In this first-of-its-kind JURIST “global dispatch” on a single topic, 15 law students and young lawyers from around the world, all of them JURIST correspondents from outside of Israel and Palestine, join together to offer a panoramic view of how the current Gaza conflict is unfolding in their countries and regions. Beyond the headlines, they delve into the unique perspectives and reactions of their communities and offer a compelling glimpse into the profound implications of the conflict on a global scale. Below are their stories, very broadly organized by region, beginning with Africa, and then moving to North and South America, Europe and Asia.
This dispatch was organized and orchestrated by Aynsley Genga, a law student at the University of Nairobi School of Law, JURIST’s Chief of Staff for Correspondents and JURIST’s Senior Correspondent in Kenya. The dispatch was filed from Nairobi on November 23, which was Thanksgiving Day at JURIST HQ in the US. Individual opinions expressed herein are solely those of our correspondents in the field, and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST’s editors, staff, donors or the University of Pittsburgh.
Aynsley Genga is a JURIST Senior Correspondent in Kenya.
In Kenya, updates on the Israel-Gaza situation have been widely disseminated and have sparked extensive discussions among the populace ever since the original incident of the Hamas attack unfolded on October 7, 2023. Various news channels have been reporting on the conflict but an issue of contention that has emerged is the tendency of the public aligning themselves with either Israel or the Palestinians in Gaza. The division and debates mainly started on October 8 after President Ruto declared that Kenya joins the rest of the world in solidarity with Israel. Many Kenyans, especially Muslim leaders as well as others of the Islamic faith and a good number of Kenyan youths went online to show their lack of support for Israel as well as to slam the President for his statement as they believe that this conflict would have never happened if Israel would have stopped treating the Palestinians in Gaza and those residing in Israel poorly. The lack of support for the President’s statement also stems from the fact that there are a lot of Muslim citizens in Kenya, thus many have chosen to side with Palestine instead. However, we also have a good number of people especially amongst the older generation who were very vocal in their support for Israel and agreed with the President’s sentiments blaming the cause of the conflict entirely on Hamas. In addition to all this, after the president’s statement many feared that there would be backlash from the Al-Shabaab militant group to show their solidarity with Hamas.
As of October 11, 2023, the Kenyans who were residing in Israel either for work or education purposes had all been accounted for and the government stated that they would be brought back home safely. Since then, there have been various news reports especially in relation to various statements our political leaders are saying about the conflict. Just recently on November 13, 2023, during a convention comprising mainly of pro-Palestine leaders such as the Saudi Prince, President Ruto changed his earlier stance on the conflict and declared that he believes that Palestine should be a free state and that Kenya stands for a two-state solution as a means of resolving the conflict. On November 16, news coverage focused on the clash between the Principal Secretary for Foreign Affairs Korir Sing’oei and the Kisumu Governor, Prof. Nyong’o over his remarks on the war. The governor made an appeal to the African Union (AU) to break off all diplomatic ties with Israel to show solidarity with our comrades in Gaza and the West Bank.
It is quite clear that lines have been drawn on where people’s support lies when it comes to the conflict between Israel and Gaza. Nonetheless, despite the differing opinions one notion that is unanimous, and that is the hope that the war will soon come to an end and that a peaceful conclusive solution to the tensions between the two groups will be found.
Lana Osei is a JURIST staff correspondent in Ghana and a recent graduate of the GIMPA (Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration) Faculty of Law. She files this dispatch from Accra.
Ghana, a member state of the United Nations, stood alongside 119 other nations on October 27, 2023, in favor of a humanitarian truce in Gaza. Hundreds of people took to the streets in Accra to join the pro-Palestine protest following Israel’s retaliation.
The Israeli ambassador to Ghana, H.E Shlomit Sufa sought solace and support at a local church in Accra, emphasizing the need for prayers amid the Hamas attack. While the Israeli ambassador sought solace and support at a local church, the Palestinian ambassador to Ghana-Abdalfatah Ahmed Khalil Alsatarri emphasized the political nature of the conflict. In a discourse on JoyNews, he asserted that the ongoing conflict is primarily political. The focus, according to the Palestinian representative, is on attaining freedom and maintaining peace on their land through open dialogue, free from external control.
The Israeli ambassador, maintaining the legality of Israel’s retaliation following the October 7 attack , emphasized her nation’s commitment to peace and democracy to Ghanaians. She argued that Hamas employs its own people as shields in armed conflict.She then drew a parallel between Hamas and Al-Qaeda, stating that no one expected the USA to reconsider and renegotiate with al-Qaeda after 9/11. Thus, the Hamas attack is Israel’s 9/11.Emphasizing the necessity of global support.
Undoubtedly, not all voices align with Israel’s perspective. To gain a firsthand perspective on the conflict within the Ghanaian lens, I spoke with Raiian Al-Sayeed, a Ghanaian citizen of Palestinian descent.
She condemned the acts of terrorism perpetrated by Hamas and further went on to argue that the issue is not as complex as most see it. The magnitude of the humanitarian crisis being triggered by Israel’s occupation of Gaza does not justify ‘exorcizing’ a terror organization. Characterizing the situation as genocide, ethnic cleansing, and apartheid, Al Sayeed emphasized the innate human instinct to resist oppression. “The occupation itself is illegal, and I cannot fathom why the rest of the world remains silent while Israel blatantly breaks international laws,” al Sayeed stated. “While I unequivocally condemn acts of terrorism and the loss of innocent lives, I do not condemn resistance. This situation is a clear embodiment of resistance against an oppressor.”
In the complex geopolitical landscape surrounding the Israel-Palestine conflict, Ghana’s stance at the UN reflects a broader international discourse on the humanitarian and political dimensions of the ongoing crisis.
Lawrence Alado is a JURIST Staff Correspondent in Uganda. He reports from Kampala on how the conflict is being perceived and interpreted there.
Ugandan broadcasts on the Israel-Palestine crisis maintain a measured and distanced perspective. The media coverage tends to avoid taking sides and instead emphasizes a neutral stance. Reports focus on presenting factual information and international responses without overt bias. The broadcasts have mainly focused on reporting the incidents as they occur rather than giving comments on them or stating whether human rights could have been better recognized or protected. This distanced view is partly because the media sees the conflict as having no major impact on Ugandans and partly because of the complex dynamics surrounding the crisis itself.
Ugandan public sentiment on the Israel-Palestine crisis leans slightly pro-Palestine. Public discourse tends to highlight Palestinian suffering, contributing to a perception that leans favorably towards their struggle. This sentiment stems from shared historical experiences of colonization and anti-imperialist sentiments. Although not overtly confrontational, the prevailing public opinion reflects a nuanced support for movements seeking self-determination and justice.
Jihene Ferchichi is JURIST’s staff correspondent in Tunisia. She reports from Tunis.
According to the 2023 annual poll of the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies, Arab public opinion is almost unanimous (76%) that the Palestinian issue is the issue of all Arabs and not just the issue of Palestinians. Tunisian public opinion holds the same conviction with an overwhelming 86%. It is also to note that according to the same poll, 90% of Tunisians reject the recognition of a “State of Israel.” The Tunisian presidency’s position expressed shortly after the “Al-Aqsa Flood,” supporting the right of the Palestinian people to recover “all of the land of Palestine” to establish an independent State with Jerusalem as its capital, is beyond the traditional position of Tunisian diplomacy, as well as the official Arab position, which is to support political negotiation on the basis of a two-state solution. This presidential statement received broad popular and party support. The Tunisian minister of Foreign Affairs also confirmed Tunisia’s position on the Palestinian issue as it is a matter of principle and denying Tunisia’s interference in Palestinian internal affairs.
It is now hoped that the law criminalizing normalization with the Zionist entity will see light after a long delay, particularly that the commitment and attachment of Tunisians to the Palestinian cause, at the popular, elite, and official levels, has been clearly demonstrated and is proven on every occasion. We recall the saying of Yasser Arafat, addressing Palestinians: “If your paths are limited, go to Tunisia, for it has people who love Palestine.” Indeed, since October 7, 2023, popular marches have intensified, called for by national parties and organizations, in support of the resistance and all states of the country, without exception, are witnessing daily massive marches.
In addition to the general reasons for assigning the Palestinian cause as a just cause or a common Arab cause, other specific reasons, with historical foundations, explain Tunisians’ attachment to the Palestinian struggle. Tunisia hosted the Palestine Liberation Organization on its territory for 11 years from 1982, following the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, until 1993. Tunisia then received more than 8,000 Palestinians, including the organization’s leaders.
The Zionist entity also targeted a meeting of the leaders of the Liberation Organization at its headquarters in Tunisia on October 1, 1985, in a criminal aggression that led to the rise of Palestinian and Tunisian martyrs.
We add that the assassination of Tunisian engineer Mohamed Al-Zouari in front of his home in Sfax on December 15, 2016 stimulated feelings of hostility towards the Zionist entity and contributed to confirming the Tunisian commitment to the cause, especially the armed resistance.
The Palestinian cause has been and will remain a symbol of unity and unification among the various national organizations, political parties, and student unions in Tunisia.
From Canada we had Mélanie Cantin, JURIST’s Chief Correspondent for Canada and a 3L at the University of Ottawa, reporting on reaction to the conflict there.
Across Canada, frequent, mostly peaceful, and well-attended pro-Palestine and pro-Isarel demonstrations have been occurring (often simultaneously) since the most recent flare-up of the ongoing conflict in the Middle East. During the weekend of November 11-12, pro-Palestine protests were planned in at least 47 different municipalities, from the east coast (in places like Halifax and Antigonish in Nova Scotia) to the west coast (in places such as Victoria and Kelowna in British Columbia). People in the Canadian North came out to rally in support of Palestine the weekend before in the already-snowy territory capitals of Whitehorse (Yukon), Yellowknife (Northwest Territories), and Iqaluit (Nunavut).
Pro-Israel demonstrations have also been occurring across the nation. A pro-Israel demonstration estimated at 4,000-5,000 people occurred on November 12 in at Christie Pits Park in Toronto (Ontario), the historic site of a riot in 1933 when a banner with a swastika on it was suddenly unfurled at a baseball game. The event was attended by a handful of federal Members of Parliament and Members of Ontario’s Provincial Parliament. Simultaneously, a pro-Palestine demonstration was occurring in a different area of the city with approximately double the attendance.
The disparity in the Toronto protests and the way the Palestinian diaspora in Canada of almost 46,000 people and its allies are showing up in general is not surprising given that “[a] majority of Canadians (65%) believe a ceasefire should be called” and 43% agree “that Israeli policy towards Palestinians is a form of apartheid” (as opposed to 27% who disagree). Over the course of the last few weeks, a petition to the House of Commons sponsored by Alexandre Boulerice (the NDP-aligned Member of Parliament for the riding of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie in Québec) is officially calling on the government to support a ceasefire. As of 2:10 p.m. on November 18, the petition had garnered 268,418 signatures, making it the most popular petition to the House of Commons of all-time by a long shot. While Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has been calling for humanitarian pauses to allow aid into Gaza, he has stopped short of calling for a ceasefire. The success of the petition means that the government will have to respond to it in the 45 days following its closure on November 23. In the meantime, tragically, the high tensions across the nation have led to an increase in antisemitic and Islamophobic incidents
From the USA Justin Lindsay, a US National Correspondent for JURIST, and a 3L at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, reports.
How is the conflict being reported in the US?
To those engaged with international affairs, the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict would appear to be the most pressing issue of the day. Nationally, it remains well reported. But the conflict remains largely uncovered at the local level, and those that rely on city and regional news services may be severely under-informed.
In Pittsburgh local media, immediate news of the conflict was relegated to a single Associated Press article on the UN Security Council resolution calling for a humanitarian pause in the conflict. News of Congress’ continuing resolution took the top billing for another local news organization. In Chicago, news of the conflict took a back seat to reports on protests in Washington DC. In Denver, reports on the conflict were more comprehensive, highlighting Anothony Blinken’s efforts at the G7 and Biden’s limited success in gaining Israeli support for humanitarian pauses in the fighting. Meanwhile, on one local station in Florida, readers in Tallahassee have not been updated on the conflict in over a month.
How are people reacting to the conflict?
Consequently, local reaction has been difficult to gauge. A nationwide NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist National Poll released on November 15th found that 79% of 1,313 Americans surveyed were concerned the war would spread, with 70% stating they are following the conflict closely. Americans are also evenly divided on Israel’s use of force, with 26% saying they have gone too far, 27% saying they have not gone far enough, and 44% saying the force used has been appropriate. Notably, 50% of registered voters support President Biden’s handling of the conflict, as opposed to President Obama only having 30% support of his handling of the 2014 Israeli-Hamas conflict.
Samanta Berenice Chavez Quispe is a law student from Facultad de Derecho y Ciencias Políticas, Universidad Nacional de San Antonio Abad del Cusco (UNSAAC). She files this from Cusco.
In Peru, news about the conflict between Israel and Hamas has decreased in frequency as time has gone by. After more than a month, there are only a couple of news items a week that serve to update information to the Peruvian population, with a special emphasis on the events that directly affect Peruvians who are in Gaza, reporting every day if there are still Peruvians there and how with the help of the ambassadors of Egypt and Israel many Peruvians have been able to arrive safely to their homeland. The Peruvian population is affected by all the events and deaths that are increasing daily, showing empathy and concern, however, many times that concern is put aside due to the problems that occur in the country, both political and social.
James Joseph is JURIST’s UK Senior Editor and a Ph.D. student at King’s College London. He gives us a report on how the UK government has reacted to the Israel-Hamas conflict.
This document provides an overview of the UK government’s response to the situation in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPTs) since October 7th, and focuses on key points regarding advice for British nationals, military and humanitarian response, diplomatic actions, positions on ceasefire and humanitarian pause, parliamentary votes, and the situation of UK nationals affected by the conflict.
Firstly, the UK government advises British nationals in Israel, the OPTs, and Lebanon to register their presence and recommends all British nationals to leave Lebanon. They provide specific travel advice, highlighting regions to avoid and the importance of registration for assistance purposes.
Secondly, the UK government has deployed military assets to the Middle East to promote de-escalation and conduct surveillance activities. Additionally, they have announced significant financial aid to the OPTs, aiming to support humanitarian efforts.
Thirdly, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has condemned the attack by Hamas and defended Israel’s right to self-defense while urging measures to protect civilians in Gaza. The UK government is actively engaging in diplomatic efforts to secure the delivery of humanitarian aid, prevent regional escalation, and hold high-level meetings with Middle Eastern leaders.
Fourthly, the UK government supports the idea of temporary humanitarian pauses in fighting to facilitate aid delivery and the release of hostages. However, they express skepticism about Hamas respecting a ceasefire. Parliamentary votes have taken place regarding longer humanitarian pauses and calling for a ceasefire, but the amendments did not pass.
Lastly, the document addresses the situation of UK nationals affected by the conflict, including hostages held by Hamas and British nationals who have lost their lives. It also mentions the allocation of funds to support Jewish community buildings, synagogues, and schools within the UK.
In Europe, we had Jacky-Long Mouthuy, a law student at Maastricht University, Netherlands giving us a report on how the conflict is being viewed and described.
Since October 7, the EU Commission has condemned the attack by Hamas, classified as a terrorist organization by the EU. On a trip to Israel on October 13, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, along with EU Parliament President Roberta Metsola expressed their full solidarity with Israel and its “duty” to defend itself and protect its people. Their stance is highly divisive among Europeans and even within EU institutions. In a letter sent to von der Leyen, over 800 EU civil servants criticised her unconditional support of Israel and the lack of any mentions of Israel’s obligations under international law in her speech and condemned the Israelis’ disproportionate reaction against Gazan civilians. The division also affected the Commission itself where EU Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi unexpectedly announced an intent to cut all aid to Palestine, which sparked clashes with several EU Member States. EU chief diplomat Josep Borrell reassured Europeans that development and humanitarian aid would continue. He also emphasised that Israel maintains a right to defend itself but should abide by international law.
On October 22, 40,000 protestors gathered in Brussels in front of the EU Council, in charge of EU diplomacy, demanding a ceasefire and the adoption of measures against Israel. There is now a consensus among EU countries to condemn Hamas’ attack, to defend Israel’s right to self-defence in accordance with international law (while failing to condemn Israel’s violation of international law), to call for “humanitarian pauses” and to support a two-State solution.
One of JURIST’s longtime correspondents in Kabul offered this view of the conflict from an Afghan perspective.
Afghanistan is the last place you’d think of when speaking about Jewish communities, yet for thousands of years Afghanistan was a safe haven for Jewish communities fleeing other countries. Over the course of history and everything that has been happening in Afghanistan, however, Jewish communities and their Shuls have also been destroyed and their people converted to Islam. Kabul, Herat and some other cities were still home to hundreds of Jews until recent decades, mainly focusing on the pre-Taliban era.
Given the history of Afghanistan with Jewish communities, reactions to the Israel-Gaza war have been controversial. On the one side, there is little to no sympathy towards Israel, and there is much praise for actions of Hamas. Yet suspiciously enough the leaders of Taliban had been mainly quiet on the matter, Sirajuddin Haqqani had previously stated that we do not interfere with others’ affairs, yet we sympathies with Palestinians as Muslims. After the attack on Al-Shafa hospital the Taliban went on to condemn the attack. Overall, wherever the Taliban influence is deep, Hamas is praised.
On the other hand, despite most of the public sympathies with Palestinians, Afghans have been victims of terrorist groups for decades, and thus have been condemning Hamas and Israel alike, believing the former are using ordinary people as human shields.
Naveera Perera reports on the impacts of the conflict on Sri Lanka and how it is being perceived by people there. She files this from Colombo.
The Israel-Palestine War is not a new one. It has been going on for years. And yet, similar to other countries around the world, the only time the Palestine war made it to the news of Sri Lanka was on the 7th of October. Since then, not only has the war been featured on local news media outlets, but there has been an increased awareness of the issue on social media. It should be noted that the war has affected several Sri Lankans who live in Northern Gaza. For instance, during the October 7th attack, a Sri Lankan was confirmed to have died. Additionally, Sri Lankan Ambassador to Israel, Nimal Bandara, reported that not only were two women from those who were kidnapped by Hemas, Sri Lankans, but that 27 other Sri Lankan individuals living in the Northern Gaza Strip had to be moved to Southern Gaza, and subsequently returned safely to Sri Lanka through Egypt.
On a formal level, Sri Lanka stands with Palestine, voting in the recent UN resolution in favor of an immediate ceasefire. Prior to voting for the resolution, the Foreign Ministry of Sri Lanka also published a statement to that same effect. Several statements have also been made by certain Members of Parliament (MP) in favor of Palestine. Whether this means the whole of Sri Lanka is on the side of Palestine or Israel, however, is not as clear-cut. The only true generalization that can be made in this regard is that everyone has an opinion, believing either one side to be in the wrong or merely arguing for war to stop due to the extent of its collateral damage.
The coverage of the war in Sri Lanka has been interesting in three respects. On the one hand, as the war is not situated within the island, one may at first argue that it is only the Muslim population that is concerned about the issue. On the other hand, however, one may argue that the younger generation and minority groups have demonstrated their heightened interest and activism on the issue through social media and elsewhere. For instance, in social media, people of different faiths, races and backgrounds have shown their activism by sharing pro-Palestinian posts along with educational content so as to spread awareness of the issue. Activism was also seen when protests started to be held in front of the United Nations compound and even the American Embassy. There was also one protest hosted in the Trincomalee district.
Of significant interest is that on the 14th of November, at 11.00 am, around 159 parliamentarians signed and handed over an open letter to the UN Secretary-General via the United Nations Office. Among other things, the letter called for the UN to hold Israel accountable under international law and for swift action to be taken by taking necessary steps to stop the onslaught, oppression and aggression against the people of Palestine. The letter also appealed to the permanent members of the Security Council that hold veto power, mainly – the USA, UK and France – to stop supporting Israel, thereby calling out on the hypocrisy and double standard the West has in the application of international law.
The third interesting coverage of the war is in relation to the amount of commentary it had resulted in relation to how the war has parallels to the Civil War of Sri Lanka. On one end of the spectrum, the public recounts how hospitals and safe zones were destroyed, all whilst innocent civilians, journalists and humanitarian workers were bombed. On the other end of the spectrum, the discussion centers on the lack of action taken by the UN during the 30-year-old war. Lawyer and Member of the UN Voluntary Trust Fund of Victims of Torture, Ambika Satkunanathan, took to X where she recollected how the Tamil community was failed by the UN back then. This is supported by the conclusion drawn in the internal review headed by Charles Petrie who found that the United Nations was indeed a systematic failure in the context of the Sri Lanka Civil War. An important point she raised which contrasted with the present situation, was the level of international outcry. The demand for justice against human rights violations and crimes against humanity in Sri Lanka only occurred as the war ended. In contrast, today, the demand for a ceasefire is louder than ever. In this context, the inaction of the UN rings clearer, questioning the very ideals the organisation stands on than ever before. She noted that the primary reason for failure has been the inaction of member states and political bodies such as the Security Council and Human Rights Council and not so much because of the UN agencies such as WHO or OHCHR, who have been working throughout, offering their assistance. In her words, “Many may be unaware that UN agencies may not have the support of member states/UN political bodies such as in Gaza. This is the deeply flawed international system that exists”.
Although Sri Lanka does not necessarily offer much publicity on the war, it is clear that it is a topic of interest for several groups of communities. As any other international affair, despite its horrendous nature, only one section of the population is clearly invested in the topic of the Israel-Palestine war. An even smaller section of the population is additionally interested in actively voicing for the justice of Palestinians through their activism. At the crux of it all, there is currently more than one narrative that exists regarding the war. While some groups clearly recognize the chaos in Palestine as genocide, others may not.
This dispatch is from Nakul Rai Khurana, a law student at Jindal Global Law School.
Although foreign news, especially one concerning human rights, gets a short stint on Indian TV networks, for the past month, coverage regarding the Israel-Gaza events has turned an average sports news enthusiast into an international relations expert, due to wide nonstop coverage. However, Indian media in consonance with the executive organ of the government, has chosen to be on the wrong side of history. News anchors in bulletproof vests stand in the desert delivering breathless reports on the aftermath of Hamas’s atrocities in Israel on October 7th. Informed channels, in an attempt of mimicry, for unknown reasons, restage the Palestinian terrorist group’s attack from Gaza with toy soldiers, miniature bulldozers and paragliders. Weeks into the war, coverage remains intense.
Where the bureaucrat is either largely ambivalent or in condemnation of the Hamas terrorist attack on Israel, the people have chosen to be on the side of humanity. There is an ‘informed solidarity’, among the citizens who have organized rallies to demand an immediate ceasefire by Israel. The humanitarian stance is equally prevalent over social media algorithms as well. Although the rhetoric has yet to find its way to large media outlets and influential journalists, there is a well-understood recognition of the barbaric nature in which Israel has conducted itself in the conflict. Many have gone to question the government’s political dogma in favor of Israel.
It is still an optimistic situation the way the country is reacting to the war, still finding itself to understand and be able to recognize the humanitarian situation in need of assistance, rather than the focus on terrorist activities of the Hamas group.
Jony Mainaly is JURIST’s Staff Correspondent in Nepal. She files this from Kathmandu and reports on the impact that Israel-Gaza conflict has had on Nepal.
In a tragic turn of events, the upshots of the Israel-Hamas conflict have reverberated across distant hills of Nepal, leaving Nepal devastated. The true victims, however, are the children of poor farmers residing in some of Nepal’s poorest villages. The loss of 10 Nepali citizens in a Hamas attack has plunged people and communities into an irrecoverable abyss of grief. Among the metaphorical casualties have been 49 students participating in Nepal’s ‘learn and earn’ program, focusing on agricultural studies in Israel.
While the perennial Israel-Hamas conflict had previously been largely met with indifference in Nepal, this latest episode has struck a chord reminiscent of the painful events of 2004. The attack on Nepalese youths draws haunting parallels to the incidents that shook the nation nearly two decades ago when 12 Nepali citizens, taken hostages in Iraq, faced a similar tragic fate.
The people of Nepal express heartfelt empathy for innocent civilians caught in the crossfire. They stand strongly against viewing military power as a solution to the complex political challenges at the heart of ongoing crisis. The key to halting the ceaseless atrocities lies in addressing the intricate political undercurrents. A haunting question now lingers in the collective consciousness: who takes precedence – ‘people’ or ‘power’?
From mainland China, we had Chloe (Yuxin) Nie give us this report on how the conflict is being presented there
China’s coverage of the situation in the Gaza Strip primarily focuses on factual reporting, highlighting Israel’s military actions and the resulting casualties and humanitarian crisis, including the evacuation of Shifa Hospital and the harm inflicted upon children. Media outlets, led by Xinhua News Agency, report on the positions of both the Israeli and Palestinian governments, often referencing United Nations reports to underscore the detrimental consequences of the Gaza conflict on Palestinian human development. Within the Chinese online community, there is a widespread outpouring of sympathy for the victims in Gaza, alongside calls for a swift return to peace in the region.
From Hong Kong Ashley Wong, a law student at CUHK and JURIST’s Deputy Hong Kong Bureau Chief, reports on local reaction to the conflict.
Since the Israel-Palestinian war broke out, Hong Kong’s Jewish and Muslim communities have held prayer sessions to support their communities. The Hong Kong Red Cross also urged Hong Kong residents to donate to the “Emergency Appeal for Israel and Gaza Conflict”.
In addition, Hong Kong’s Chief Executive John Lee expressed concern of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on October 16. He said “[w]e are highly concerned about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and we believe it is also a matter of global concern.” Lee also stated on October 10 that 28 Hong Kong residents in Israel had requested assistance after the Israel-Palestinian war broke out.
On November 4, five protesters from HK Anti-war Mobilization rallied and held a three-minute silence near the Consulate General of Israel in Hong Kong. The group displayed signs in support of Palestine and said that Israel destroyed Gaza.
On the other hand, Israel’s consul general in Hong Kong Amir Lati said “Israel internally is united now to fight a just war with the terrorist organizations of Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a fight for our peaceful existence as a state”. He also asserted that Israel is not at war with terrorists and not Palestinians and that Israel must protect Israelis while ensuring their military operations comply with international law.
Our reporters across the globe have provided insights into how the Israel-Gaza conflict is perceived in their respective nations. While some regions show clear alignment with one side or another, others opt for a neutral stance. Nevertheless, a consistent theme that has been echoed in all reports is the enduring and universal human aspiration for peace and positive change, an aspect that should never cease.
Opinions expressed in JURIST Dispatches are solely those of our correspondents in the field and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST's editors, staff, donors or the University of Pittsburgh.