There is increased public attention directed to the topic of weapons trade and this is a positive development because enhanced scrutiny holds a promise of bringing more accountability to the field that has long been obscure. This article reviews the possibility of criminal prosecutions of corporate officials for supplying weapons to Gaza, Yemen and Ukraine at the International Criminal Court (ICC) or a similar forum. The Nuremberg Trials planted seeds for such an endeavour by holding several industrialists criminally liable. Yet, modern international criminal law has so far largely stayed away from defining the scope of individual criminal responsibility for corporate officials. The case studies in this paper reveal that the moment is not ripe for commencing actual investigations at the ICC. Nonetheless, a future consensus is slowly building through (often failed) attempts to use legal or policy avenues to define the standards of conduct in the weapons trade.

In the US, engaging in scholarship and advocacy on Middle East issues, certainly on Palestine, has long attracted attacks from campus and off-campus organizations and individuals. However, a near consensus has emerged that the threats to academic freedom that we are witnessing today are unprecedented, as it is now the US government that is leading the assault. The weaponization of charges of antisemitism against those engaged in teaching about Palestine and/or in pro-Palestine advocacy has become a battering ram utilized by the political right to achieve a central goal: taming or destroying American higher education as a locus of critical inquiry and potential opposition to the Trump administration’s authoritarian project. What does the current moment mean for us as members of a Middle East studies community? How have the challenges we face evolved and how are today’s attacks different from those of the past? This essay addresses the evolution of these growing threats in the US as well as longer-standing threats in the Middle East North Africa (MENA) region in the context of the role and work of MESA’s Committee on Academic Freedom (CAF) in responding to them.

This article explores how emotions can affect policies of hostage rescue and recovery. Any hostage rescue/recovery strategy must consider the relative weights of at least three major goals: 1) maximising chance of recovering/rescuing the hostages; 2) punishment of the kidnappers; and 3) avoidance of collateral damage and killing of bystanders. This article will show how an understanding of emotion can help explain why one of these goals comes to dominate another, why one goal fades in importance. The article will argue that a specific combination of two emotions – anger and contempt – drives the elevation of the punishment goal above that of maximising chances of hostage recovery while also greatly diminishing any value of collateral damage avoidance. The article considers these issues with a short case study of hostage taking at Attica Prison in 1971, which serves as a link to the main case – Israel’s post–October 7 hostage policy towards Gaza.

For the Palestinian people, psychic life is just as much a site of struggle for liberation as social life. Palestinians are persistently refused psychological amplitude, characteristics easily granted to those who are never worried they might fall out of what is constituted as the category of the human. Abdaljawad Omar’s writings in English published since October 7, 2023 (as well as writings by other Palestinians, other Arabs, and those of Palestinian descent) offer means of understanding material resistance in relation to the terrain of the psyche. Omar offers distinctive accounts of mourning, loss, and ruins, as well as of how settler colonialism reorganizes experiences of time and relations between past, present, and future. The article reads Omar’s writings against other accounts of mourning and of psychic phenomena that are indebted to psychoanalysis. Omar’s analyses of Palestinians’ resistance to unfreedom and annihilation open up other ways of understanding the psychic vicissitudes of those who suffer, grieve, and struggle to exit a colonial condition characterized by the colonizer’s repeated attempts to break psychic worlds as well as erase bodily life. Understandings of psychic life that do justice to how Palestine is redrawing the world are central to the work of ‘cracking history open’.

Armed conflict devastates children across all regions and ideologies – inflicting profound and lasting harm on their bodies, minds, and developmental trajectories. While all sides may commit atrocities, the experience of children is tragically consistent: they are the least responsible, yet often the most harmed. This article traces the evolving global understanding of war’s impact on children, charting a journey in modern history to present-day realities. It begins with the landmark 1996 UN report by Graça Machel, which exposed the wide-ranging and systematic nature of the effects of war on children – where violence, displacement, and severed attachments force children into premature adulthood. Building on this, the 2009 and 2013 UN efforts codified the “Six Grave Violations” against children in armed conflict, now central to global monitoring and advocacy. Despite these frameworks and legal protections, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the 2024 UN Secretary-General’s report shows violations have surged – up 21% in the past year alone. To bring these patterns into focus, the article concludes with a case study of Gaza. Chosen for its immediacy and visibility, Gaza is emblematic of the ongoing failure to shield children from war’s worst impacts. Similar suffering persists in Sudan, Myanmar, and Ukraine. The article calls for an urgent, universal imperative: end hostilities to protect children. A trauma-informed, attachment-sensitive approach – grounded in lessons from Rwanda, Bosnia, and Syria – is essential. Clinicians, humanitarians, and policymakers must place children at the heart of all post-conflict recovery and accountability efforts.

The Gaza war, which started on 7 October 2023 through the horrendous attack by Hamas on Israel, has caused a depressing measure of human suffering on all sides. As far as Israel’s use of force is concerned, this war also constitutes a challenging case for the application of the jus contra bellum. This chiefly arises from the genuine legal uncertainty concerning the applicability of the right of self-defence when an armed attack by a non-state organisation emanates from the territory of a state that has proven unable to prevent said armed attack. Arguably, the situation in the Gaza Strip on 7 October 2023 presents the rare variation of such an ‘unable host state scenario’ where the non-state armed attack (by Hamas) against a state (Israel) has originated from a territory (the Gaza Strip) destined for the realisation of the right to self-determination of a people (the Palestinian people). In such a case, the dilemmatic conflict that underlies the uncertainty about the applicability of the right of self-defence is between the legally protected interests of the state that is the victim of the armed attack and those of the ‘host people’ of the non-state attacker.

This article critiques the assessment by exporting states of assurances that exported arms will not be misused by recipient states, with a focus on the Gaza conflict. First, the article develops a transferable framework for evaluating assurances. Building on the arms export obligations in the Geneva Conventions, and the implementation of those export obligations in the Arms Trade Treaty and EU Common Position, the article synthesises a due diligence test. It also draws on assurance assessment in another field where assurances are routinely given to overcome risk: when assurances attempt to address the risk of mistreatment to an expelled person implicating non-refoulement. The methodology for assurances assessments in risk prediction has been developed extensively in that area and closely resembles a similar approach emerging for arms exports. The article articulates the relevant criteria for assessing assurances when completing a due diligence risk assessment for arms exports and then applies that framework to the US arms exports in relation to the Gaza conflict. Under National Security Memorandum 20, the United States released a public report on its assurances assessment, offering a rare partial glimpse into the use of assurances in arms exports and an opportunity to examine whether assurances are being assessed in alignment with international practice. The result of the article is a clear practical checklist for lawful reliance on assurances and a tentative conclusion that the assessment by the US was not in compliance with international standards.

The article is set against the near absence of external protection responses to the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. Querying the interplay between four recognised international legal norms in the context of armed conflict, it seeks to provide doctrinal clarity in a context where the range and interaction of diverse legal standards may generate uncertainty or claims of apparent norm conflict: the prohibition on forced displacement, the right to leave any territory, non-refoulement and the right to return to one’s ‘own country’, including as part of the realisation of a collective right to self-determination. The article posits that a future realisation of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination has been coopted by external actors as a justification for infringing, in an immediate and tangible sense, the individual rights of Gazans to leave the strip in order to seek and to enjoy elsewhere protection from rights violations, some of which breach jus cogens norms. This latest manifestation of ‘Palestinian exceptionalism’ has had dire consequences for individual Palestinians and, unless unwaveringly rejected, could detrimentally affect those fleeing future armed conflicts.

This essay approaches Palestine not as a laboratory or a problem to be solved, but as a paradigm that elucidates the persistent and cumulative violence of settler colonialism, genocide, and dispossession. The author explores the collapse and distortion of time under siege, the fragmentation and resilience of bodies amid relentless violence, and the radical power of storytelling in the face of attempted erasure. Weaving together images from Gaza’s hospitals, refugee camps, schools, prisons, and graveyards, this essay documents both the horror and tenacity of everyday Palestinian life. It situates the ongoing Nakba within global trends of authoritarianism and repression, including the assault on academic freedom and criminalization of solidarity. Ultimately, this essay argues that Palestinian defiance, memory, and narrative offer vital lessons in apocalyptic times.

The word taʿawuniyya (“cooperative”) in Palestine today can mean multiple things. It can mean a registered cooperative, or can loosely refer to any initiative based on collective labor and possession, geared toward a collective societal benefit—a communal garden, for example. This vernacular usage of the term, close to the concept of the commons, is borne out of Palestinian history and is an invitation to go beyond the formal definition of a cooperative when searching for a Palestinian “cooperative movement.” Registered cooperatives in Palestine have historically played a role that ranged from subordination and placation by ruling authorities to reformist and survival mechanisms for a colonized population. Informal cooperatives, on the other hand, played roles that surpassed survival and attempted to upend the basis of colonial control. Apart from structure and labor relations, what unites both senses of the term “cooperative” is the political role they have played, as well as their tendency to focus on basic necessities such as food and housing. The history of the cooperative movement in Palestine tells a story of social production and reproduction as an arena of struggle, particularly against Zionist colonization. This essay will give an overview of this history, focusing mainly on the areas of Palestine occupied in 1967.

This article discusses the potential influence of the existence of an underlying armed conflict in Gaza on the applicability and application of jus ad bellum. It rejects the Israeli ‘displacement’ approach whereby jus ad bellum does not play a role during an ongoing armed conflict as it finds no support in the sources of international law, in particular state practice. The article then provides possible explanations for the Israeli reliance on ‘displacement’ regardless of its shaky foundations: namely, the preference to provide overall justification for the operation, to avoid difficult political topics, and to allow Israel freedom of action in other arenas (such as Lebanon and Syria). Regardless of such findings, the article acknowledges that jus ad bellum faces challenges to its application during hostilities. It analyses the right of self-defence, as Israel has relied on such right to justify its use of force in Gaza, addressing relatively briefly jus ad bellum necessity while focusing on the various approaches to jus ad bellum proportionality, and the differences between such approaches when it comes to the legality of the use of force in self-defence in Gaza. Ultimately, the article argues that states must provide clear pronouncements on this issue to prevent the adoption of an overly permissive approach to the regulation of jus ad bellum during hostilities.

The 2023 Gaza War has severely affected children’s health and development. This field-based synthesis draws from humanitarian agency reports and public health data to document impacts across physical health, nutrition, mental well-being, and education. Key findings include severe malnutrition, psychological trauma, and collapse of health care and education systems. Humanitarian access remains limited due to embedded military infrastructure and active conflict zones. Recommendations call for protected corridors, mobile health units, targeted mental health support, and stronger international accountability.

Nutritional status has been compromised by ongoing war and restrictions on food deliveries in the Gaza Strip. We developed a mathematical model that outputs retrospective estimates and scenario-based projections of acute malnutrition prevalence among children given caloric intake and other factors. We present here the model and its application to the crisis in Gaza. We extended an existing mechanistic model for weight change as a function of energy balance, calibrating it to represent variability in growth curves observed in pre-war Gaza. We simulated open cohorts of children exposed to time-varying caloric intake, infant exclusive breast-feeding prevalence, incidence of infectious disease and coverage of malnutrition treatment, while allowing for adult caloric sacrifice to supplement child intake in times of food scarcity. The model accurately replicates growth standards, pre-war growth patterns and expected parameter dependencies. It suggests that a considerable increase in acute malnutrition occurred in northern Gaza during early 2024. Projections for late 2024 include a serious nutritional emergency if relatively pessimistic assumptions are made about food availability. The model may hold considerable promise for informing decisions in humanitarian response but requires further validation and development.

What is happening in Gaza now is a total displacement of any form of normality. This displacement of the normal has been effected by a population-wide project of social reproduction. Every Gazan, including children, is solicited to reproduce life, to survive. At the same time, social reproduction in Palestine has always also entailed insurgent possibilities, where this form of labour has indeed sustained and reproduced Palestinian revolutionary action. From collective kitchens to local initiatives of care for children, to using drones as musical instruments to distract children from the deafening violence of its soundscape, social reproduction is iterated as both survival and insurgency. This short intervention tries to think through the question of how to make sense of social reproduction as capitalist oppression through the unwaged housework, and as colonial violence through the mass extermination of a population, without leaving behind its potential for insurgency?