Gaza: From Siege to Engineered Extermination and Control

Gaza is no longer just a war zone or an open humanitarian file subjected to disaster; it has transformed into an intensive model for redefining the tools of punishment in the "contemporary international system." Here, economic sanctions, coercive measures, and long-term sieges intertwine with direct military operations, forming a structure that transcends traditional concepts of armed conflict. In this context, it is no longer sufficient to speak of international humanitarian law or the human rights system in isolation from the profound transformations that have made "unilateral coercive measures" and "both direct and indirect sanctions" tools for reshaping the lives of people, rather than mere means of political pressure.

At the heart of this transformation, Gaza emerges as the most acute case testing the limits of international legitimacy. The years-long siege, accompanied by systematic restrictions on movement and supplies and the reconstruction of infrastructure, can no longer be separated from a broader context that intertwines security, politics, and humanity, extending to the reproduction of the very conditions of life itself. With the ongoing aggression, the legal and ethical problematic regarding the nature of international action deepens: is what is happening an application of traditional "security" tools, or is it a comprehensive pattern of collective punishment that redefines the very concept of control?

In this context, the discussion is not limited to describing policies or their humanitarian impacts, but is directly related to the issue of international criminal responsibility. Some legislative trends or policies related to Palestinian prisoners that affect the right to life, whether by allowing the death penalty or through practices that fall under extrajudicial killings, cannot be viewed as isolated domestic legislations.
These measures acquire their criminal significance when they are associated with execution or fall within a public policy or systematic behavioral pattern, reflecting institutional intent and a clear leadership sequence. In this case, these facts could be used as contextual evidence within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, particularly concerning war crimes or serious violations of international humanitarian law.
Consequently, documenting these trends and connecting them to their field and political context does not merely gain descriptive importance but constitutes part of building a legal evidence file whose value accumulates over time through the consistency of evidence, not merely through a moment of litigation.

In this framework, Gaza is not just a tragic humanitarian case but becomes an open laboratory for testing the effectiveness of the international legal system itself; from the tools of the UN special rapporteurs, to mechanisms for international accountability, to the system's ability to deal with cases where the tools of war, siege, and legislation intertwine into one complex system. Thus, the question shifts from the level of politics to the level of structure: what kind of international system is this where punishment is redefined, the limits of the law are tested, and human lives are left between tools of power and a lack of accountability?

From Sanctions to a Structure of Control

Sanctions are no longer merely a political pressure tool; they have transformed into a standalone structure for managing conflicts, often used outside collective frameworks and imposed according to a logic of power more than relying on law. At the heart of this transformation, "unilateral coercive measures" emerge as one of the most controversial tools of the international system, not only due to their economic impacts but also because of the humanitarian outcomes that may result in reshaping the lives of entire populations.

In this context, the appointment of Palestinian Zina Jalad as the special rapporteur concerned with the impact of these measures on human rights by the UN Human Rights Council acquires significance that goes beyond procedural character. The appointment mechanism within the system of special rapporteurs is not based on direct political elections but according to criteria that include expertise, independence, and non-direct governmental affiliation. Nevertheless, this "apparently neutral" structure is not disconnected from the balance of international power that casts its shadow over the nature of the files presented and the limits of movement available to the rapporteurs themselves.

Gaza: Testing Legitimacy and the Limits of International Law

This appointment comes at a moment when the scope of wars is expanding, and the boundaries between security and collective punishment are eroding, raising again the question of legitimacy: who has the right to impose sanctions, and by what standard are their results measured? However, this question remains incomplete unless linked to the case that unveils this problematic at its most extreme, which is the Gaza Strip.

Gaza as a Structure of Siege and Genocide

The siege imposed on Gaza for almost two decades is no longer a temporary security measure; it has transformed into a comprehensive control system that reshapes the daily life of two million people. And with the ongoing crime of genocide, it is no longer possible to separate the siege from military operations, as the tools of starvation, destruction of infrastructure, restrictions on movement and relief weave into a single system that produces a cumulative effect that transcends the concept of punishment to reconstruct the very conditions of existence. Describing what is happening as merely a "conflict" is no longer anything but a political simplification that loses its explanatory power.

In this reality, Gaza becomes the most intense test for the limits of the international legal system. If "unilateral coercive measures" are typically discussed outside the framework of collective legitimacy, what is taking place in Gaza raises a deeper question about the legitimacy of using siege and collective punishment tools when they turn into a permanent structure for subjugating an entire community.

Special Rapporteurs: Impact Without Tools for Enforcement

The fundamental question remains: can UN mechanisms without enforcement tools make a real difference? The realistic answer is that the impact of special rapporteurs is not measured by decisions but by accumulation. Redefining the situation legally, raising the cost of political denial, and building a rights archive can later turn into accountability tools. It is a slow effect, but it is not marginal if politically organized effectively.

Integration Between the Two Mandates: Dismantling the System and Its Tools

In this context, this pathway cannot be separated from the role that Francesca Albaniza, the special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories, plays. Between the two mandates, there is a clear intersection; Albaniza's task is to dismantle the structure of occupation as a legal and political system, while Jalad's mandate reveals the less visible dimension, which is the tools of economic pressure, collective sanctions, and the siege as means of sustaining this system.

If activated, this integration does not merely result in a mass of reports but opens the possibility of building a comprehensive legal narrative; one reveals the nature of the existing system, while the other uncovers its daily operating tools.

In Gaza, this interconnection manifests itself to the highest degree: a long siege, an open war, and systematic destruction of the infrastructure of life, in a model that collapses the boundaries between international humanitarian law and human rights law, placing the international system in front of a bare mirror.

Lack of Strategy and Turning Documentation into Pressure Power

However, the real issue does not lie in the nature of these mechanisms but in the absence of a Palestinian political strategy capable of transforming them into effective pressure tools. Without organized Palestinian and international efforts to feed them with accurate ground realities and connect their outputs to broader accountability pathways, their effectiveness will remain limited and symbolic, regardless of the extent of their discourse.

At a moment when wars are expanding and norms are eroding, the most urgent question becomes: is humanity still the standard of international politics, or has politics begun to be managed at the expense of humanity and the rights of peoples rather than for them?