OPEN LETTER: To the International Community Watching Israel Occupy Three Countries in Silence

Introduction: You Were There. You Saw. And You Chose Silence

June 25, 2026 — A Date to Remember

On June 25, 2026, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared, at a military ceremony in southern Israel, that Israeli forces would maintain their presence in Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza «for as long as necessary». This is not a declaration of war. It is something more dangerous: the declaration of a permanent occupation, pronounced to near-total international indifference.

To those of you sitting in councils, assemblies, chancelleries, cabinets, and committees — I am writing you this letter. Not to fault your malice. To fault your silence. Because in this matter, silence is not a neutral stance. It is documented complicity.

What You Knew and What You Chose to Ignore

Since October 7, 2023, United Nations-mandated organizations have published reports documenting war crimes, crimes against humanity, and acts that several independent commissions qualify as mass crimes in Gaza. An independent international commission mandated by the Human Rights Council published on June 23, 2026 a 100-page report on the deliberate targeting of Palestinian children. Its conclusion: at least 20,179 Palestinian children killed since October 2023. This is not a controversy. These are the legal findings of a United Nations body.

You received these reports. Your ambassadors read them. Your legal advisers analyzed them. And the majority of Western governments that could act chose to manage the communications rather than apply the law.

The Three Simultaneous Occupations — in Numbers, Not Opinion

Gaza: 70% of a Palestinian Enclave Under Israeli Military Control

As of today, Israeli forces occupy more than 60% of the Gaza Strip according to data published by TRT World on June 23, 2026. Prime Minister Netanyahu declared he had ordered the figure to reach 70%. This enclave of 365 square kilometers is the most densely populated territory on earth. What has been happening there since October 2023 no longer qualifies as a military operation. It is a permanent geographic transformation of an occupied territory.

Israeli Defense Minister Israël Katz declared on June 15, 2026 — following the signing of the American-Iranian MoU — that Israeli forces would remain in the «security zones» in Gaza «for an indefinite period» and that these zones would be «cleared of their inhabitants». This precise phrase, spoken by a government minister, is a public description of the forcible displacement of a population. International law has a name for that.

Lebanon: 608 km² Occupied and 7,000 Documented Airspace Violations

In Lebanon, Israeli forces have occupied approximately 608 square kilometers of Lebanese territory since hostilities resumed. Lebanon's permanent representative to the UN, Ahmad Arafa, declared on June 25, 2026 before the Fourth Committee of the General Assembly that UNIFIL (the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon) had documented more than 7,000 violations of Lebanese airspace by Israel since the cessation of hostilities of November 2024. Approximately 1.2 million Lebanese were forced to flee their homes following Israeli evacuation orders that Amnesty International qualified as «unlawful» in a report published on June 22, 2026.

Netanyahu declared explicitly, at a Tel Aviv conference on June 24, 2026: «As long as I am prime minister, we will maintain the security zone in southern Lebanon.» The defense minister added that this presence would continue «even if the United States requests otherwise». This is not diplomacy. It is public defiance of international law and of the American ally.

Syria: 1,500 km² Under Israeli Occupation

A UN-Documented Violation of the 1974 Agreement

In Syria, Israeli forces occupy approximately 1,500 square kilometers of Syrian territory, according to data published by ISM France on June 24, 2026. This occupation extends well beyond the Golan Heights annexed in 1981 — an annexation the international community does not legally recognize. Israel has deployed its troops into the UN buffer zone and beyond, directly violating the 1974 disengagement agreement.

The United Nations, through its special representative Claudio Cordone, declared on June 22, 2026: «We firmly reiterate our call on Israel to respect the 1974 Agreement and to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria.» This is a reiteration — which means the call has already been made. That it has been ignored. And that the international community has decided to reiterate rather than act.

The Refusal Position of Katz, Ben Gvir, and Smotrich

Israel's most radical ministers — Katz, Ben Gvir, and Smotrich — clarified their position in a joint statement published on June 24, 2026: no withdrawal from Lebanon, no withdrawal from Gaza, no withdrawal from Syria. Katz added that the Israeli army «will remain in the security zones in Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza without time limitation» and that these sectors would be «entirely cleared of their terrorist infrastructure, above ground and underground».

This position is public, documented, and dated. It constitutes the official announcement of an indefinite occupation of sovereign territories belonging to three distinct states. It is incompatible with international law. It was pronounced while the United States was negotiating a regional peace agreement in which the question of Israeli withdrawal was supposed to be central.

The Arab League, the African Union, and the OIC: Those Who Dared to Name It

A Southern Front That Did Not Hesitate

On June 24, 2026, the Arab League, the African Union, and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) published a joint declaration condemning Israel for colonization, annexation, and blockade, accusing the country of «violating international law». These three organizations represent dozens of countries and billions of people. Their declaration is clear, factual, and legally grounded.

They reaffirmed «their rejection and condemnation of the crimes of aggression, mass killing, and ethnic cleansing committed by Israel» and called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. The Arab ministers also emphasized that their states «will adopt all necessary policies and measures for the preservation of peace» — a formulation that leaves open the question of concrete consequences.

What the Arab Ministers Said That Westerners Did Not

What is striking about the declaration of the Arab League, the AU, and the OIC is precisely its contrast with the absence of an equivalent declaration from Western powers. The G7, the European Union, the United States published no condemnation of the simultaneous occupations in Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza during that same week. They managed. They qualified. They «expressed concerns».

This asymmetry is not inconsequential. It says something fundamental about the conditions under which international law is applied — or not. It says that international law operates on two speeds: one for powers that have powerful allies, one for everyone else. This observation is not new. What is new is the brazenness with which it displays itself in 2026.

The UN Report of June 23, 2026: 20,179 Children

What the Numbers Mean Legally and Morally

The Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, mandated by the UN Human Rights Council, published on June 23, 2026 a 100-page report documenting the deliberate targeting of Palestinian children since October 7, 2023. Its findings: at least 20,179 Palestinian children killed, 44,143 wounded. Sexual violence against children in detention. Deliberate attacks against orphanages, healthcare facilities, and schools.

The Commission concludes that Israeli authorities «deliberately targeted and killed Palestinian children» and that these acts constitute «crimes against humanity and war crimes» in Gaza and the West Bank, and «reaffirms once more the existence of mass crimes» in Gaza. This report is available online. It was publicly presented. It did not trigger an emergency Security Council meeting. It did not prompt sanctions.

Israel Described the Report as «Defamatory»

Israel responded by calling the report «defamatory» and accusing the Commission of «ignoring Hamas tactics». This response is legitimate within the framework of an adversarial debate. It does not constitute a legal rebuttal of the findings. And it does not address the central question: how can a democracy — a state that claims Western values — respond to a 100-page report on the deliberate killing of children with a single word: defamatory?

Also worth noting: the same Commission concluded that Hamas had committed «serious abuses» against Palestinians themselves in Gaza. The report is not one-sided. It documents the crimes of all actors. And precisely for this reason, its wholesale rejection by Israel — and its near-silence in Western capitals — is all the more significant.

The American-Iranian MoU and the Israeli Question: An Agreement That Sidelines Its Most Intransigent Actor

Why Katz Rejects an Agreement That Did Not Include Israel

When the preliminary American-Iranian agreement was signed on June 17–18, 2026, one of its clauses provided for an immediate cessation of hostilities on all fronts — including Lebanon. Israel's response, through Minister Katz, was unambiguous: «The IDF will remain in the security zones in Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza without time limitation.» He added: «We are not partners to this agreement that does not guarantee our security.»

An American ally — one that receives billions of dollars in annual American military aid — has just publicly declared that it is «not a partner» to an agreement signed by its principal ally and protector. This declaration would have triggered a major diplomatic crisis if pronounced by Turkey, Poland, or any other NATO ally. In Israel's case, it was received with «concerns».

Washington Ends «Unrestricted Authorization» — Too Late, Too Softly

On June 23, 2026, according to the Anadolu Agency, Israel received a message from Washington indicating that «the prior authorization allowing unrestricted action in Lebanon had expired». This is a correction, not a sanction. It is a course adjustment, not a consequence. And it reveals the balance of forces between the two countries: Washington recalibrates but does not confront. Israel receives the message and continues.

The Lebanon-Israel agreement taking shape, according to Libnanews analyses of June 26, 2026, sets no clear timeline for Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon. The Israeli presence would be maintained until the «disarmament of Hezbollah» — a criterion whose terms and timeline Israel alone defines. This is a variable-geometry agreement that, in practice, leaves Israel as the sole judge of the duration of its own occupation.

UNIFIL, the Blue Helmets, and UN Powerlessness

7,000 Airspace Violations and «Concerns»

UNIFIL — the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, created in 1978 and expanded in 2006 — is the visible embodiment of the international community's commitment to peace in Lebanon. Its presence, its mandate, its regular reports represent the daily work of men and women who risk their lives. And yet, since June 19, 2026, its observers have documented airspace violations, armored troop movements, and Israeli tank fire near their positions — and all UNIFIL can do is observe and report.

The Security Council renewed UNIFIL's mandate through Resolution 2790 until December 31, 2026. This renewal is presented as a positive step. But it sustains a force whose mandate does not allow it to prevent the violations it documents. UNIFIL is a witness camera, not a law enforcement body. This is the limit the international community imposed on itself — and refuses to exceed.

What Resolution 1701 Says That No One Applies

Security Council Resolution 1701, adopted on August 11, 2006, calls for the «disarmament of all militias» in Lebanon and the withdrawal of Israeli forces. It has been in force for 18 years. It has not been respected. Neither by Hezbollah nor by Israel. And the international community — represented on the Security Council by states that have the power to compel compliance — has chosen to allow this resolution to become a fiction repeated at regular intervals.

This is not a critique of the resolution. It is a critique of the political will to enforce it. And when a Security Council resolution remains a dead letter for 18 years, this is not a problem of international law. It is a problem of the political accountability of states that have the power to act and choose not to.

The Arab Ministers and Sovereignty: Article 2, Paragraph 4

What the UN Charter Says — and What Is Only Applied to Some

In their declaration of June 25, 2026, the Arab ministers explicitly cited Article 2, paragraph 4 of the UN Charter, which prohibits «the threat or use of force» against the territorial integrity of a state. They recalled that respect for this foundational norm is a condition for «peace, stability, and development» for all peoples.

This article applies to all UN member states. It applies when Russia invades Ukraine. It applies when a state occupies the territory of its neighbors, whichever state that may be. This consistency is not a political position — it is the very foundation of the international system that Western democracies claim to defend. Selecting the cases in which this article applies according to political alliances empties the Charter of its meaning.

What Arab States Mean by «All Necessary Measures»

The formulation according to which Arab states «will adopt all necessary policies and measures» for the preservation of peace is deliberately ambiguous. It can mean economic sanctions, diplomatic ruptures, or simply reinforced declarations. What is certain is that the patience of these states has documented limits, and that the absence of a proportionate international response fuels resentments that have long-term geopolitical consequences.

The Arab world — and more broadly the «Global South» — has been observing since October 2023 a selective application of international law that fuels a deep crisis of confidence in multilateral institutions. This crisis has concrete effects: weakening of coalitions, multiplication of alternatives to Western-dominated institutions, growth in anti-Western narratives that are not purely propaganda — because they are grounded in real, documented facts.

The Distinction Between the State of Israel and Legitimate Criticism of Its Leaders

What Can Be Said Without Antisemitism

This letter is not directed at the Israeli people. It does not deny Israel's right to exist, to security, to legitimate self-defense. The atrocities of October 7, 2023 are real, documented, condemned. The hostage-taking, the killings, the sexual assaults — these crimes have been confirmed by independent investigations and are not in dispute.

What is in dispute is the proportionality or lack thereof of the response. What is in dispute is the legality of the simultaneous occupations in Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza. What is in dispute is the policy of a specific government — that of Netanyahu, Ben Gvir, and Smotrich — which has made strategic choices that even a significant part of Israeli civil society publicly contests. Criticizing this government is not antisemitic. It is ordinary politics applied to an ordinary political actor.

The Double Trap of Conflation and Silence

The great rhetorical achievement of the Netanyahu government has been to systematically conflate any criticism of its policies with antisemitism. This strategy worked for years in Western capitals, where the shame of European history rendered political leaders paralyzed before any challenge to Israel. But in 2026, this strategy is showing its limits: when UN commissions, international courts of justice, and recognized human rights organizations — some led by members of the Jewish community — reach the same conclusions, the antisemitism pretext becomes untenable.

Western silence is not caution. It is the product of this trap. And this silence has real consequences: it implicitly validates the occupations, it weakens international law, and it feeds extremism on both sides — those who use the Palestinian cause to justify real antisemitism, and those who use the accusation of antisemitism to shut down legitimate debate.

What History Will Remember: The Geography of Silence in 2026

The Map of Those Who Spoke and Those Who Stayed Silent

History, with its characteristic hindsight, will draw a precise map of those who spoke and those who stayed silent between October 2023 and June 2026. It will note that the International Court of Justice issued provisional orders directing Israel to prevent acts falling under the Atrocity Crimes Convention. It will note that UN commissions documented crimes. It will note that states — like South Africa, Spain, Norway, Ireland — recognized the Palestinian state or took positions more courageous than those of their allies.

And it will also note which governments chose «deep concerns» and «calls for restraint» over action. Those governments may not recognize themselves in the mirror history holds up to them. But the mirror will be accurate.

What the Silence of 2026 Produces in 2036

The effects of today's silence are not measured only in immediate human casualties — though these are catastrophic. They are measured in the precedents they create. A state that can simultaneously occupy three neighboring territories without consequences creates a precedent that other states observe. An international law applied selectively creates a world in which every power decides for itself when the rule applies and when it does not. This is a more unstable, more dangerous, and ultimately more costly world for everyone — including the Western democracies that claim to defend the rules-based international order.

To those reading this letter from a chancellery, a ministry, or a parliamentary office: you still have the choice between action and inaction. That choice is documented. And it will be judged. Not only in history books. In the reality of the world you leave behind.

What I Am Concretely Asking — Not Rhetoric, Acts

Five Minimum Demands, Achievable, Legally Grounded

I am not asking for the destruction of Israel. I am not asking for a bias in favor of Hamas. I am asking for five concrete things, all grounded in existing international law, all achievable by governments that have the political will to act.

First: recognize the Palestinian state — as more than 145 UN member states have already done. Second: suspend arms exports to Israel as long as the illegal occupations continue. Third: enforce the ICJ provisional orders with the same rigor applied to other states. Fourth: demand from Israel a timeline for withdrawal from the occupied territories in Lebanon and Syria in accordance with existing UN resolutions. Fifth: allow unconditional humanitarian access to Gaza without subjecting it to Israeli veto.

Why These Demands Are Achievable

Each of these demands has precedents. Each can be implemented without breaking the alliance with Israel. Each is consistent with the positions these same governments have taken on other issues — Ukraine, Kosovo, Kurdistan, Georgia. What is missing is not the legal instrument. It is not the historical precedent. It is the political will to apply to an ally the same standards applied to others.

This will is not simply a moral question. It is a question of long-term strategic interest. A credible West is a West that applies its own principles. A West that selects its deserving victims is not credible — and eventually pays the price of that inconsistency in all its relationships with the non-Western world.

The Price That Palestinians, Lebanese, and Syrians Pay for Our Silence

Names, Figures, Realities

While we debate diplomatic nuance, displaced families from southern Lebanon — 100,000 people still outside their homes according to the most recent data — are waiting to return. Syrian families are living under an occupation that no one has explained or justified to them. In Gaza, according to UN system data available at the time of this letter, more than 90% of the population has been displaced at least once since October 2023. Health, water, and education systems have been systematically destroyed.

These people are not positions in a geopolitical debate. They are human beings who live, die, and survive in conditions that our governments could influence if they chose to. The fact that they choose not to is not an inevitability. It is a choice. And choices have names.

What the War in Ukraine Revealed About Our Priorities

In 2022, when Russia invaded Ukraine, the Western response was rapid, substantial, and morally coherent. Sanctions, weapons, money, unprecedented political solidarity. This response was just. It was necessary. And it established a precedent: the West can act when it has the will.

This Ukrainian precedent makes the Middle Eastern silence all the more visible. It reveals that the capacity to act exists. That the will, however, is selective. This selectivity has not gone unnoticed in the Arab world, in Africa, in Asia. It has fed a «double standard» narrative that the West has struggled to rebut — because it corresponds to a factual reality that the documented events of 2023 to 2026 confirm point by point.

The International Criminal Court and Arrest Warrants: The Law That Awaits Its Enforcers

The ICC Warrants — and Their De Facto Ineffectiveness

The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants concerning Israeli officials. These warrants exist. They are public. They carry international legal weight. And yet, none of the warrant subjects has been arrested, transferred to The Hague, or even formally summoned by a Rome Statute member state capable of applying real pressure. The architecture of international criminal law exists. Its application depends entirely on the political will of the states that ratified it.

This paradox is not accidental. It is structural. The ICC has no police. It has no army. It depends on state cooperation to execute its decisions. And when the states with the most influence over the accused — the United States, the European Union — refuse or hesitate to apply that pressure, the warrants remain documents that exist in archives without altering reality on the ground. This is the most visible limit of the international justice system in its current form.

What «Impunity» Means Concretely

Impunity is not the absence of law. It is the existence of law without its application. In 2026, the international community has more legal instruments to document and sanction violations of international humanitarian law than at any other period in history. And yet, the occupations in Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza continue. The evacuation orders declared unlawful by Amnesty International remain in force. International criminal investigations proceed slowly.

This impunity sends a signal to all observing states. It says: international law applies selectively, according to the geopolitical weight of the state that violates it and of its allies. This signal is destructive for the international order itself — not because it is new, but because it has become too visible to deny. When the norm is visible and unenforced, it is the norm itself that erodes.

What the Global South Sees — and What It Is Beginning to Say

The Erosion of Western Credibility As Seen From the Rest of the World

In the capitals of the Global South — New Delhi, Pretoria, Brasília, Jakarta, Lagos — the Western management of the Israeli-Palestinian crisis is observed with an attention that extends well beyond the Middle Eastern file alone. What these capitals see is a West that has mobilized considerable resources — military, diplomatic, economic — to defend Ukraine against Russian occupation, and that applies radically different standards to Israel's occupation of its neighbors' territories. This comparison, which Western diplomats detest, is now made publicly and regularly in multilateral forums.

The Arab League, the African Union, and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation jointly condemned the Israeli occupations on June 24, 2026 in a communiqué explicitly citing violations of international law. These three organizations represent more than half the world's population. When they say in unison what Western governments avoid saying, the credibility gap is no longer a subtext. It is documented in diplomatic archives.

The Long-Term Consequences of the Perceived «Double Standard»

The credibility of an international order rests on the consistency of its application. When states that present themselves as guarantors of that order apply its norms selectively, they do not only lose allies on a particular issue. They erode the legitimacy of the order itself in the eyes of billions of people who observe it. This erosion has practical consequences: it facilitates the discourse of authoritarian powers — Russia, China, Iran — that use Western «double standards» as an argument to justify their own violations.

I am not saying the West is morally equivalent to these regimes. I am saying that in matters of international credibility, perception counts as much as reality. And the perception, in a large part of the world, is that Western rules do not apply equally to everyone. Correcting this perception does not require betraying Israel. It requires applying international law with the consistency we demand of others.

Conclusion: Silence Is Not a Neutral Position — It Is a Documented Choice

What This Letter Asks and What It Does Not

This letter does not ask for perfection. It does not ask that international politics be simple, clean, and free of contradictions. It does not claim that Hamas is innocent, that Hezbollah is a humanitarian relief organization, or that Iran is a reliable peace partner. It does not claim that the atrocities of October 7 can be erased or relativized.

It asks for one thing: the consistent application of international law. The same rigor applied to all actors. The same indignation before the same crimes, whether committed by allies or adversaries. This minimal standard is both the foundation of the international system the West claims to defend, and the condition of its own credibility in the decades to come.

To Those Whom This Letter Unsettles

If this letter unsettles you — if you find it goes too far, that it oversimplifies, that it misses context — ask yourself this: would I react the same way if the same facts concerned another country? If the answer is no, then it is not this letter that has a problem. It is the double standard you are maintaining. And that double standard, in 2026, can no longer be maintained quietly. It is documented. It will be judged. And it will have consequences — for international law, for Western credibility, and for the generations who will inherit the world we leave behind. This is not a prophecy. It is already happening.

Signed Maxime Marquette, columnist

Columnist's transparency box

Method and editorial positioning

This open letter is grounded in verifiable public sources: UN commission reports, official government statements, communiqués from international organizations (Arab League, AU, OIC), international press analyses, and Amnesty International data. The author explicitly adopts a critical stance toward the policies of the Netanyahu government — a stance that, as an open letter, is declared and not concealed. This letter does not deny Israel's right to exist and to security, nor the crimes committed on October 7, 2023.

Figures not independently verifiable — noted

Figures relating to the total number of displaced persons in Gaza and the percentage of the displaced population are estimates from UN and humanitarian sources with margins of uncertainty. The areas of occupied territories in Lebanon (608 km²) and Syria (1,500 km²) are estimates published by journalistic and humanitarian organizations, not verified by an official body. This letter reflects the state of information as of June 26, 2026.

Sources

Primary sources

Al Jazeera — Netanyahu: «We will remain in Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza as long as necessary» — June 25, 2026

United Nations Geneva — Press conference of the International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory — June 23, 2026

Le Monde — A UN commission denounces the continuation of mass crimes in Gaza — June 24, 2026

Amnesty International — Lebanon: Israel radically expands use of unlawful mass evacuation orders — June 22, 2026

Secondary sources

Anadolu Agency — Arab League, AU, and OIC accuse Israel of violating international law — June 24, 2026

Arab News France — Arab ministers condemn Netanyahu's statements on maintaining forces — June 25, 2026

Arab News France — Lebanon accuses Israel of threatening stability, more than 7,000 airspace violations — June 25, 2026

ISM France/TRT World — Gaza, West Bank, Lebanon, Syria: Israel's largest land seizure in decades — June 24, 2026