It will soon be two years since Hamas launched its “Al-Aqsa Flood” attack on southern Israel. Israel’s retaliatory “war” has since reduced Gaza to an uninhabitable wasteland and caused—at a very conservative minimum—more than 66,000 Palestinian deaths, with some 83 percent of them, according to Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) data, being civilians. Since Israel broke its January ceasefire agreement and resumed its offensive in March, 15 of every 16 out of the 16,000 Palestinians the IDF has killed have been civilians.

In the aftermath of October 7 there was enormous support for Israel, especially in the West. But as the “war” ground on, with no apparent end in sight and ever-mounting civilian casualties, the tide of Western public opinion turned. Recent pressure led several Western governments to reluctantly berate Israel for its “intolerable and unacceptable” and “utterly reckless and appalling” actions—while doing precious little to stop them.

Despite the chorus of condemnation, we have seen nothing approaching the battery of sanctions that played such a large part in bringing down the apartheid regime in South Africa, not to mention the swingeing economic, political, and cultural sanctions imposed on Vladimir Putin’s Russia immediately following its February 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

This paralysis on the part of the “international community” is remarkable, given that what is at issue is increasingly being recognized as a genocide—the worst of all crimes under international humanitarian law. But it is not, perhaps, surprising. Given their previous support for Israel, not to mention their vulnerability to economic bullying by Trump’s US, Western leaders found themselves tossed on the horns of an impossible dilemma.

The genocide dilemma

As far back as January 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that there was a “plausible risk” of genocide in Gaza and ordered Israel to take several measures to avert this outcome. At that point the official death toll stood at 27,500—less than half of what it is now. Israel ignored these and further ICJ orders of March and May 2024.

It will likely be years before the ICJ reaches a final verdict on whether or not Israel is guilty of genocide. The world’s highest court on war crimes, the International Criminal Court (ICC), has however already issued arrest warrants in November 2024 for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant for using “starvation as a method of warfare” and other war crimes and crimes against humanity.

On September 16, 2025, an authoritative new report by a UN Independent Commission of Inquiry, based on two years of investigation, concluded that:

Israeli authorities and Israeli security forces committed four of the five genocidal acts defined by the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, namely killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of the Palestinians in whole or in part, and imposing measures intended to prevent births.

Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the International Federation for Human Rights, the University Network for Human Rights, Médecins Sans Frontières, the Israeli groups B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, and the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention and Human Security, as well as some of the world’s leading genocide and Holocaust historians like Israeli scholars Raz Segal and Omer Bartov, have all come to the same conclusion.

It takes some chutzpah to contend that all of these are part of some global antisemitic conspiracy to discredit Israel. Denying the genocide—the US position—is becoming less and less credible, while refusing to take a stance until the final ICJ verdict is in, which the British and Canadian governments are doing, simply looks evasive.

The problem for Western politicians is that the 1948 Genocide Convention—to which all members of the G7 apart from Japan are parties, as is Israel—requires them not only to refrain from committing genocide themselves, but “to prevent and to punish” genocide “whether [its perpetrators] are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.”

The argument made by Joe Biden, Justin Trudeau, and others against the ICC warrants that “there is no equivalence—none—between Israel and Hamas“ has no standing in international law. A war crime is a war crime and a genocide is a genocide, no matter who is committing it, guerrilla “terrorists” or the elected leaders of a democratic nation state.

Complicating things further, “complicity in genocide” is also a punishable offense. If Israel is committing genocide, then it is a genocide in which Western governments have been complicit throughout the last two years, by supplying arms, providing diplomatic cover, ignoring their own intelligence assessments that Israel has been obstructing aid, and suppressing protest. No wonder some politicians are beginning to get cold feet.

A rift in the West?

On September 18 all members of the UN Security Council except the United States voted to adopt a resolution calling for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza, the release of all hostages, and for Israel to immediately and unconditionally lift all restrictions on the entry of humanitarian aid. The US vetoed the measure. This is the sixth time in the last two years that the US has (ab)used its veto power to block a ceasefire in Gaza.

Though France and the UK voted for the resolution, no Western government has yet been prepared to defy America and trigger the nuclear option, which would be to put a United for Peace resolution to the General Assembly. If passed by a two-thirds majority, this would override any Security Council veto and could pave the way for armed UN intervention in Gaza. This procedure was invoked 13 times between 1951 and 2022.

There were nevertheless straws in the wind suggesting that some Western governments were more prepared to risk Israeli and (more importantly) US wrath and take baby steps toward pressuring Israel to end its genocide than at any time during the present “war”—if only to retrospectively cover their collective asses and avoid indictments from the ICC.

The EU Commission has finally proposed to strip Israeli goods of privileged access to European markets, with new tariffs imposed on billions of euros of exports, as well as sanctioning extremist individual Israeli ministers—though such a measure may still not pass, given continuing support for Israel by Germany and some other EU states.

Recognition of Palestine—an empty gesture?

Canada, the UK, Australia, France, and several other Western countries announced with great fanfare at the 80th UN General Assembly session in September in New York—or the day before it, “out of respect for the Jewish new year”—that they were recognizing the State of Palestine. They were very late to the party. One hundred and forty seven states had recognized Palestine prior to their move, including Spain, Ireland, Norway, and Slovenia in 2024.

While it would be wrong to dismiss the legal significance of recognition out of hand, in the absence of other measures it will likely have limited practical impact on the ground. That does not mean it is insignificant. It underlines the tensions between the US and some of its most important Western allies (as well as splits within Europe itself).

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney was refreshingly candid about why his government was changing tack:

The current Israeli government is working methodically to prevent the prospect of a Palestinian state from ever being established. It has pursued an unrelenting policy of settlement expansion in the West Bank, which is illegal under international law. Its sustained assault in Gaza has killed tens of thousands of civilians, displaced well over one million people, and caused a devastating and preventable famine in violation of international law. It is now the avowed policy of the current Israeli government that ‘there will be no Palestinian state’.

Netanyahu responded with predictable fury—and in the process confirmed that Carney’s charges were amply justified:

I have a clear message to those leaders who are recognizing a Palestinian state after the horrendous October 7 massacre: You are rewarding terror with an enormous prize.

And I have another message for you: It’s not going to happen. There will be no Palestinian state to the west of the Jordan River.

For years I have prevented the creation of that terror state, against tremendous pressure, both domestic and from abroad.

We have done this with determination, and with astute statesmanship. Moreover, we have doubled the Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria [i.e., the West Bank], and we will continue on this path.

In the face of such clarity on the part of Israel, we have to ask why Western leaders are still peddling the fantasy of a “two-state solution” at all. The suspicion must be that it is yet another evasion, designed to cover up their unwillingness to tackle the role played by ethnic cleansing and genocide in Israel’s Zionist project head on.

Trumpery at the UN

The US, by contrast, has made its opposition to recognizing Palestine at this point in time crystal clear. Interviewed recently by Tony Dokoupil of CBS Mornings, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio insultingly dismissed recognition as “almost a vanity project for a couple of these world leaders who want to be relevant, but it really makes no difference.”

In between gratuitously insulting America’s Western allies (“I look at London where you have a terrible mayor, a terrible, terrible mayor and it’s been so changed, so changed. Now they want to go to Sharia law”) and trumpeting his own imaginary achievements (“I have ended seven unendable wars… Everyone says that I should get the Nobel Peace Prize for each one of these achievements”), Trump found time to briefly mention Gaza in his address to the UN General Assembly on September 23.

His concern was not the ongoing genocide:

Now, as if to encourage continued conflict, some of this body [the UN] is seeking to unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state. The rewards would be too great for Hamas terrorists for their atrocities. This would be a reward for these horrible atrocities, including October 7th…

Three days later, in his own address to the UN General Assembly, Netanyahu accused Carney and company of capitulating “under pressure of a biased media, radical Islamist constituencies, and antisemitic mobs.”

The Israeli prime minister said little that did not repeat what he had told the same body in 2023 and 2024. What was different this time was that Netanyahu’s plane was forced to take a circuitous route to New York in order to avoid the airspace of countries that were legally bound to enforce the ICC arrest warrant. And he spoke to a largely empty hall.

On his entry, over 100 delegates from over 50 countries walked out in protest. Of those that remained, the UK and even the US filled their seats with junior staff instead of senior diplomats. The majority of those who left were from the Global South.

Sadly, Canada’s Ambassador Bob Rae remained seated. It was, he explained to CTV News, his job.

Happening now at the UN General Assembly:

Diplomats walked out during Netanyahu’s speech.

He is left speaking to an empty room.

The world is no longer listening to Israel’s propaganda. pic.twitter.com/yV704rh32t

— sarah (@sahouraxo) September 26, 2025

Trump’s “peace plan”

This is the background against which, on September 29, Trump and Netanyahu jointly unveiled the latest US “peace plan” at a White House press conference. Netanyahu had reportedly made several last-minute changes to the draft drawn up by Trump’s team, all to Israel’s advantage.

The 20-point plan calls for immediate suspension of all military operations, followed by the release of all Israeli captives within a 72-hour period. Israel will then release “250 life sentence prisoners plus 1,700 Gazans who were detained after Oct. 7, 2023, including all women and children detained in that context.”

This is only a fraction of more than 10,000 Palestinians languishing in Israeli jails, 3,600 of whom are held without charge or trial in “administrative detention”—many more hostages, as they are, than the 251 Israelis captured by Hamas in the October 7 attack.

It is grim testimony to the disproportionality of this “war” that “For every Israeli hostage whose remains are released, Israel will release the remains of 15 deceased Gazans.”

After the hostages are released, an amnesty will be extended to Hamas members who “commit to peaceful coexistence and to decommission their weapons,” while any who wish to leave Gaza “will be provided safe passage to receiving countries.” Hamas will disarm and “all military, terror, and offensive infrastructure, including tunnels and weapon production facilities, will be destroyed and not rebuilt.” Hamas and other factions “agree to not have any role in the governance of Gaza, directly, indirectly, or in any form.”

Once the agreement has been accepted, full aid “will proceed without interference from the two parties through the United Nations and its agencies, and the Red Crescent,” as well as unspecified third parties (likely a reference to the US-based private so-called Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, which has been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Palestinians queuing for food).

Though this provision is likely to play badly in Israel, which has banned the UN’s Palestinian refugee agency UNRWA from operating within its boundaries, this is is the only role envisaged for the UN in the entire document.

The plan stipulates that “Israel will not occupy or annex Gaza” and promises that “No one will be forced to leave Gaza,” while “those who wish to leave will be free to do so and free to return.” As “a temporary International Stabilization Force” put together by “The United States… with Arab and international partners” trains “vetted Palestinian police forces in Gaza,” the IDF will gradually withdraw from the Strip to a perimeter “security zone.”

Gaza will meantime be governed by “a technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee… of qualified Palestinians and international experts, with oversight and supervision by a new international transitional body… headed and chaired by President Donald J. Trump, with other members and heads of State… including Former Prime Minister Tony Blair.”

This “Board of Peace” will “set the framework and handle the funding for the redevelopment of Gaza until such time as the Palestinian Authority has completed its reform program… and can securely and effectively take back control of Gaza.”

As Patrick Wintour has perceptively noted in the Guardian, though it is not explicitly stated in the document, this “reform program” requires that the Palestinian Authority ends its participation in legal proceedings against Israel at the ICJ and ICC (the text refers to the reform programme “as outlined in various proposals, including president Trump’s peace plan in 2020,” and the latter demands this).

The Board of Peace will oversee a “Trump economic development plan to rebuild and energize Gaza”—is Trump’s dream of a “Riviera of the Middle East” about to come true?—and “A special economic zone will be established with preferred tariff and access rates to be negotiated with participating countries.”

Surrender or annihilation

It is significant that Hamas—whose negotiators Israel had attempted to assassinate in a September 9 air strike on Qatar—was not involved in drafting the plan or even provided with an advance copy. Palestinians are being presented with an ultimatum reminiscent of the one the Germans gave Rotterdam in 1940: surrender or your city will be destroyed.

And indeed, even while Hamas is considering the plan—for which Trump has demanded their answer “within three or four days”—Israel’s Defence Minister Israel Katz has issued a “final warning” on October 1 that “This is the last opportunity for Gaza residents who wish to do so to move south and leave Hamas operatives isolated in Gaza City,” making clear that “Those who remain… will be considered terrorists and terrorist supporters.”

If the Palestinians reject the plan, then in Donald Trump’s words at the White House press conference:

Israel would have my full backing to finish the job of destroying the threat of Hamas.

But I hope that we’re going to have a deal for peace, and if Hamas rejects the deal… Bibi, you’d have our full backing to do what you would have to do.

Netanyahu added: “If Hamas rejects your plan, Mr President, or if they supposedly accept it and then do everything to counter it, then Israel will finish the job by itself. This can be done the easy way or it can be done the hard way, but it will be done.”

The only positives in the Trump plan for the Palestinians are that it offers a possible road to ending the genocide—as is desperately needed—without Israel annexing Gaza or expelling its people, as the extreme rightwing ministers in Netanyahu’s government have demanded. In his earlier musings on a “Riviera of the Middle East” Trump too had envisaged “cleaning out” all of the Palestinians.

But even these modest consolations for the loss of Palestinian lives, homes, and hopes over the last two years are very far from guaranteed.

The plan requires Hamas to hand over all of the Israeli hostages before any Palestinian prisoners are released and to disarm on the basis of promises of amnesty while the IDF remains in Gaza. The timetable for withdrawal, by contrast, is vague and dependent on transfer of power to new security forces whose composition remains undetermined.

Once Hamas has given up its hostages and its weapons, there is nothing to stop Israel from reneging on the agreement—as it previously did with the January 2025 ceasefire—and “finishing the job” of genocide and ethnic cleansing against a defenceless Gazan population.

It is scarcely reassuring that after his return from Washington, Netanyahu put out a video reassuring Israelis that “the IDF stays in the majority of the Strip.”

Asked in the same video whether he had agreed to a Palestinian state, the Israeli prime minister replied: “Not at all, and it is not written in the agreement. One thing was made clear: We will strongly oppose a Palestinian state.”

This gives the lie to Emmanuel Macron’s claim—echoed by among others Antony Albanese and Mark Carney—that the Trump plan provides a foundation “to build a lasting peace in the region, based on the two-state solution.”

If Bibi has anything to do with it, there will be no such thing. Ever.

The plan does in fact mention Palestinian statehood, only to locate it firmly in the realms of the never-never:

While Gaza redevelopment advances and when the P.A. [Palestinian Authority] reform program is faithfully carried out, the conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood, which we recognize as the aspiration of the Palestinian people. (My emphasis)

A week is a long time in politics

Little more than a week ago, Canada, Australia, Britain, France, and other Western allies broke ranks with Israel and the US and recognized a Palestinian state. Mark Carney and others made it clear that they were taking this step, in part, to forestall Israel’s attempts—about which Benjamin Netanyahu has been quite open—to sabotage any possibility of a two-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Today, those same states are falling over backwards to lean on Hamas to accept a deal that disarms the Palestinian resistance, requires it to forgo any legal recourse for Israeli war crimes and/or genocide through the ICJ and ICC, hands Gaza over to an unelected foreign junta headed by Donald Trump and Tony Blair—onetime cheerleader of the Iraq War that left over a million Iraqis dead—to “redevelop,” and indefinitely postpones any prospect of Palestinian statehood. The word for this is betrayal.

French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, President of the EU Commission Ursula von der Leyen, and EU Foreign Minister Kaja Kallas, have all hastened to issue statements lauding “President Trump’s leadership” (Starmer) and hailing the plan as “the best immediate chance to end the war” (Kallas). “Elbows up” Mark Carney was the most sycophantic of them all, welcoming the deal as “historic.”

All agree that “Hamas has no choice but to immediately release all hostages and follow this plan,” with only Macron adding “I expect Israel to engage resolutely on this basis.”

One can almost hear the huge collective sigh of relief that went up in Western capitals as soon as the Trump plan was announced. The cracks are papered over, the delinquent allies are back in the US fold, and our craven leaders are off the genocide hook.

If Hamas fails to “seize this opportunity” (von der Leyen), we must infer, it has only itself to blame for the consequences.

The rewards of terror

Hamas senior leader Mahmoud Mardawi is bang on when he characterizes the Trump plan as offering “an end to this criminal war in exchange for ending the Palestinian people’s right to their state and their rights to their land, homeland, and holy sites.”

Mardawi is adamant that “no Palestinian will accept that,” but genocide is a powerful persuader.

Whether, out of desperation, Palestinians will buy this sordid “deal” remains to be seen. If they do, Israel gets its hostages back and it’s game over for the Palestinian resistance.

If they don’t, Israel will “finish the job” with full US backing and blame Hamas for forcing it to kill yet more Palestinian babies in order to ensure its security. Either way this is a win–win situation for Israel.

If, as Netanyahu says, a purely symbolic recognition of a non-existent Palestinian state is “an enormous prize” for the terror of Hamas’s October 7 attack, then how much greater are the rewards for the IDF’s two years of live-streamed genocide in Gaza?

Derek Sayer is professor emeritus at the University of Alberta and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada. His most recent book, Postcards from Absurdistan: Prague at the End of History, won the 2023 Canadian Jewish Literary Award for Scholarship and was a finalist for the Association of American Publishers PROSE Award in European History.