War and war-making must yield to alternatives: David Frank tells ILNA

ILNA: What is your reading of the future of the Gaza Strip in light of the existing tensions and antagonisms? Can we hope for lasting peace in this region and reaching a comprehensive solution?

In the wake of World War II, Japan and Germany, the United States and Europe crafted systems of international law and governments that have worked, with significant exceptions, to keep the peace. In September 1945, Japan and Germany were in ruins. Most of Japan’s six largest cities were destroyed, and 70% of Germany’s largest cities suffered the same fate.

Some eighty years later, Japan and Germany are on solid economic ground with relatively secure democracies.  After World War II, the United States, Europe, and Japan collaborated to rebuild global relationships rooted in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, which affirmed universal human rights and condemned economic systems that provided basic human needs.  The United States and its Marshall Plan provided Europe with the post-war funding needed to prompt the reconstruction of Germany’s cities and Europe’s economic infrastructure.

The future of the Gaza Strip can follow this pattern.  First, the war and violence must stop.  Second, the international community must intervene to ensure fundamental human and economic rights.   Reaffirming universal human rights for the entire region, backed by an updated Marshall plan for the Gaza Strip, would be two steps that could work to reduce suffering.  Post-World War II examples of Japan and Germany provide good examples of how this approach works.

ILNA: The ceasefire in Gaza is currently facing problems and disagreements, and international institutions and organizations have been calling for the start of the second phase of the truce in recent days. Given the existing disagreements, how do you assess the future of peace between Hamas and Israel?

The Israeli-Palestinian film No Other Land won the 2025 Oscar for Best Documentary. Any future peace between Israelis and Palestinians will result from Palestinians and Israelis working through the issues that divide them. This film and the Israeli-Palestinian team that created it provide an example of the creativity and vision that is unleashed through collaboration. One of the directors declared after the film had received its award.

"We made this film, Palestinians and Israelis, because together, our voices are stronger. We see […] the atrocious destruction of Gaza and its people, which must end; the Israeli hostages, brutally taken in the crime of October 7, who must be freed."

Ultimately, war and war-making must yield to alternatives.  Over time, the people of Palestine and Israel will recognize that their governments and leaders have failed to represent them and their aspirations.  Dahlia Scheindlin, a leading pollster, has found that both Palestinians and Israelis, under the right conditions, would accept a permanent ceasefire and efforts to find a longer-term arrangement beneficial to both peoples.

ILNA: In recent days, Israel has stopped all humanitarian aid to Gaza. This action has been condemned by the UN and many international authorities. For example, the Dutch Foreign Minister responded to this action by stating that humanitarian aid should not be used as leverage. How do you assess Tel Aviv's use of humanitarian aid as a bargaining chip in negotiations? Can this action be considered a violation of basic human rights principles?

That Israel took this action during Ramadan and that every major human rights organization has condemned it confirms that the policy is a violation of basic human rights.

ILNA: Since entering the White House, Donald Trump has floated the idea of ​​forcibly relocating Palestinians to neighboring territories, a plan that has met with global opposition. Can such plans be seen as an attempt to sideline solutions such as the two-state solution, on which there is global consensus?

Yes.  I do not know an authority or a reasonable person who believes the Trump plan is humane or workable.

Human rights Groups condemning Trump plan

                1.            Amnesty International

                •             Secretary General Agnès Callamard called Trump’s plan “inflammatory, outrageous, and shameful,” labeling it a war crime and a crime against humanity.

                •             Source: Amnesty International Statement

                2.            Over 90 American and International Organizations

                •             Groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Doctors Against Genocide, Jewish Voice for Peace, and Churches for Middle East Peace condemned the plan as ethnic cleansing.

                •             Source: Joint Statement

                3.            UN Human Rights Experts

                •             A group of 36 UN experts, including Francesca Albanese (Special Rapporteur on Palestine), described the plan as “manifestly illegal” and a violation of international law.

                •             Source: UN Experts Statement

                4.            More than 100 U.S.-Based Organizations

                •             A coalition of over 100 groups, including religious organizations and advocacy groups, signed a letter condemning the plan as ethnic cleansing.

                •             Source: HuffPost Article

                5.            Social Justice Organizations in the U.S.

                •             Various U.S.-based social justice groups issued a joint statement opposing Trump’s Gaza redevelopment plan.

                •             Source: Yahoo News

Religious Organizations

                6.            American Rabbis and Jewish Groups

                •             Over 350 rabbis and Jewish leaders issued a full-page ad in The New York Times condemning the plan as “ethnic cleansing” and contrary to Jewish values.

Interview by: Amir Mehravar