Solidarity for Peace in Kashmir

Cecilia M. Bailliet, UN Independent Expert on Human Rights and International Solidarity

It is ironic that contemporaneous to the 30th Anniversary of the Bandung Declaration promoting the principle of peaceful coexistence, we witness the resurgence of the use of force over commitment to peaceful dispute resolution. We are reminded that the historic Simla Agreement of 1972 called for both Governments to take all steps within their power to prevent hostile propaganda directed against each other. They were also tasked with promoting the development of friendly relations between them.  The current risk of endangering peace within the region is grave.

The cycles of violence and displacement have created generations of children and youth growing up in limbo without the security of home, limitation of education due to closure of schools, denial of medical care, under-employment, and interference with the evolution of sound psycho-social identity.  Rather than promote peace, the polarization between the two states has limited freedom of expression and deprived the Kashmiri youth of a voice, instead breeding alienation and radicalization.

It is notable both India and Pakistan voted in favor of the UN Declaration on the Right to Peace that sets forth in Article 2 that States should respect, implement and promote equality and non-discrimination, justice and the rule of law, and guarantee freedom from fear and want as a means to build peace within and between societies.

India and Pakistan should show leadership in promoting Unity in Diversity within Kashmir by committing to setting up solidarity commissions comprised of Hindu and Muslim representatives to promote peace education institutions based on mutual respect and cooperation for the Kashmiri youth, teach civic participation, and create channels for discussion of important issues such as peaceful access to water and improvement of sustainable development for the region.

For Universities: Pursue Dialogue not Expulsion, Detention, and Deportation

The recent presidential order to the United States Department of Homeland Security and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement to pursue detention and removal of foreign students who have participated in university protests as allegedly falling under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3) is detrimental to the aim of reconciling university students and faculty.  These actions are disproportionate, unnecessary, and discriminatory. Expulsion, detention, and deportations will only lead to more trauma and polarization that will negatively impact the learning environment within university campuses. The Israeli Palestinian conflict has had a devastating level of human suffering that has shaken the world. Students on all sides have engaged in contrasting expressions of unitary solidarity resulting in frustration and pain as there has been little bridging communication. There have been significant instances of intimidation and harassment within social media and in the physical space effectively transformed campuses into divided communities and there is a need for reconciliation, mutual respect, and entente. 

Expulsion, detention, deportation, and denial of the right to graduate or receive an academic degree is devastating for the students because it denies them the right to a life’s project as they are prevented from pursuing their future academic or professional aspirations. This type of action is more often associated with authoritarian institutions. It will not promote peace within campuses because it this is a disproportional policy that fails to recognize the vulnerability of the students and does not advance healing dialogue. The principle of academic freedom is fundamental for the maintenance of  faculties and student bodies that are able to tackle critical issues for discussion without penalization.

It is essential to pursue dialogue to create sustainable, peaceful campuses for all students and faculty founded on the commitment to bridging solidarity between groups.  There is an urgent need to pursue mediation between students and faculty of different views in order to achieve a common understanding of shared feelings of harassment, discrimination, fear, pain, and isolation.  There is a need for good-faith efforts to consolidate university communities with compassion, constructive, open dialogue with mutual respect, and full enjoyment of human rights by all.

Towards a New Epoch of International Solidarity Embracing Unity in Diversity

UN Independent Expert on International Solidarity, Cecilia M. Bailliet

The catastrophic defunding and dismantlement of international humanitarian and development assistance programs supporting the inclusion all people in the enjoyment of human rights is the abandonment of the aim of the international community to affirm the dignity and worth of each human person on the basis of equality and non-discrimination.

The adoption of governmental policies that deny access to food, water, medicine, housing, and access to asylum to vulnerable people is a betrayal of the commitment within Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that we should “act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood” in accordance with reason and conscience. 

The characterization of this shift as marking the end of a Liberal Age that was marked by an increase in inequality and turn towards a new epoch should be examined as the opportunity to declare allegiance to universal values that may restore the orientation of the international community towards recognizing an obligation to maintain peaceful relations between nations, support sustainable development, and genuinely protect  vulnerable people and the global commons. 

I call for the pursuit of an epoch of International Solidarity that would be premised upon an embrace of a new multilateralism founded on the principle of recognizing unity in diversity. Bottoms-up solidarity initiatives should be defined by local communities and supported by national and international partners, including states, international organizations, civil society, corporations, faith-based institutions, and others. Networked International Solidarity is the hallmark of  21st century multilateralism as set forth by the UN Secretary-General in Our Common Agenda. Different societies will demonstrate international solidarity in different ways according to culture, tradition, capacity.

The international community should follow the leadership of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples that pursue World Views based on solidarity with the environment.  Youth groups, in particular, should be given greater access to platforms connecting them with policy makers to create strategies for increasing inclusion of all in the enjoyment of human rights and combatting disinformation that feeds polarization. The new order may be decentralized but strengthened through a continued commitment to multilateralism to successfully address global challenges. 

Towards an International Solidarity Paradigm for Cultural Heritage

There is a need for the international community to show solidarity for restoration of cultural heritage in countries undergoing armed conflict, internal violence, and transition from authoritarian regimes that has been destroyed due to armed conflict through the adoption of a new International Solidarity Paradigm to address challenges during conflict and afterwards.

There is a protracted phenomenon of bombing and shelling of schools, universities, libraries, central archives, archeological sites, landmarks, palaces, fountains, churches, temples, mosques, shrines, and cemeteries in conflict zones that results in the complete loss of cultural heritage. This includes loss of literature, poetry, music, visual arts, artifacts, architecture, and other forms of cultural expression. 

There is an imperative need to restore cultural heritage through the adoption of an International Solidarity Cultural Program to enable the recording of music and poetry, the printing of literature, and the provision of scholarships and fellowships to artists to enable artists and writers to create their work in safe spaces. 

Artists, writers, scholars, and cultural actors need freedom to engage in expression without fear of repression. There is a marked increase in the number of artists (writers, poets, painters, musicians, singers, dancers, photographers, historians, filmmakers, visual artists) who are subject to attack, threat to life, or denial of medical assistance, food, or water in conflict zones. Artists communicate the identity and history of peoples- their work is tied to the transcendental qualities of being human and part of humanity.

States have a good faith obligation to assess artists and cultural actors for asylum based on recognition of their membership in a particular social group according to the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees. They may also be subject to intersectional discrimination due to their race, religion, nationality, sexual identity, political opinion, or other ground and hence may meet other categories within the definition of a refugee.  States may also design special Cultural Solidarity Humanitarian protection programs for artists, writers, scholars, cultural actors, and their families who are under threat of intimidation or persecution for their cultural expressions or who are unable to leave their countries.

States should also pursue programs to promote the role of artists and other cultural actors in the transitional period in the context of peace consolidation in the home country, incorporating them into Cultural Solidarity for Peace projects involving truth telling, reconciliation, and reintegration processes to promote a culture of peace, forgiveness, and mutual respect between different societal groups.

A nation’s cultural identity should never be erased and the destruction of cultural heritage should be condemned as a form of dehumanization. Restoration of cultural heritage should be pursued as an important mechanism of solidarity peacebuilding within societies divided by conflict. 

Towards a culture of transformative solidarity within Bangladesh

The phenomenon of the emancipatory student led solidarity movement in Bangladesh has created a space to create a new platform for governance founded on the principles of inclusion, non-discrimination, equality, transparency, and peace. The design of a new social contract is contingent on the recognition of the solidarity principle that everyone has an equal right of participation in civic life, freedom, and full enjoyment of all human rights that enable self-fulfillment and human centered development. The urgency of having free, fair elections to enable a successful transition to democracy underscores the need for international support to prevent interference, manipulation, disinformation, and other forms of intrusion.

There is also a need for the creation of an independent, impartial truth, reconciliation, and accountability mechanism to address the legacy of structural violence, exclusion, discrimination, and corruption which lay at the root of the cycles of violence and destruction on all sides.  Accountability for extra-judicial killings, repression of political opponents, censorship, enforced disappearances, forced displacement, and gender-based violence directed at women belonging to opposing political groups or minority religious communities requires serious investigation and prosecution and assistance, collection of evidence, protection and remedies for victims.

It is important to improve heterogeneity within the judiciary, police, and media in order to increase their legitimacy and connection to the society.  This can be supported by dissemination of human rights guidelines and principles on the democratic function of these institutions.

International and national stakeholders should promote peaceful dialogue through open processes that aim to create bridges between different sectors of society, teaching mutual respect among different religious and socio-economic communities, including within schools, thereby including children.  These are first steps to establish the necessary social trust for a new epoch in which Bangladesh’s diversity can be lauded as the strength of transforming the nation through solidarity.

Read On! Environmental Peacebuilding

On International Women’s Day I recommend seeking inspiration from the latest book edited by Daniëlla Dam-de Jong, Professor of International Sustainable Development Law, Grotius Centre for International Legal Studies, Leiden University, the Netherlands and Britta Sjöstedt, Senior Lecturer in Environmental Law, Lund University, Sweden- The Research Handbook on International Law and Environmental Peacebuilding, available via Open Access!

At a time in which the UN Secretary-General has criticized the international community for its lack of cooperation to address climate change or safeguard peace, this book shines a path towards potential progress in 18 highly inspiring, innovative chapters that open a window of visionary ideas in pursuit of a genuine sustainable peace. The authors underscore the need to address the global challenge of resolving armed conflicts that are connected to environmental threats, including resource scarcity and environmental degradation. The authors are: Virginie Barral, Carl Bruch, Daniëlla Dam-de Jong, Onita Das, Sondra Faccio, Ole Kristian Fauchald, Karen Hulme, Jens Iverson, Marie Jacobsson, David Jensen, Tadesse Kebebew, Merryl Lawry-White, Albert Martinez, Sequero Sarah Mead, Elisa Morgera, Isabelle Morley, Marco Pertile, Giulia Pinzauti, Naomi Roht-Arriaza, Bas Rombouts, Britta Sjöstedt, and Mara Tignino.
It is perhaps the willingness of the authors to explain how different fields of law and non-legal regimes converge to provide protection opportunities for inter alia, the environment, indigenous people, rural women, and future generations that provokes our imagination to consider creative approaches. The chapters are well-written, thoroughly researched, and highly readable!

In Honor of Johan Galtung- A Call for Recognition of the Universality of Positive Peace and International Solidarity to Counter World Disorder

The passing of Johan Galtung, the peace scholar who articulated the concept of “positive peace” as incorporating equality, non-discrimination, and termination of structural violence marks the urgency of the international community to repair what Agnes Callamard described as an international system “rooted more in systemic inequality and discrimination than in universality.”[1] Citing the many examples of atrocity crimes in the twentieth century, culminating in Israel and Gaza at present, she called for accountability to counter the rampant impunity by state and non-state actors. However, a more pressing challenge is whether it is possible to complement accountability measures with strategies to pursue positive peace and solidarity. It is notable that the UN Declaration on the Right to Peace Art. 2 sets forth the responsibility of states to guarantee equality and non-discrimination as a means to build peace within and between societies[2]. The former High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet invoked the role of civil society espousing solidarity as a means for attaining equality: “Equality is about empathy and solidarity and about understanding that, as a common humanity, our only way forward is to work together for the common good.”[3] 

The staggering levels of inequality around the world are fomenting violence and instability, in direct contradiction of the UN Charter’s affirmation of the aim of “the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small.”[4] Human Rights has suffered from a myopic era in which there was neglect and underfinancing programs focused on securing equality for all and the corollary of the need to recognize and implement collective rights and duties. Creative new approaches that aim to correct the imbalance in policy and practice should be based on human rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 1 (2) articulates a duty of care as an element of being human: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” One may reflect that the lack of dissemination of a universal duty of care correlates with the resounding failure of modern governments and societies to end practices that marginalize and exclude others from the enjoyment of human rights.

It may be suggested that the first step to countering the trend towards world disorder would require a collective pivot towards recognition of common obligations of care towards all others within a nation and externally through programs promoting positive peace and international solidarity.  All governments and civil society actors should galvanize support for bringing to an end all forms of apartheid and systemic exclusionary structures to enable the fair participation of all people (irrespective of sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, language economic class, age, etc.) in education, work, and civic life. The Revised Draft Declaration on Human Rights and International Solidarity Article 9 (c ) calls for States to act in solidarity with civil society by “Building the full, equal and meaningful political participation of all people in national, regional and global decision-making positions”.[5]  We may envision the international community embarking upon a type of global social contract based on allegiance to the universality of the principles of positive peace and international solidarity, reversing the trend of inequality, polarization, fragmentation, and violence that has enveloped our world.


[1] Agnes Callamard, Gaza and the End of the Rules Based Order: What the Israel-Hamas War means for Human Rights and International Law, Foreign Affairs (February 15, 2024).

[2] Declaration on the Right to Peace, adopted by the UN General Assembly A/RES/71/189 (2 February 2017),

[3] Equality is at the heart of human rights | OHCHR

[4] Inequality Inc. | Oxfam (oxfamamerica.org)

[5] reviseddraftdeclarationrightInternationalsolidarity.pdf (ohchr.org)

A Call Upon States to Realize Child-Specific Remedies in Conjunction with International Solidarity for Children

The preamble of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child calls for children to be brought up in “the spirit of the ideals proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, and in particular in the spirit of peace, dignity, tolerance, freedom, equality and solidarity.” These values form a foundation for a life in dignity and with aspirations for the future.  At present, many children around the world face trauma, exploitation, attack, and death through direct actions of both state and non-state actors as well as neglect or omission in spite of an obligation to protect.  There is a need for the international community to recognize child-specific remedies in solidarity with their aspiration for peace and enjoyment of human rights. What is at stake is the viability of the international community to uphold humanity at the universal level.

In the past two decades, the escalation of the typology of child-specific violations arising in both peace and war situations is astounding: forced transfer to impose a new nationality, maiming, forced early marriage, sexual exploitation and abuse, forced recruitment, denial of food, water, and/or medicine that inhibit growth and development, denial of education as a form of oppression/discrimination, separation from parents pursuant to immigration processes, arbitrary detention in conjunction with Counter Violent Extremism policies, and trafficking.  

Children’s vulnerability is multiplied by their inter-sectoral identities correlated with gender, race, ethnicity, religion, class, migrant status, and other identities. Although there is much attention on the risk of grave violations to children in the situation of armed conflict, there appears to be a lack of recognition of states’ obligation in relation to preventing and responding to child specific violations at all times. 

The media has provided heartbreaking imagery of the sacrifice of children’s rights throughout the 21st century: In 2018, the United States adopted a zero tolerance policy in which separated more than 2000 children from their parents at the border, some of whom were never reunited again. In 2020, during the pandemic, domestic abuse of girls in Latin America escalated significantly, followed by increased risk of trafficking and other sexual exploitation.[1] Since 8 February 2022, Russian Federation agents have taken at least 19,546 children to that country from Ukraine.[2] On October 7th, 2023, 32 children and babies were taken hostage by Hamas and UNICEF reported that since then over 1,000 children in Gaza have had one or both legs amputated while Save the Children stated that 10,000 children had been killed in airstrikes and ground operations.[3]

Moreover, the trend towards emergence of criminal actors to fill voids filled by defeated combatant groups in post-conflict countries, results in a transfer of risk of exploitation and abuse resulting in escalating chance of being subject to liability and incarceration for these connections.[4] The Global Risks Report 2024 highlighted the possibility of increased criminality and corruption within fragile states that will impact vulnerable groups, and this would include children.[5]

It is notable that UNICEF described the war in Gaza as a “War on Children” and that Gaza had become a “Graveyard for Thousands of Children”.[6] It is surprising that the ICJ Order of Provisional Measures on the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel) (26 January 2024) includes references to children only in the citation of the criteria of forced transfer of children as part of the definition within the convention[7] (but which was not included in the provisional orders issued), and the citation of the statements delineating the trauma and harm suffered by the children in Gaza made by the United Nations Under Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, Mr. Martin Griffiths, on 5 January 2024[8] and the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), Mr. Philippe Lazzarini, on 13 January 2024.[9]

Judges Xue and Bhandari recognized children among the victims of the hostilities in their Declarations.[10] Judges Sebutinde and Judge Ad Hoc Barak also made reference to children as among the victims of hostilities but had additional focus, the former in relation to her opinion that South Africa could try to persuade Hamas to Immediately and unconditionally release the remaining hostages[11], and the latter referring to the historical case of the Nazi “Kinder Aktion” in 1944 and the fact that Israeli children were shocked and traumatized by the attack of October 7th.[12]  These reflections implicate the fact that children are often at the center of violence, hence it follows that they should be given priority in the design of peace.

The provisional orders issued by the ICJ were not child-specific-they were neutrally drafted in way in which children can be included: Israel must take all measures to prevent the commission of[13]:

killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; and (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.

Israel must take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.[14]

A question arises as to what will be included in the reports filed by Israel in accordance with the provisional orders.  Will they provide information on any child-specific measures they may take in conjunction with their obligation to prevent genocide?

Realization of International Solidarity for Children requires recognition of state obligations in accordance with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child Article 38 (4):“to ensure protection and care of children who are affected by an armed conflict”, but the challenge is also to provide (according to Article 39) “physical and psychological recovery and social reintegration of a child victim of: any form of neglect, exploitation, or abuse; torture or any other form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; or armed conflicts. Such recovery and reintegration shall take place in an environment which fosters the health, self-respect and dignity of the child.”

In comparison, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issues child-specific provisional orders in cases involving violations affecting children, this may include orders of provision of psychological or physical support to child victims, including requiring transfer to institutions for proper care, supervision of detention, guarantee of sanitation and medical care, provision of education (including scholarships), in particular follow up for placement of orphans.[15]  The Inter-American Court of Human Rights espouses the Convention on the Rights of the Child Article 6(2) obligation upon states to “ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child”.[16] This includes physical, mental, spiritual, moral, psychological and social development.[17] The Court has held states responsible for two-fold violations of human rights of children, by failing to prevent children from living in misery, deprived of dignity, at risk of experiencing human rights violations, and deprived of the expectation to pursue a life’s project.

It may be suggested that reports on implementation of the Provisional Measures should also include information on physical and psychological recovery and reintegration of Palestinian and Israeli children who are deeply traumatized and injured. There is an urgent need to strengthen child-centered approaches within policies and programs supported by the international community.  Only when children are placed at the center can they participate in transition and consolidation of peace processes with actual enjoyment of human rights. Perhaps a child-centered approach can restore our humanity after decades of inhumane practice and policies by state and non-state actors around the world.


[1] https://reliefweb.int/report/world/surge-violence-against-girls-and-women-latin-america-and-caribbean

[2] https://press.un.org/en/2023/sc15395.doc.htm#:~:text=internationally%20recognized%20borders.-,KATERYNA%20RASHEVSKA%2C%20Legal%20expert%20at%20the%20Regional%20Center%20for%20Human,and%20children%20deprived%20of%20parental

[3] GAZA: More than 10 children a day lose a limb in three months of brutal conflict | Save the Children International  and Gaza: 10,000 children killed in nearly 100 days of war – occupied Palestinian territory | ReliefWeb

[4] The New Dynamics of Child Recruitment in Colombia (insightcrime.org)

[5] https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-risks-report-2024/in-full/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=ppc&utm_campaign=globalrisks&gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAiAzc2tBhA6EiwArv-i6fLVIf8DtlS7FcnZTQ3kB4ywd0Ld0ijz9wZ6pJ4LxR6pkMTCiSdGkhoCZhsQAvD_BwE

[6] Gaza has become a graveyard for thousands of children (unicef.org)

[7] Para. 43

[8]  Para. 47: “For children in particular, the past 12 weeks have been traumatic: No food. No water. No school. Nothing but the terrifying sounds of war, day in and day out.”

[9] Para 49: “This war affected more than 2 million people  the entire population of Gaza. Many will carry lifelong scars, both physical and psychological. The vast majority, including children, are deeply traumatized. Overcrowded and unsanitary UNRWA shelters have now become ‘home’ to more than 1.4 million people. They lack everything, from food to hygiene to privacy. People live in inhumane conditions, where diseases are spreading, including among children. They live through the unlivable, with the clock ticking fast towards famine. The plight of children in Gaza is especially heartbreaking. An entire generation of children is traumatized and will take years to heal. Thousands have been killed, maimed, and orphaned. Hundreds of thousands are deprived of education. Their future is in jeopardy, with far-reaching and long-lasting consequences.”

[10] Para 3 in both the Declaration of Judge Xue and the Declaration of Judge Bhandari.

[11] Dissenting Opinion Judge Sebutinde at para 34.

[12] Paras 5 and 25, Dissenting Opinion Judge Ad Hoc Barak

[13] Para. 78

[14] Para 80.

[15] The Rights of the Child in the Inter-American Human Rights System (oas.org) (2008) Provisional measures adopted by the Court to protect the human rights of children and adolescents

[16] Ibid

[17] United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 5 of November 27, 2003, para. 12.

Write On! Civil Society and International Solidarity

As the UN Independent Expert on Human Rights and International Solidarity I have witnessed a rise in the engagement of civil society groups in actions and expressions that seek to promote transnational unity, empathy, tolerance, and cooperation at a time of polarization and war. These initiatives are the elements of a strong culture of international solidarity in support of peace and social progress. However, these groups are increasingly subject to censorship and reprisals for their expression of international solidarity, including loss of funding, censorship, loss of employment, arrest, attack, harassment, persecution, prosecution and arbitrary detention, or other forms of penalization.

This is a call to civil society actors to contribute to my next report on Civil Society and International Solidarity- deadline February 15th! Student groups and Academic Institutions can also participate. There is a separate call for State institutions. Please contribute to help bring awareness to the role of civil society in promoting international solidarity: https://lnkd.in/dGpQtqSS

International Solidarity for Children

One of the markers of the deep polarization between people interviewed in the media addressing the impact of both the hostage taking and the killing of children in Israel and Gaza is the repeated implied reference to the principle of Tu Quoque– that breaches of international humanitarian law, being committed by the enemy, justify similar breaches by a belligerent. This is principle is considered to be universally rejected in international humanitarian law, given that its obligations are considered to be unconditional and not based on reciprocity. It is imperative that the concept of international solidarity replace the narrative of revenge and division that is manifested in cycles of violence that is devasting children in Israel and Palestine.  

International solidarity is an expression of unity by which peoples and individuals enjoy the benefits of a peaceful, just and equitable international order, secure their human rights and ensure sustainable development.[1] It supports recognition of overlapping cross-border local to global solidarity network initiatives demonstrating a common empathy and shared aim between different peoples. This in contrast to unitary solidarity which is exclusionary as it centers on a common nativist, national segregated community orientation.  International Solidarity is intended to promote respect for, protection, and fulfilment of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all individuals, without distinction as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, disability or other status. All individuals, including children, have the right to participate meaningfully in, contribute to and enjoy a social and international order in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be realized. The aim is to promote solidarity between Israeli and Palestinian children and to encourage their right to engage in solidarity initiatives to build peace and enjoy human rights.

States, International Organizations, and Non-State Actors have a duty to respect the right of international solidarity and not breach obligations under international law. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 38 (4) sets forth the obligation to take precaution in relation to children in conflict: “In accordance with their obligations under international humanitarian law to protect the civilian population in armed conflicts, States Parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure protection and care of children who are affected by an armed conflict.” State and Non-state actors, including Hamas, are obligated to respect human rights and humanitarian law. This includes ensuring that children are not subject to attack (or taken hostage), that they are not forcibly displaced or separated from their parents, that they be given humanitarian assistance (including food, water, and medicine), that they are not subjected to arbitrary house raids or arrest and detention, that they not be used as human shields, and that they enjoy a clean and healthy environment. The current conflict has not only resulted in the severe psychological trauma and anxiety, but also deaths and injuries of children in Gaza and Israel.[2]

The urgency of pursuing full negotiations to secure the release of the hostages, with special priority for the children, women, elderly, and disabled persons is underscored.

Martin Luther King observed “The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.”[3]

Moreover, the spread of anti-Semitic and Islamophobic hate speech has incited violence in other countries, including the murder of a Palestinian 6 year old child and a Jewish woman in the United States.[4] As the Spokesperson for the OHCHR Ravina Shamdasani stated[5]:

“We call on political and other leaders to speak out, unequivocally, against such speech, and to take clear measures to stem any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. This is a time for the international community to come together in solidarity, advocating for the protection of all civilians, no matter where, no matter what.”

 King Abdullah suggested a vision of international solidarity that would be child centered at the Cairo Summit for Peace: “Our collective and unified message to the Israeli people should be: We want a future of peace and security for you and for the Palestinians, where your children and Palestinian children should no longer live in fear. .  .The only path to a safe and secure future for the people of the Middle East and the entire world—for the Jewish people, for Christians, for Muslims alike—starts with the belief that every human life is of equal value . . .”[6]

It is important that international and national actors within governments, international and regional organizations, civil society, and faith-based groups cooperate to pursue a cease- fire to be followed up by a peace and solidarity transitional justice mechanism that would be inclusive of participation by children. Positive News provides an overview of ten civil society groups that work for Israeli-Palestinian peace.[7] A future peace and solidarity mechanism should collect and share children’s stories of common losses as well as interdependent future aspirations to establish mutual recognition, empathy, and trust among the children of Israel and Palestine.  It should deconstruct the polarizing narratives in order to create a common commitment to promote a culture of sustainable peace and international solidarity.  This may help to promote support for expansion of peace and solidarity educational programs for Israeli and Palestinian children in the future.


[1] The revised Draft Declaration on Human Rights and International Solidarity, available at: G2306905.pdf (un.org)

[2] Children in Gaza ‘developing severe trauma’ after 16 days of bombing | Israel-Hamas war | The Guardian

[3] Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community?. p. 67

[4] 6-Year-Old Boy Dead in Anti-Muslim Attack Near Chicago, Police Say – The New York Times (nytimes.com) 

US synagogue head killed as police warn against speculation over motive | Crime News | Al Jazeera

[5] Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories | OHCHR

[6] Remarks by His Majesty King Abdullah II at the Cairo Summit for Peace At the Cairo Summit for Peace | King Abdullah II Official Website

[7] Bridging the divide: 12 groups working for Israel-Palestine peace – Positive News – Positive News