing to continue to live in Palestine while maintaining their Israeli citizenship.

Each state could have its own “law of return” conferring citizenship and residential rights within that state on persons not currently resident in the Holy Land.

Borders would have to be drawn on maps but would not have to exist on the ground. The free, non-discriminatory movement of people and goods within the Holy Land could be a fundamental principle subject only to one major exception: to ensure that each state would always maintain its national character, the right to residence in each Holy Land state could be limited to that state’s citizens, to citizens of the other state residing there on an agreed date, and to their descendants. (In this way, deeply felt principles could be maintained.

Israelis could have the right to live in all of Eretz Israel—but not all Israelis in all of Eretz Israel. Similarly, Palestinians could have the right to live in all of historical Palestine—but not all Palestinians in all of historical Palestine.) A common currency (perhaps printed in Hebrew on one side and Arabic on the other) could be issued by a common central bank.

To View the Full Report as PDF (265 KB)