THERE IS NO WAR IN GAZA; THIS IS A PLANNED GENOCIDE AND ATROCITY!

Ayhan Kızıltan, ben@ayhankiziltan.com — Mersin, October 1, 2025

Is what’s happening in Gaza a war?

Can there be a one-sided war? At best, it is the armed assault of the powerful against the powerless. What “war” are we talking about?

In war, are babies, the sick, children, women—civilians—killed? Are buildings and hospitals bombed at random without verifying whether there are patients or civilians inside?

What “cease-fire” are we discussing? One side has no meaningful firepower. The other side has the unconditional support of the United States—the world’s greatest technological and military power.

With America’s unconditional supply of weapons, munitions, technology and diplomatic clout behind it, Israel is burning, destroying, killing—adopting an inhuman posture.

Only Israel is firing.

A so-called war…

The reality is genocide.

LAW IN GAZA: WAR OR ARMED CONFLICT?

At first it was called a war; lately, in the language of International Humanitarian Law, efforts are made to frame Gaza technically as an “armed conflict.”

Yet whatever the terminology, the basic rules on protecting civilians do not change. The principle of distinction requires separating military from civilian targets; proportionality forbids attacks where expected civilian harm outweighs anticipated military gain; and precaution demands concrete steps—target verification, warnings, timing, and munitions choice. Hospitals and schools are protected unless there is clear evidence of misuse; indiscriminate bombardment can never be lawful.

The supposed “armed conflict” in Gaza—really an armed assault—has moved far beyond a local dispute. It has become a multilayered global crisis that exposes the limits of international law, the moral obligations of superpowers, and the triumph of political pragmatism over ethics. In short, the U.S.–Israel axis is acting on the notion that “what works is what’s right”—a textbook case of pragmatism. Those killed and the ruins left behind do not matter to them, because the outcomes serve their ends.

Is the U.S. not a party to this carnage? Why does a country that prides itself on being the world’s most civilized and democratic stand anywhere but with the Palestinians—whose babies, children, women and civilians are being slaughtered?

What “conditions” does Israel set for a cease-fire? The side that must cease fire, unconditionally, is Israel.

THE GAZA CRISIS AND THE CONTRADICTIONS OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICS…

Before the eyes of the so-called civilized world, a genocide is taking place in Gaza.

The truly civilized condemn it and push to stop it. The self-proclaimed civilized endorse it—and in doing so, become complicit in atrocity.

The contradictions laid bare by Gaza reflect not only the devastation on the ground but the foundational problems of the international order itself.

I. International Reactions and the Breakdown of Diplomacy

Gaza has split the world—geographically, ideologically, morally.

Those who condemn and those who recognize: On one side, much of the Global South—led by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation—has forcefully condemned Israel’s actions and openly backed Palestine. Most notably, more than 140 states now recognize the State of Palestine, joined recently by Spain, Ireland, Norway and Slovenia among Western European countries. These recognitions reinforce the legitimacy of a two-state solution and serve as diplomatic pressure.

Great-power interests: On the other side stand the United States—and countries bearing a special historical responsibility such as Germany—providing Israel strong diplomatic, military and economic support. Washington’s policy, despite international law and humanitarian agony, rests on counterbalancing Iran and maintaining regional hegemony. The gap between America’s global rhetoric on democracy and human rights and its conduct in the Middle East could not be starker.

II. The Limits of Legal Accountability

The destruction of civilian life and infrastructure in Gaza has thrust international law to the fore and tested war-crime allegations before two key institutions:

International Criminal Court (ICC): The ICC Prosecutor sought arrest warrants for Israeli leaders (allegations include starvation of civilians and intentional killing) and Hamas leaders (hostage-taking, rape and intentional killing), signaling that international law applies to all parties. But the process faces heavy political resistance, as the U.S. and Israel do not recognize the ICC’s jurisdiction.

The war–and–genocide irony: A bitter moral irony looms: a state founded by a people who suffered the Holocaust now faces allegations of committing genocide against another. The past—be it the Holocaust, or America’s genocide of Native peoples—cannot legally or morally excuse present actions. The stances of the U.S. and Germany, despite their own historical burdens, show power politics once again eclipsing historical moral obligations.

III. Searching for a Solution—and the Politics of Pragmatism

Global diplomacy keeps trying to end the fighting, but proposals are either laden with impossible preconditions or sacrificed to political expediency.

The 20-Point Plan—and its feasibility problem: The U.S.–Israeli “20-Point Peace Plan” sketches a framework, yet its implementability is extremely weak. It demands Hamas disarm and exit governance outright—an outcome Hamas would not accept without fighting, because Israel shows no sign of relenting from its aims. Who will protect the Palestinian people—are they to live as subjugated subjects?

Compounding this are the Israeli Prime Minister’s contradictory statements about not withdrawing and maintaining post-war security control in Gaza—suggesting the plan entrenches Israel’s post-war expansion rather than enabling peace.

Why is Israel not being disarmed? The world has seen how dangerous and reckless an armed Israel can be.

Türkiye’s ambivalent position: Ankara’s stance blends tough rhetoric with pragmatic moves. While championing the Palestinian cause and accusing Israel of massacre, Türkiye has avoided burning bridges with the U.S., mindful of NATO membership, F-16 procurement and economic stability. It must balance a claim to leadership in the Islamic world with the imperatives of the Western alliance. This produces public perceptions of hesitancy or U.S. sway—but, at core, reflects a necessity to guard national interests.

IV. The basis of a permanent solution: Democratic Transformation

Ending Gaza’s agony alone will not bring enduring stability to the Middle East. The region’s structural problems must be addressed.

Conflicts deepen when revenues—especially from oil—fund authoritarian regimes and military spending rather than education, science and public welfare. The secular, democratic, republican character of the Republic of Türkiye offers a model for transformation.

Global powers must stop propping up existing authoritarian structures in the name of short-term energy and security goals. Lasting peace is possible only by raising free-minded, conscientious, enlightened generations and building questioning, informed societies. Otherwise, the Middle East will remain a geography easily manipulated by great powers and trapped in cycles of conflict.

CONCLUSION…

The Gaza crisis has held up a mirror to the moral bankruptcy of the international system.

The solution does not lie solely at negotiating tables; it also requires re-establishing the primacy of global conscience and international law over power politics.

Until next week…