Q&A: To end Israel-Palestine conflict, 'anti-genocide consensus' urgently needed

As the Israeli attacks reach a peak through the bombing of the Al Ahli Arab Hospital, the Greek Orthodox Saint Porphyrius Church, and lastly, a marketplace, the humanitarian crisis continues to deepen in the besieged Gaza.

TRT World recently spoke with Richard Falk, former UN rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, and an international law professor who taught at Princeton University for over 40 years, on the resolution of the conflict, normalisation in the region and Türkiye’s role in it.

He said that at the point where the conflict is currently poised, a diplomatic initiative he called ‘Anti-Genocide Consensus’ is necessary for the region.

More than anything else, cutting off all food, electricity, fuel and water of Gaza, which was already facing impoverishment for years under Israeli occupation, has led Professor Falk to urgently advocate the consensus he endorses.

Thanks to Türkiye’s credibility in playing a mediating role, its capability to remain relatively independent and its willingness for peaceful resolution, Türkiye could play a leadership role in it, according to him.

Excerpts from the conversation with Professor Falk on the anti-genocide initiative, and current situation in Gaza:

TRT World: Considering the current conflict between Israel and Palestine, and speeches that amount to genocide by Israeli authorities about destroying the whole of Gaza, how can normalisation in the region be achieved?

Richard Falk: I really think there is no way for genocide to be reconciled with any kind of normalisation between Israel and Palestine. Genocide is such a disruptive act that it stops all other form of cooperation. Maybe the outcome of the present conflict is such that it could lead to drastic changes in the way Israel and Gaza fight with each other. Then maybe we can consider the possibilities of a new framework of peace in the Eastern Mediterranean. There is one possibility that would be very promising from a Turkish perspective, and that is if it took the leadership in forming an anti-genocide consensus in the region, which might gain considerable support from a number of countries that are crucial to creating a political atmosphere that might, in time, lead to some kind of a peaceful solution. That has to include Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and Türkiye, and might also include Saudi Arabia and Iran. It's conceivable, though unlikely, that the anti-genocide consensus becomes a promising diplomatic initiative on the part of Türkiye and other regional countries.

What could be Türkiye’s role in initiating this consensus in the region?

RF: I think Türkiye has a lot of credibility as a country that has sought to remain relatively independent and offered to play a mediating role in seeking ceasefire or some kind of negotiated end to the violence, while being somewhat independent with respect to other NATO powers, particularly the US. And so it's a combination of its independence, its efforts at mediation in Ukraine, and its general credibility. It is an important country in the region that has an interest in conflict resolution and has opposed the violation of Palestinian rights in the past.

Could you elaborate on your idea of the anti-genocide consensus?

RF: What I really mean is that all governments, and especially those in the region, or ones that are involved with either Israel or Palestine, could affirm their commitment to the prevention of genocide, and commit to punish genocide as a crime, which would be the purpose of the international treaty that is binding on all states and requires an active participation, not only by those states that are charged with committing genocide, but also by any state in the international community that does not do all in its power to prevent an ongoing genocide, which is what we are witnessing in Gaza right now.

Please expand on how you came up with the idea of an anti-genocide consensus.

RF: I think more than anything else, it results from the Israeli response to the Hamas attack and the issuance by the Israeli Minister of Defence of the decree to cut off all food, electricity, fuel and water from the already impoverished and stressed people of Gaza, irrespective of whether they had anything to do with the attack on October 7. The decree dealt with innocent civilians under Israeli occupation in a manner that is severely in contradiction of Israel's obligation to uphold International Criminal Law, protect civilians under their administration, and certainly, refrain from genocidal politics.

What is the actual meaning and significance of this initiative?

RF: Of course, I don't know whether it would be effective, but I think it should be attempted. And I think the situation is such that even if it doesn't create a change in Israel's approach and policies, it will at least express the objection of governments, the UN and global public opinion, on this terrible experience of subjecting an entire civilian population entrapped in Gaza to this sort of violent effort to destroy its life and livelihood.

As is often the case, symbolic pressure around issues of moral gravity have a greater effect on the political outcome than what happens on the battlefield. What is often underestimated but politically decisive, is having the weight of legitimacy on your side, although much suffering may occur in between. We are in that sort of situation at the moment.

Your expectations about the future of the relations with Israel in the region, considering atrocities against Palestinians and anger against Israel, especially in the Arab countries and Türkiye?

RF: The genocidal language, the atrocities resulting from these, and the overall behaviour has generated great anger against Israel and rage among a large number of Palestinian refugees spread across the neighbouring countries. So I think it would be very difficult in the current context for any of these countries to have normal relations with Israel, unless an initiative such as the one I am proposing is implemented to terminate the genocidal policies. So, it sends a message to Israel that if it wants to have positive relations in the neighbourhood, it must treat Palestinians in a non-genocidal manner and in accord with international law and human rights.

Türkiye has felt a certain affinity with the Palestinian struggle in the past. So I think Israel’s current genocidal policies will make it difficult for Türkiye to pursue a pragmatic approach based on mutual economic interest in trade and investment. Turkish public opinion seems strongly pro-Palestinian, and I would imagine the government led by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan would respect that public opinion and the pressure it exerts.

You were the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in occupied Palestine; you also tried to investigate international war crimes committed by Israel. You called Israeli actions apartheid and ethnic cleansing, and possibly faced limitations in implementing some of your findings. What are the difficulties you faced, and how might those difficulties affect the initiation of this anti-genocide consensus?

RF: Well, there's no question that anyone who criticises Israel, whether from the vantage point of being a UN Special Rapporteur or as a private citizen, is going to face a push back by Israel, which tries to shift the attention away from the message to the messenger. I have faced governments not addressing their genocidal behaviour, rather, defending it, while accusing me (or whoever advances such a position) of being an anti-Semite, or of being insensitive to the terrorism of Hamas. So all that comes with the territory. I have faced it in the past and I'm sure that if this initiative gains any attraction, it will be my unfortunate fate in the future.

How might the US, as an actor using its veto power in the UN, affect any advance towards this consensus?

RF: That's an enormously big obstacle and there's no reason that the US won't continue to prevent appropriate action in the United Nations. The very fact that it is blocking such action, given this pattern of genocidal behaviour, will itself exert additional pressure on Israel and on the US and other supporters of Israel. Whether this has a political effect or not is too soon to tell.

It's an uphill battle, because military, diplomatic and economic capabilities are overwhelmingly on the Israeli side. One has to overturn and swim against the current with any hope of achieving a positive, just and humane outcome.