The ongoing genocide and devastation in Gaza has reached a level that many scholars, human rights organizations, and even state leaders describe as nothing less than genocidal. Entire neighborhoods have been reduced to rubble, critical infrastructure has been deliberately targeted, and tens of thousands of civilians — most of them women and children — have been killed or displaced in what the Israeli government frames as a campaign against Hamas. For the people of Gaza, however, the experience is one of systematic annihilation.In this context, Colombian President Gustavo Petro’s call for an international force to stop the genocide in Gaza should not be dismissed as political rhetoric from the Global South. It stands as perhaps the only realistic solution to a crisis that has exposed the impotence of international humanitarian law, the paralysis of the United Nations system, and the complicity of the great powers with Israel’s war machinery. Petro’s proposal crystallizes not only the moral urgency of the moment but also the geopolitical logic of intervention when the conventional international mechanisms are broken.

The Inadequacy of Existing Institutions

The first justification for Petro’s argument lies in the failure of existing international institutions.

• The United Nations Security Council has been repeatedly blocked by U.S. vetoes from passing binding resolutions calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. This underscores the structural bias within the system, where one permanent member consistently shields Israel from accountability. The very body entrusted to authorize peacekeeping or protective missions has thus become an obstacle to their formation.
• The International Criminal Court has opened investigations into Israeli actions and war crimes in the Occupied Territories, but these proceedings advance slowly, are vulnerable to political pressure, and lack immediate enforcement capacity. Law, when reduced to mere procedure, cannot stop the bombs falling daily on Gaza.
• Regional actors like Egypt or Jordan are constrained by their dependence on Western military aid and by domestic political vulnerabilities. They cannot provide the neutral and international force necessary to halt the cycles of assault, nor can they authoritatively mediate under the shadow of Israel’s overwhelming military dominance.

Given these failures, Petro is correct: only the deployment of a multinational, politically independent international force can change the material conditions on the ground.

The Concept of “Responsibility to Protect”

The 2005 UN World Summit established the principle of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) — that the international community must intervene, by military means if necessary, when a state commits or fails to prevent genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, or crimes against humanity.

Israel’s actions in Gaza — mass expulsions, targeted destruction of civilian infrastructure, obstruction of humanitarian aid, and indiscriminate bombardment — fulfill every definitional threshold of R2P. Indeed, Gaza is the quintessential case study for its application. Yet because Israel enjoys impunity due to U.S. diplomatic cover, no institutional path remains viable within the Security Council framework. Here again, Petro’s vision rises as the only operationalization of R2P in this crisis: a coordinated force, potentially organized under the General Assembly’s Uniting for Peace resolution of 1950, to bypass veto paralysis and act directly on behalf of global conscience.

The Geopolitical Stakes

An international force in Gaza is not merely a humanitarian necessity; it is a geopolitical imperative.

• Preventing regional collapse: The Gaza war continuously risks regional spillover. Lebanon’s Hezbollah, Syria, Iran-aligned forces in Iraq, and the Houthis in Yemen have already interjected at varying levels. The longer the war continues unchecked, the greater the probability of escalation into a regional conflagration. An international force to protect civilians and guarantee a ceasefire would also serve as a stabilizing mechanism for the entire Middle East.
• Ending cycles of impunity: Israel’s decades-long military doctrines — from the Dahiya Doctrine of disproportionate force to the ongoing siege doctrines against Gaza — demonstrate that without external deterrence, its conduct will not change. Only the credible threat of international deployment can impose material limits on Israeli military strategy.
• Rebalancing global order: A Latin American head of state, not a European or U.S. leader, has raised the most forceful call for global intervention against genocide in Gaza. This reflects a shifting world order where the Global South increasingly asserts moral and political leadership on matters abandoned by the West. An international force for Gaza would mark the first decisive assertion of multipolar humanitarian enforcement, free from U.S. veto domination.

Why Petro’s Proposal Is the Only Solution

Critics might argue that diplomacy, sanctions, or arms embargoes are alternative remedies. Yet these mechanisms have repeatedly proved ineffective:

• Diplomatic pressure has been ignored, with Israel moving aggressively to consolidate destruction despite global condemnation.
• Sanctions face resistance from Western governments, and even if applied, their timeline would not match the immediacy demanded by a humanitarian catastrophe.
• Humanitarian aid itself is weaponized, with convoys blocked, UN agencies systematically undermined, and starvation used as a tool of war.

The calls for “restraint” and “humanitarian pauses” have become meaningless in practice. Israel has demonstrated that words alone cannot halt its campaign. Thus, Petro correctly identifies what follows logically: force must be met with force, not in the interest of warring parties, but in the higher interest of humanity itself.

Just as NATO intervention was justified in Kosovo on humanitarian grounds, despite lacking explicit Security Council authorization, so too must the international community rise to defend Gaza. Unlike Kosovo, however, Gaza is under occupation, formally governed by international law as occupied territory, which further strengthen—not weakens—the legal basis for deploying external forces to protect its civilian population.

Conclusion

President Gustavo Petro’s call for an international force to stop the genocide in Gaza is not a radical outburst but the only coherent response to grave crimes being committed in real time. Diplomatic mechanisms have failed, legal proceedings lack enforcement, and regional actors lack capacity. What remains is the universal moral duty to protect—to intervene militarily not to conquer, but to shield a people from extermination.

If the international community ignores Petro’s appeal, the consequences will be twofold: the irreversible destruction of Gaza’s society and culture, and the effective burial of international humanitarian law as anything more than rhetoric. If, however, his proposal is heeded, it could establish a new precedent—one in which the world finally takes seriously the principle that genocide is not negotiable, that sovereignty does not shield atrocity, and that humanity has the right and the duty to defend itself against annihilation.

Petro’s voice, breaking from the margins of power to demand the deployment of an international force, may prove to be the moral compass of a fractured world. The question is whether the world will follow before Gaza ceases to exist.

The UN’s Hidden Power to Launch Military Action in Gaza

[…]

Via https://thepostil.com/president-petros-proposal-is-the-sole-moral-and-strategic-solution/