International Reactions to the Gaza War (2008–2009)

When Israel launched its air campaign against Gaza on December 27, 2008, international condemnation arrived quickly.[1] The operation followed sustained rocket and mortar fire from Gaza into southern Israeli communities.[2] Worldwide reactions featured repeated calls to end the violence, concern about Gaza's humanitarian situation, protests in numerous Middle Eastern and international capitals, and continuous Arab-media coverage of casualties.[2]

On the day the campaign began, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon acknowledged Israel's security concerns over continued rocket fire from Gaza while reiterating Israel's obligations under international humanitarian and human-rights law; his statement also condemned what it called excessive force leading to civilian deaths.[3] UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay condemned Israel's use of force as disproportionate on December 28.[3] The same day, French President Nicolas Sarkozy—then holding the rotating EU presidency—condemned what he termed Israel's disproportionate use of force while demanding an end to Hamas rocket attacks. Brazil registered a similar criticism.[3]

The Bush administration assigned primary responsibility for the crisis to Hamas. President George W. Bush stated on January 5, 2009, that "the situation now taking place in Gaza was caused by Hamas" and said Israel had decided to protect itself and its people.[2] The administration rejected the disproportionality charge, emphasizing that the United States would respond if missiles were fired at its population and that Hamas operated from within civilian areas.[4] The Senate unanimously approved a resolution on January 8 recognizing Israel's right to defend itself and reaffirming US support, while a similar House resolution passed January 9 by 390 to 5, with 22 members voting present.[2]

European governments were not of one mind. On December 27, the French EU presidency condemned both Israeli airstrikes and Palestinian rocket fire and called for an immediate end to both, using language that included the phrase "disproportionate use of force."[5] At a December 30 meeting in Paris, EU foreign ministers called for an "immediate and permanent ceasefire"—defined as an unconditional halt to Hamas rocket attacks alongside an end to Israeli military action—and called for all border crossings to reopen.[5]

The Czech Republic assumed the rotating EU presidency at the start of 2009 and introduced a somewhat different tone. A January 3 statement initially described Israeli ground operations as self-defense, though it was revised after criticism. The Czech presidency's January 4 statement affirmed Israel's "indisputable right" to defend itself while adding that this right did not allow actions that "largely affect civilians"; it also called for humanitarian aid and a ceasefire.[5] Following the adoption of Security Council Resolution 1860, the Czech presidency called for the "immediate cessation of military action on both sides."[5]

Individual governments displayed a wide spectrum of positions. Ireland's Foreign Minister Micheál Martin condemned the December 27 airstrikes in the strongest terms, calling them "devastating," and demanded an immediate halt; on January 6 he described the ground operation as involving "indiscriminate attacks" that "cannot be justified in any way."[5] Spain's Foreign Minister Miguel Ángel Moratinos condemned Hamas rocket attacks while describing Israel's response as "disproportionate retaliation." UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown first called for restraint, then for an immediate ceasefire, and on January 6 described Gaza as a "humanitarian crisis."[5]

Germany was among the countries that expressed greater understanding for Israel's position. Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier argued that Hamas must permanently end its missile attacks and that any ceasefire had to guarantee Israel's security and prevent weapons smuggling.[5] Italy and the Czech Republic likewise expressed understanding for Israel's actions as self-defense and demanded that Hamas stop its rocket attacks.[5] Sweden's Foreign Minister Carl Bildt struck a different note, characterizing Israel's isolation of Hamas-run Gaza as "counterproductive."[5]

French President Sarkozy proposed a 48-hour humanitarian ceasefire, which Israel did not accept.[5] On January 7, Sarkozy and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak delivered a ceasefire proposal to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert; the United States subsequently supported the initiative.[6]

Six European leaders—British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, and Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolánek—traveled to Jerusalem on January 18, 2009.[7] They offered personnel and technical assistance, in cooperation with Egypt and the United States, to prevent Hamas from smuggling weapons and terrorists into Gaza, and Merkel expressed support for Israel's "legitimate right" to defend itself.[7] An INSS assessment noted that their visit did not dwell on the contested questions of proportionality, weapons use, or strikes on international buildings, though the leaders emphasized the political process.[8]

Responses across the Arab world were shaped by deep divisions between comparatively moderate governments and actors aligned with Hamas, Iran, and their regional network. Egypt condemned Israel's operation and called for it to cease immediately and without preconditions, while explicitly blaming Hamas for the deterioration that preceded the fighting.[9] Egypt sought international pressure on Israel to stop the operation and open crossings but refused Hamas's demand to open Rafah unless the crossing was controlled by the Palestinian Authority and European observers, consistent with the 2005 crossings agreement.[9] Egypt's refusal drew criticism from Hamas, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, Arab media, and Saudi clerics.[2]

Regional governmental statements consistently condemned Israel's air campaign and ground operation as disproportionate, with leaders and commentators using descriptions such as aggression or massacre.[2] Egyptian and Turkish foreign ministers jointly urged both parties to stop attacks, called for Palestinian reconciliation, and emphasized Gaza's humanitarian needs.[2]

Large demonstrations erupted across the Arab and Muslim worlds during the operation's second week, calling for an immediate end to the fighting and the siege of Gaza.[9] Demonstrations supporting Hamas were encouraged particularly by Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah and were also prominent in Egypt and Jordan; in both countries, demonstrators called for abrogating peace treaties with Israel.[9] The Egyptian and Jordanian governments publicly criticized Israel and allowed public anger to be expressed while avoiding direct public attacks on Hamas amid domestic sensitivities.[9] Pro-Hamas demonstrations also took place in other countries, with some demonstrators burning Israeli and American flags.[6]

Divisions within the Arab world were stark at the diplomatic level. Qatar hosted an emergency summit on January 16, 2009, attended by Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal and the presidents of Iran and Syria. Saudi Arabia and Egypt did not attend, and the meeting lacked the quorum required to speak for the Arab League.[2] At a subsequent Kuwait summit, Saudi Arabia announced $1 billion for Gaza reconstruction, though no firm joint reconstruction plan or delivery mechanism was announced.[2]

Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah encouraged demonstrations and expressed strong support for Hamas, in contrast to the cautious posture of Egypt and Jordan.[9] The regional alignment broadly pitted what analysts described as a "moderate" Arab camp—concerned about Hamas's ties to Iran and control of Gaza—against an Iran-Syria-Hezbollah axis that championed Hamas's cause.[9]

Turkey's response marked a significant inflection point in its relationship with Israel. Turkish leaders adopted what an Institute for National Security Studies assessment described as a "very blunt and critical tone towards Israel."[8] Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan condemned Israel's actions, calling them "crimes against humanity" and criticizing its use of force.[10] Turkish and Egyptian foreign ministers jointly called for an end to attacks and emphasized humanitarian needs.[2]

The INSS assessment identified possible contributing factors behind the sharp Turkish reaction: Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had visited Ankara just days before the operation without informing his Turkish counterpart of Israel's plans, and Turkey's efforts to broker a ceasefire were sidelined as Egypt assumed the central diplomatic role.[8] The assessment presented these as possible explanations rather than formal statements of Turkish motive, but concluded that the episode risked further deterioration in Israeli-Turkish relations.[8]

The central institutional response during the fighting was UN Security Council Resolution 1860, adopted on January 8, 2009, by 14 votes to none, with the United States abstaining.[2] The resolution called for an immediate, durable, and fully respected ceasefire leading to the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza; unimpeded humanitarian assistance, including food, fuel, and medical treatment; and the sustained reopening of crossings based on the 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access.[11] It also called for efforts to prevent illicit arms trafficking, welcomed Egyptian mediation, encouraged intra-Palestinian reconciliation, and supported renewed efforts toward a two-state solution. The word "Hamas" did not appear in the resolution.[11]

The United States' decision to abstain rather than veto the resolution drew immediate attention. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice explained that the United States wanted to see the outcome of Egyptian mediation while supporting the resolution's substantive contents; she described it as a "road map for a sustainable, durable peace in Gaza."[12] Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert later claimed that he had personally persuaded President George W. Bush to change the US vote from yes to abstention, but the State Department denied his account.[2]

Both Israel and Hamas refused to halt the fighting after the resolution's adoption.[2] Olmert called the resolution "unworkable," while Hamas criticized it as favoring Israel.[12] Israel's UN envoy Gabriela Shalev argued that international attention should focus on ending Hamas's attacks and that a terrorist organization could not constitute legitimate leadership.[12]

Israel announced a unilateral ceasefire on January 17, effective January 18. Following another round of rocket attacks, Hamas also ceased fire on January 18.[2] In his announcement, Olmert said Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak had presented a ceasefire initiative and that Egypt and Israel had reached understandings intended to reduce weapons smuggling from Iran and Syria. He also said the United States would support international anti-smuggling efforts and that Britain, Italy, Germany, and France had offered assistance.[13]

Diplomatic activity around the ceasefire involved multiple overlapping tracks. Quartet envoy Tony Blair stated that an immediate ceasefire required determined action to stop weapons and money smuggling into Gaza.[4] The French foreign minister called for an end to rocket fire and Israeli military action, a humanitarian pause, reopening crossings, action against weapons smuggling, and an international mechanism in Gaza. US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Hamas was responsible for the escalation and that a durable ceasefire needed to end rocket fire, reopen crossings, and address tunnels used for weapons smuggling.[4]

The Bush administration maintained that a ceasefire was necessary but that the United States would not accept a return to the previous situation in which Hamas could fire rockets at Israel. Its core conditions for a sustainable arrangement were ending Hamas rocket fire, stopping arms smuggling through tunnels from Egypt, and reopening crossings for goods.[12]

On February 4, 2009, Denmark hosted officials and advisers from Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Norway, the Netherlands, Germany, France, Spain, and Italy to discuss support for anti-smuggling efforts.[2] Israel attended as an observer; Egypt and the Palestinian Authority did not send representatives. The United Kingdom, France, and Germany jointly offered Israel and Egypt maritime and border-security assistance, including possible naval support.[2]

International pressure also produced a humanitarian opening. On January 7, Israel opened a corridor for aid and agreed to a daily three-hour pause in fighting, during which Hamas agreed not to launch rockets.[6] Israel delivered 37,159 tons of aid in 1,503 trucks, along with fuel and staple goods.[6] After the war, the European Union, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, and more than 50 countries donated humanitarian assistance to Gaza.[6] The United States contributed more than $20 million in humanitarian aid and signed a January 16 memorandum with Israel concerning efforts to inhibit weapons smuggling into Gaza.[6]

Among Latin American governments, reactions ranged from strong condemnation to diplomatic rupture. Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez condemned Israel's actions, said that the Israeli and US presidents should be brought before the International Criminal Court, expelled Israeli diplomats from Caracas, and cut diplomatic ties with Israel.[10] Bolivia also severed diplomatic relations with Israel following Operation Cast Lead.[14] Relations with both countries had begun deteriorating before the Gaza fighting because of ideological differences, so the operation was not the sole factor in the diplomatic breaks.[14] Brazil formally criticized what it called Israel's disproportionate response.[3] Iran, Syria, Venezuela, and Cuba were identified among the countries that most severely condemned Israel during the conflict.[10]

The principal international legal response to the conflict came through the UN Human Rights Council, whose January 12, 2009, Resolution S-9/1 called for a fact-finding mission. South African judge Richard Goldstone was subsequently appointed to lead it. The resolution and original mandate focused on Israeli conduct, drawing immediate criticism.[15] Germany, speaking on behalf of the European Union, objected that the resolution and mandate addressed only one side of the conflict, unlike Security Council Resolution 1860, and expressed concern that the text used legal terms without sufficient evidence that their definitions were met.[16]

The Goldstone Report, formally titled the Report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, was released in September 2009 and presented by Goldstone to the Council in Geneva on September 29.[17] The 575-page report concluded that there was evidence of serious violations of international human-rights and humanitarian law by Israel, including actions amounting to war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity.[18][19] It alleged deliberate targeting of civilians, destruction of critical infrastructure, and use of white phosphorus in densely populated areas.[17] The report also found evidence that Palestinian armed groups committed war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity through repeated rocket and mortar attacks on civilian communities in southern Israel. It called for credible investigations by Israel and Hamas and recommended referral to the International Criminal Court prosecutor if either side failed to investigate within six months.[18]

Amnesty International released a separate 117-page report accusing Israeli forces of attacks amounting to war crimes, citing civilian deaths, destruction of homes, use of imprecise weapons in densely populated areas, and alleged use of Palestinians as human shields.[20] Amnesty also described Hamas rocket attacks on Israeli towns and villages as war crimes, calling their use "indiscriminate and hence unlawful under international law." The organization urged Israel not to use artillery, white phosphorus, or other imprecise weapons in densely populated areas and urged Hamas to stop firing rockets at civilians. The Israeli military rejected Amnesty's characterization, saying it acted according to international law and took precautions to minimize harm to non-combatants.[20]

Israel declined to cooperate with the Goldstone mission while cooperating with a separate UN Board of Inquiry into incidents affecting UN operations.[17] Israeli officials denounced the report as biased and politically motivated.[19] Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz called it an "attempt at anti-Semitism" and asserted Israel's right to defend its citizens, while Interior Minister Eli Yishai condemned its international adoption.[21] A source close to Defense Minister Ehud Barak said the report "rewards terror" and encourages it.[19]

The United States opposed the report at each institutional stage. US Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner told the Human Rights Council that the United States considered the report "deeply flawed" and disagreed sharply with its methodology and many recommendations.[22] He argued that it drew negative conclusions about Israeli leaders' intentions from a limited factual record and did not adequately address Hamas's conduct or the conflict's asymmetrical character. He also objected to recommendations concerning possible Security Council and International Criminal Court action. Posner nevertheless called for credible domestic investigations by both sides and accountability where violations were found.[22]

Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh welcomed the report's findings concerning Israel, while Hamas official Ismail Radwan objected that it placed those accused of crimes and those fighting them "on the same level."[19] Palestinian Authority officials praised the Human Rights Council vote and announced that they would pursue implementation in international forums, including the General Assembly and Security Council.[23] Before the Council vote, Goldstone criticized proposed wording because it did not condemn Hamas; he later said Israel could investigate the issues through its own legal system.[23]

The Human Rights Council endorsed the Goldstone Report on October 16, 2009, by 25 votes in favor, 6 against, and 11 abstentions, with 5 states not participating.[24][23] Russia, India, and China voted in favor; Italy, Hungary, and Ukraine voted against; Japan, Norway, and Belgium abstained; and France and Britain did not participate.[23] The resolution called for General Assembly consideration, requested reporting on implementation, and urged the parties to act on the report's recommendations.[24]

At the Council session, the US representative defended Israel's right to self-defense and said Israel could investigate its own actions, while Palestinian and Kuwaiti representatives supported action on the report and condemned Israeli conduct.[25] The European Union representative called the situation in Gaza worrying, urged the opening of crossings and transfer of goods, and emphasized a peaceful two-state solution and the release of Gilad Shalit.[25]

On November 5, 2009, the General Assembly adopted Resolution A/RES/64/10 by 114 votes in favor, 18 against, and 44 abstentions.[26][27] The resolution endorsed the report and called on Israel and the "Palestinian side," rather than naming Hamas, to conduct independent and credible investigations within three months.[28] The United States, Germany, and Israel voted against the resolution; France, the United Kingdom, Russia, and several other European states abstained.[29][28] Israeli ambassador Gabriela Shalev rejected the report and boycotted the vote.[28] Human Rights Watch subsequently called for continued pressure on both Israel and Hamas to conduct thorough and impartial investigations, arguing that Israeli investigations fell short while Hamas appeared not to have investigated alleged violations.[30]

The controversy took a significant turn in April 2011 when Richard Goldstone published an op-ed withdrawing the report's most serious claim that Israel had deliberately targeted Palestinian civilians as a matter of policy. Writing that "if I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document," he commended Israel's domestic investigations and said subsequently gathered evidence had changed his assessment of Israel's intentions.[31] His op-ed did not alter the Human Rights Council and General Assembly resolutions already adopted as part of the report's institutional record.[24][27]

The international response was marked by significant disputes extending beyond ordinary policy disagreement. The most substantial concerned the impartiality of the Goldstone process. Germany, speaking for the EU at the January 2009 Human Rights Council session, objected that the resolution authorizing the mission addressed only one side of the conflict.[16] The United States argued that the report reflected an unbalanced focus on Israel and did not adequately address Hamas's conduct or the asymmetrical character of the conflict.[22][17] Goldstone's 2011 withdrawal of the claim that Israel deliberately targeted civilians as a matter of policy intensified debate over the mission's conclusions without rescinding its broader institutional record.[31]

Prime Minister Olmert's claim that he personally persuaded President Bush to change the US vote on Resolution 1860 from yes to abstention—an account denied by the State Department—remains another contested episode in the diplomatic record.[2] Governments and international bodies also continued to disagree over whether Israel's use of force was proportionate, how responsibility for civilian harm should be assessed, and how Hamas's rocket attacks and operations from densely populated areas affected those judgments.[2][3]