essay about world war i

World War I Introduction and Overview

Belligerent nations.

• Origins of World War I

World War I on Land

World war i at sea, technical innovation, modern view.

• M.A., Medieval Studies, Sheffield University
• B.A., Medieval Studies, Sheffield University

World War I was a major conflict fought in Europe and around the world between July 28, 1914, and November 11, 1918. Nations from across all non-polar continents were involved , although Russia, Britain, France, Germany, and Austria-Hungary dominated. Much of the war was characterized by stagnant trench warfare and massive loss of life in failed attacks; over eight million people were killed in battle.

The war was fought by two main power blocks: the Entente Powers , or 'Allies,' comprised of Russia, France, Britain (and later the U.S.), and their allies on one side and the Central Powers of Germany, Austro-Hungary, Turkey, and their allies on the other. Italy later joined the Entente. Many other countries played smaller parts on both sides.

Origins of World War I

To understand the origins , it is important to understand how politics at the time. European politics in the early twentieth century were a dichotomy: many politicians thought war had been banished by progress while others, influenced partly by a fierce arms race, felt war was inevitable. In Germany, this belief went further: the war should happen sooner rather than later, while they still (as they believed) had an advantage over their perceived major enemy, Russia. As Russia and France were allied, Germany feared an attack from both sides. To mitigate this threat, the Germans developed the Schlieffen Plan , a swift looping attack on France designed to knock it out early, allowing for concentration on Russia.

Rising tensions culminated on June 28th, 1914 with the assassination of  Austro-Hungarian Archduke Franz Ferdinand  by a Serbian activist, an ally of Russia. Austro-Hungary asked for German support and was promised a 'blank cheque'; they declared war on Serbia on July 28th. What followed was a sort of domino effect as more and more nations joined the fight . Russia mobilized to support Serbia, so Germany declared war on Russia; France then declared war on Germany. As German troops swung through Belgium into France days later, Britain declared war on Germany too. Declarations continued until much of Europe was at war with each other. There was widespread public support.

After the swift German invasion of France was stopped at the Marne, 'the race to the sea' followed as each side tried to outflank each other ever closer to the English Channel. This left the entire Western Front divided by over 400 miles of trenches, around which the war stagnated. Despite massive battles like Ypres , little progress was made and a battle of attrition emerged, caused partly by German intentions to 'bleed the French dry' at Verdun and Britain's attempts on the Somme . There was more movement on the Eastern Front with some major victories, but there was nothing decisive and the war carried on with high casualties.

Attempts to find another route into their enemy’s territory led to the failed Allied invasion of Gallipoli, where Allied forces held a beachhead but were halted by fierce Turkish resistance. There was also conflict on the Italian front, the Balkans, the Middle East, and smaller struggles in colonial holdings where the warring powers bordered each other.

Although the build-up to war had included a naval arms race between Britain and Germany, the only large naval engagement of the conflict was the Battle of Jutland, where both sides claimed victory. Instead, the defining struggle involved submarines and the German decision to pursue Unrestricted Submarine Warfare (USW). This policy allowed submarines to attack any target they found, including those belonging to the 'neutral' United States, which caused the latter to enter the war in 1917 on behalf of the Allies, supplying much-needed manpower.

Despite Austria-Hungary becoming little more than a German satellite, the Eastern Front was the first to be resolved, the war causing massive political and military instability in Russia, leading to the Revolutions of 1917 , the emergence of socialist government and surrender on December 15. Efforts by the Germans to redirect manpower and take the offensive in the west failed and, on November 11, 1918 (at 11:00 am), faced with allied successes, massive disruption at home and the impending arrival of vast US manpower, Germany signed an Armistice, the last Central power to do so.

Each of the defeated nations signed a treaty with the Allies, most significantly the Treaty of Versailles which was signed with Germany, and which has been blamed for causing further disruption ever since. There was devastation across Europe: 59 million troops had been mobilized, over 8 million died and over 29 million were injured. Huge quantities of capital had been passed to the now emergent United States and the culture of every European nation was deeply affected and the struggle became known as The Great War or The War to End All Wars.

World War I was the first to make major use of machine guns, which soon showed their defensive qualities. It was also the first to see poison gas used on the battlefields, a weapon which both sides made use of, and the first to see tanks, which were initially developed by the allies and later used to great success. The use of aircraft evolved from simply reconnaissance to a whole new form of aerial warfare.

Thanks partly to a generation of war poets who recorded the horrors of the war and a generation of historians who castigated the Allied high command for their decisions and ‘waste of life’ (Allied soldiers being the 'Lions led by Donkeys'), the war was generally viewed as a pointless tragedy. However, later generations of historians have found mileage in revising this view. While the Donkeys have always been ripe for recalibration, and careers built on provocation have always found material (such as Niall Ferguson's The Pity of War ), the centenary commemorations found historiography split between a phalanx wishing to create a new martial pride and sideline the worst of the war to create an image of a conflict well worth fighting and then truly won by the allies, and those who wished to stress the alarming and pointless imperial game millions of people died for. The war remains highly controversial and as subject to attack and defense as the newspapers of the day.

• 5 Key Causes of World War I
• World War I Timeline: 1914, The War Begins
• World War I: A Stalemate Ensues
• World War I Timeline From 1914 to 1919
• The Fourteen Points of Woodrow Wilson's Plan for Peace
• The Causes and War Aims of World War One
• Causes of World War I and the Rise of Germany
• The Major Alliances of World War I
• Key Historical Figures of World War I
• World War I: A Battle to the Death
• The Countries Involved in World War I
• World War 1: A Short Timeline Pre-1914
• World War I: Opening Campaigns
• The First Battle of the Marne
• World War I: A Global Struggle
• World War 1: A Short Timeline 1915

Self-Paced Courses : Explore American history with top historians at your own time and pace!

• AP US History Study Guide
• History U: Courses for High School Students
• History School: Summer Enrichment
• Lesson Plans
• Classroom Resources
• Spotlights on Primary Sources
• Professional Development (Academic Year)
• Professional Development (Summer)
• Book Breaks
• Inside the Vault
• Self-Paced Courses
• Browse All Resources
• Search by Issue
• Search by Essay
• Become a Member (Free)
• Monthly Offer (Free for Members)
• Program Information
• Scholarships and Financial Aid
• Applying and Enrolling
• Eligibility (In-Person)
• EduHam Online
• Hamilton Cast Read Alongs
• Official Website
• Press Coverage
• Veterans Legacy Program
• The Declaration at 250
• Black Lives in the Founding Era
• Celebrating American Historical Holidays
• Browse All Programs
• Donate Items to the Collection
• Search Our Catalog
• Research Guides
• Rights and Reproductions
• See Our Documents on Display
• Bring an Exhibition to Your Organization
• Interactive Exhibitions Online
• About the Transcription Program
• Civil War Letters
• Founding Era Newspapers
• College Fellowships in American History
• Scholarly Fellowship Program
• Richard Gilder History Prize
• David McCullough Essay Prize
• Affiliate School Scholarships
• Nominate a Teacher
• Eligibility
• State Winners
• National Winners
• Gilder Lehrman Lincoln Prize
• Gilder Lehrman Military History Prize
• George Washington Prize
• Frederick Douglass Book Prize
• Our Mission and History
• Annual Report
• Contact Information
• Student Advisory Council
• Teacher Advisory Council
• Board of Trustees
• Remembering Richard Gilder
• President's Council
• Scholarly Advisory Board
• Internships
• Our Partners
• Press Releases

History Resources

Historical Context: The Global Effect of World War I

By steven mintz.

A recent list of the hundred most important news stories of the twentieth century ranked the onset of World War I eighth. This is a great error. Just about everything that happened in the remainder of the century was in one way or another a result of World War I, including the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, World War II, the Holocaust, and the development of the atomic bomb. The Great Depression, the Cold War, and the collapse of European colonialism can also be traced, at least indirectly, to the First World War.

World War I killed more people--more than 9 million soldiers, sailors, and flyers and another 5 million civilians--involved more countries--28--and cost more money--$186 billion in direct costs and another $151 billion in indirect costs--than any previous war in history. It was the first war to use airplanes, tanks, long range artillery, submarines, and poison gas. It left at least 7 million men permanently disabled.

World War I probably had more far-reaching consequences than any other proceeding war. Politically, it resulted in the downfall of four monarchies--in Russia in 1917, in Austria-Hungary and Germany in 1918, and in Turkey in 1922. It contributed to the Bolshevik rise to power in Russia in 1917 and the triumph of fascism in Italy in 1922. It ignited colonial revolts in the Middle East and in Southeast Asia.

Economically, the war severely disrupted the European economies and allowed the United States to become the world's leading creditor and industrial power. The war also brought vast social consequences, including the mass murder of Armenians in Turkey and an influenza epidemic that killed over 25 million people worldwide.

Few events better reveal the utter unpredictability of the future. At the dawn of the 20th century, most Europeans looked forward to a future of peace and prosperity. Europe had not fought a major war for 100 years. But a belief in human progress was shattered by World War I, a war few wanted or expected. At any point during the five weeks leading up to the outbreak of fighting the conflict might have been averted. World War I was a product of miscalculation, misunderstanding, and miscommunication.

No one expected a war of the magnitude or duration of World War I. At first the armies relied on outdated methods of communication, such as carrier pigeons. The great powers mobilized more than a million horses. But by the time the conflict was over, tanks, submarines, airplane-dropped bombs, machine guns, and poison gas had transformed the nature of modern warfare. In 1918, the Germans fired shells containing both tear gas and lethal chlorine. The tear gas forced the British to remove their gas masks; the chlorine then scarred their faces and killed them.

In a single day at the Battle of the Somme in 1916, 100,000 British troops plodded across no man's land into steady machine-gun fire from German trenches a few yards away. Some 60,000 were killed or wounded. At the end of the battle, 419,654 British men were killed, missing, or wounded.Four years of war killed a million troops from the British Empire, 1.5 million troops from the Hapsburg Empire, 1.7 million French troops, 1.7 million Russians, and 2 million German troops. The war left a legacy of bitterness that contributed to World War II twenty-one years later.

Stay up to date, and subscribe to our quarterly newsletter.

Learn how the Institute impacts history education through our work guiding teachers, energizing students, and supporting research.

What are you looking for?

How did wwi reshape the modern world.

A hundred years after the end of the “war to end all wars,” USC experts discuss its surprising impact and how it affects us even today

One hundred years ago Sunday, the Allies and Germany agreed to an armistice ending World War I. The Great War claimed 40 million lives — but also serves as an unexpected pivot point for modern civilization.

“World War I is an amazingly important and underappreciated moment in history,” said Nicholas J. Cull , historian in the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism.

“The war ended when people were able to articulate a vision of the future, an optimism about how things were going to be better with nations working together.”

The war also rewrote the world map. Russia quit the war as domestic unrest triggered the Bolshevik revolution, rise of Communism and the Cold War. The Middle East changed with the defeat of Turkey and Britain’s pledge for a Jewish state in Palestine. The Western powers, fatigued by war, yielded to isolationism and appeasement as the Third Reich emerged, triggering World War II and the Holocaust.

Impact of World War I on medical care

Another thing forever changed by the war: medicine.

“Prior to WWI, most of the medicine practiced around the world was fairly archaic,” said Carl Chudnofsky , chair and professor of clinical emergency medicine at the Keck School of Medicine of USC.

The best physicians and researchers were in the military … so that led to great discoveries that made a huge difference for public health. Carl Chudnofsky

“But WWI was a time when the best physicians and researchers were in the military, not in civilian life, caring for patients, so that led to great discoveries that made a huge difference for public health.”

Chudnofsky points out that disease awareness and prevention leaped forward during WWI, first to heal soldiers and later for civilians. Medical advances included screening for tuberculosis, treatment for tetanus, vaccines for typhoid, prevention of venereal disease and disinfection for surgery.

Triage for medical attention emerged from the trenches of WWI to become a fixture in battlefields and other disasters. And mobile field hospitals and medical trains were innovations that helped evacuate casualties and save thousands of lives — techniques now common on battlefields.

Impact of World War I, the ‘war to end all wars’

And although World War I was called the “war to end all wars,” the U.S. has been at war somewhere around the world almost ever since. Michael Messner , professor of sociology at theUSC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences, said that’s because war and militarism are ingrained in American DNA.

“It’s part of our national identity, the old ideas of expansionism, white man’s burden and Manifest Destiny in the previous century,” he said. “We idealize war and military.”

Related Articles

Turnout likely lower for voters of color this november compared with white turnout , carrying the torch: jevon torres on leading the national society of black engineers’ usc chapter, bridging equity gaps through vision care.

If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

To log in and use all the features of Khan Academy, please enable JavaScript in your browser.

Course: US history   >   Unit 7

• The presidency of Woodrow Wilson
• Blockades, u-boats and sinking of the Lusitania
• Zimmermann Telegram
• United States enters World War I
• World War I: Homefront

The United States in World War I

• Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points
• Paris Peace Conference and Treaty of Versailles
• More detail on the Treaty of Versailles and Germany
• The League of Nations
• The Treaty of Versailles
• The First World War

• World War I was the deadliest conflict until that point in human history, claiming tens of millions of casualties on all sides.
• Under President Woodrow Wilson, the United States remained neutral until 1917 and then entered the war on the side of the Allied powers (the United Kingdom, France, and Russia).
• The experience of World War I had a major impact on US domestic politics, culture, and society. Women achieved the right to vote, while other groups of American citizens were subject to systematic repression.

War in Europe and US neutrality

Principal combatants on each side included:, the united states enters world war i, world war i on the home front, aftermath: consequences of world war i, what do you think.

• For more on the origins of the First World War, see Margaret MacMillan, The War that Ended Peace: The Road to 1914 (New York: Random House, 2014).
• For more on the nature of the fighting on the Western front, see Ian Ousby, The Road to Verdun: World War I’s Most Momentous Battle and the Folly of Nationalism (New York: Random House, 2002).
• Christopher Capozzola, Uncle Sam Wants You: World War I and the Making of the Modern American Citizen (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 7.
• For more on the experience of American soldiers in WWI, see Edward M. Coffman, The War to End All Wars: The American Military Experience in World War I (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1998).
• For more on the women’s rights movement, see Eleanor Flexner and Ellen Fitzpatrick, Century of Struggle: The Woman’s Rights Movement in the United States (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 1996).
• For more, see Capozzola, Uncle Sam Wants You.
• For more, see John Milton Cooper, Jr., Breaking the Heart of the World: Woodrow Wilson and the Fight for the League of Nations (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010).

Want to join the conversation?

• Upvote Button navigates to signup page
• Downvote Button navigates to signup page
• Flag Button navigates to signup page

The Causes and Effects of World War I Essay

Introduction.

The effects of World War I can be seen around the world even now, more than one hundred years after its end; however, there is still no consensus as to its cause. In the words of Alfred Korzybski, “the destruction was brought about by nationalism, entangled alliances, narrow ethnic concerns, and desires for political gain – forces that are still with people today.” (cited in Levinson, 2014). Even though the majority of United States citizens did not have the direct experience of the terrific upset that the war caused in Europe, it can be argued that the country’s concern with championing democracy around the globe is one of its products (Levinson, 2014).

Many historians agree that an atmosphere of twentieth-century Europe was conducive to the creation of a complex mixture of economic, social, and political reasons that translated into powerful forces of imperialistic, nationalistic, and militaristic movements leading to the diplomatic crises of 1914 (Donaldson, 2014). Therefore, it can be said that the blame for the war could not be assigned to any individual country or a group of countries.

Nonetheless, the issue of responsibility was the main focus of the world in the years following the Armistice of 1918 (Donaldson, 2014). To this end, the Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of the War and the Enforcement of Penalties met in Paris in 1919 (Donaldson, 2014). The investigation conducted by the commission showed that Germany and Austria, along with Turkey and Bulgaria as their allies, were responsible for the aggressive foreign policy tactics that led to the precipitation of the war (Donaldson, 2014).

The start of World War I was precipitated by the assassination of the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, on June 28, 1914 (Mulligan, 2010) The elimination of the high-standing official was carried out by the group of secret society members called Black Hand and directed by Bosnian Serb Danilo Ilić (Storey, 2009). The political objective of the murder was to separate Austria-Hungary’s South Slav provinces to combine them into Yugoslavia (Storey, 2009).

In response to the killing of their official, Austria-Hungary issued an ultimatum to Serbia that commanded its government to prosecute the assassins. The objective of the ultimatum was to make its terms so strict that Serbia would be forced to reject it, thereby giving an excuse for launching a small war against it (Storey, 2009). Taking into consideration that Serbia had diplomatic relationships with Russia strengthened by their shared Slavic ties, the Austro-Hungarian government decided to take precautions against the two countries declaring war on it and allied with Germany. It is agreed that Germany was not opposed to Austro-Hungarian bellicosity, but rather supported and encouraged it, thus providing one more reason for the precipitation of the Great War (Levinson, 2014).

Even though Serbia’s response to the ultimatum was placating, Austria-Hungary decided to take aggressive action and declare war. It is argued that the main reason for World War I was the web of entangling alliances among the countries having an interest in the conflict between Austro-Hungary and Serbia (Storey, 2009). Following the Austro-Hungarian declaration of war, the Russian monarch mobilized his army because of the binding commitment of the treaty signed by the two countries.

As a result, on August 3, 1914, Germany declared war on the Russian Empire (Levinson, 2014). France was bound by treaty to Russia, and, therefore, had to start a war on Austria-Hungary and Germany. Even though a treaty tying France and Britain was loosely worded, the latter country had “a moral obligation” to defend the former (Levinson, 2014). Therefore, Britain and its allies Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, Japan, and the Union of South Africa also took a bellicose stance against Germany and offered their assistance in the military action against the country (Levinson, 2014). Thus, a gigantic web of entangling alliances pushed numerous countries to the precipice of war over what was intended to be a small-scale conflict between Austria-Hungary and Serbia.

Numerous other reasons led to World War I. The conflicting political interests of Russia and Japan over Manchuria and Korea resulted in a military defeat of Russia (Levinson, 2014). Therefore, the country wanted to restore its dignity by a victorious war. During the same period, a lot of small nations were seething with discontent over the Turkish and Austro-Hungarian rule, thereby providing an opportunity for the Russian Empire further to stir resentment by firing up nationalistic zeal under a pretense of pan-Slavic narrative (Levinson, 2014).

Austria-Hungary, on the other hand, sought an opportunity to establish its influence over a vast territory of mixed nations; the assassination of the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne provided them with a perfect excuse for the initiation of the war. Political clashes in Germany were a reason for the country’s government to resort to the military conflict as a way of “averting civil unrest” (Levinson, 2014). Another factor that caused World War I was the desire of France to revenge a military defeat in the Franco-Prussian War of 1871 (Levinson, 2014).

It is impossible to name a single reason for the initiation of World War I. However, it is clear that the entangling web of alliances among numerous parties participating in the war, as well as complicated plots of governments and empires, led the small-scale dispute between Austria-Hungary and Serbia escalating into a military conflict that swept the entire world.

Donaldson, P. (2014). Interpreting the origins of the First World War. Teaching History , 155 (4), 32-33.

Levinson, M. (2014). Ten cautionary GS lessons from World War I. Et Cetera, 71 (1), 41-48.

Mulligan, W. (2010). The origins of the First World War . Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Storey, W. (2009). The First World War . Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

• Eastern Crisis of 1875-1878
• The Late 19th Century and the First World War, 1850-1918
• The Ultimatum Game Research Prospectus
• World War I, Its Origin and Allies
• The Worst Team in History: the Gallipoli Failure
• Principal Causes of the First World War
• "Two Cheers for Versailles" by Mark Mazower
• Germany's Aims in the First World War
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2020, October 9). The Causes and Effects of World War I. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-causes-and-effects-of-world-war-i/

"The Causes and Effects of World War I." IvyPanda , 9 Oct. 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/the-causes-and-effects-of-world-war-i/.

IvyPanda . (2020) 'The Causes and Effects of World War I'. 9 October.

IvyPanda . 2020. "The Causes and Effects of World War I." October 9, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-causes-and-effects-of-world-war-i/.

1. IvyPanda . "The Causes and Effects of World War I." October 9, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-causes-and-effects-of-world-war-i/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "The Causes and Effects of World War I." October 9, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-causes-and-effects-of-world-war-i/.

Home — Essay Samples — Sociology — Connection — Unveiling the Causes and Consequences of World War I

Unveiling The Causes and Consequences of World War I

• Categories: Connection Contract Monarchy

About this sample

Words: 557 |

Published: Mar 1, 2019

Words: 557 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr Jacklynne

Verified writer

• Expert in: Sociology Law, Crime & Punishment Government & Politics

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 789 words

1 pages / 670 words

1 pages / 559 words

2 pages / 702 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Connection

Effective communication is a fundamental aspect of human interaction, serving as the foundation for building strong relationships, resolving conflicts, and achieving shared goals. It encompasses a wide range of skills and [...]

Remember by Joy Harjo is a powerful and thought-provoking poem that explores themes of identity, memory, and connection to the natural world. Through the use of vivid imagery, symbolism, and a unique narrative structure, Harjo [...]

In Cynthia Rylant's novella, "Stray," readers are taken on a journey that explores themes of loss, redemption, and the power of human connection. Through the story of Doris, a middle-aged woman who finds solace in adopting a [...]

Television has a unique ability to capture the essence of human experiences and transport viewers into different worlds. Among the myriad narratives that television explores, there's a particular fascination with tales of chance [...]

Love can hold us captive, chain us down and make us slaves to its cruel ways, blinding us from all judgement. The human condition of love can be expressed as a strong affection for another arising out of kinship, enthusiasm, or [...]

In the ever-evolving tapestry of human existence, two contrasting outlooks often guide our perceptions and actions: realism and optimism. Realism encourages us to confront life's challenges with a clear-eyed view of the world, [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

Should the U.S. Have Entered World War I?

By: Christopher Klein

Updated: March 27, 2023 | Original: April 5, 2017

The Case for U.S. Entry Into World War I

On January 22, 1917, President Woodrow Wilson told a joint session of Congress that the United States must remain neutral in World War I to ensure “peace without victory.” Eleven weeks later, he returned to Congress to request a declaration of war against Germany.

The rapid turn of events was brought on by a series of German actions that some historians believe left Wilson with little choice but to finally enter the war in Europe. Scores of American civilians had already been killed by German U-boats since the beginning of the war, including 128 in the 1915 sinking of RMS Lusitania . The following year German saboteurs detonated the Black Tom munitions depot in Jersey City, New Jersey, killing seven people and strafing the Statue of Liberty with shrapnel.

For two years, Wilson repeatedly warned the Germans against a policy of unrestricted submarine warfare, which he considered a violation of international law and a pretext for a break in diplomatic relations. “Germany made the decision for reasons dealing with internal politics in January 1917 to go to unrestricted submarine warfare in defiance of the threats,” says historian Ross Kennedy, a professor at Illinois State University and author of “ The Will to Believe: Woodrow Wilson, World War I, and America’s Strategy for Peace and Security. ” “Wilson had no choice but to break relations or he would have lost diplomatic credibility.”

Even after announcing the diplomatic break on February 3, 1917, Wilson still signaled that the United States would stay out of the war as long as the Germans did not target American vessels. Then came the publication of the Zimmerman Telegram in which Germany proposed secret military and financial support for a Mexican attack on the United States, should it enter the war, and in exchange, Mexico would be free to annex “lost territory in Texas, New Mexico and Arizona.” Kennedy says the Zimmerman Telegram caused a stir but the major precipitating event for the declaration of war occurred in mid-March when “the Germans sank three American merchant ships in rapid succession—American ships under American flags with American crews—a direct attack on American sovereignty.”

“Given the U.S. policy and German actions, it’s hard to see any president not doing what Wilson did at that point,” Kennedy says. “He has to follow through and go for the war declaration given the earlier policy. Wilson’s whole credibility and the credibility of the country is on the line.” Kennedy points out that by drawing red lines earlier in the war, Wilson had put himself in a box where war was nearly unavoidable by April 1917.

Kennedy says that most historians agree that American entry into World War I tipped the scales against Germany and that without the participation of the United States the Allies would have lost, “defined as having to make a compromise peace with the Germans largely on German terms.” Things weren’t going well for the Allies by the spring of 1917. They had suffered a big setback in Italy, the French army faced a serious mutiny problem and Russia was teetering after the overthrow of the tsar, which would lead to the eventual loss of the Eastern Front.

The Allies were not only exhausted emotionally and militarily—but financially as well. “They were in serious financial trouble in early 1917,” Kennedy says. “They depended heavily on American banks to finance their purchases of war supplies, and their ability to get those loans was becoming harder and harder. One of the immediate benefits after the United States enters is that Wilson gets Congress to pass legislation to allow the U.S. government to loan money to the Allies. Those government-to-government loans give them the money to fund their purchases of crucial supplies.”

“Even with the U.S. entry,” Kennedy says, “the British in late 1917 were seriously contemplating peace feelers from the Germans under which the Germans would have kept all their gains on the Eastern Front and pulled back in the west. If the Americans hadn’t entered the war, the British would have done that deal.”

There are some historians who make the case that Imperial Germany would eventually have become an American menace had it emerged victorious as a result of the United States remaining on the sidelines, though certainly not to the extent of the Third Reich. So what terms would have the Germans dictated as victors? They may not have been as punitive as those eventually enacted by the Allies, but the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk that Germany negotiated with the new Bolshevik government of Russia in 1918 took a hard line.

Russia was forced to recognize the independence of Ukraine, Georgia and Finland and ceded Poland and the Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia to Germany and Austria-Hungary. In all, Russia lost 55 million people; gave up a majority of its coal, oil, and iron stores; and had its industry gutted under the agreement, which was annulled by the Armistice of November 11, 1918.

The Case Against U.S. Entry into World War I

“I think the United States should only go to war when it’s in our national interest, when we are really threatened, and when morally it could be defined as a ‘just war,’ and I don’t think any of those occurred in World War I,” says historian Michael Kazin, a professor at Georgetown University and author of “ War Against War: The American Fight for Peace 1914-1918 .”

Plenty of Americans shared the same sentiment in April 1917. The country was hardly united in the decision to declare war on Imperial Germany, as the 56 votes against the measure in Congress attested. Less than six weeks before the war declaration, anti-war senators had even led a successful filibuster to block a proposal to arm American merchant ships with U.S. naval personnel and equipment. A peace coalition of unprecedented size and diversity attempted to keep the United States from entering the battlefields. The strange bedfellows included progressive Republicans and Southern Democrats as well as socialist labor leaders such as Eugene V. Debs and business magnates such as Henry Ford . “They disagreed about many things,” Kazin says, “but they all agreed that militarizing American society would turn the United States into a very different country where the military would be calling the shots more.”

HISTORY Vault: World War I Documentaries

Stream World War I videos commercial-free in HISTORY Vault.

Kazin says there was no immediate threat to the security of the United States from Imperial Germany in 1917 because it was incapable of launching a trans-Atlantic attack. “Unlike in World War II when Hitler had long-range planes and a larger navy, there was no threat of Germany invading the United States,” he says.

Detractors of the American entry into World War I argue that by tipping the scales to the Allies, the United States didn’t hasten the end of the war but actually prolonged it by removing the incentive for the British and French to make a negotiated peace with Germany as the battle stalemated in 1917. The ensuing punitive peace also laid the groundwork for an even deadlier world war a generation later and the rise of the Nazis . “It was unclear that by supporting the Allies that the United States would be able to put together the ‘peace without victory’ that Wilson wanted,” Kazin says. “As the peace coalition predicted, after all those years of losing millions of people, the victorious powers were not going to be in a mood to be kind to those who lost.”

The decision to enter World War I led not only to the deaths of more than 116,000 Americans abroad but to the trampling of civil liberties at home. “If there should be disloyalty, it will be dealt with a firm hand of stern repression,” Wilson warned in his address to the joint session of Congress. It was. The Espionage Act of 1917 and Sedition Act of 1918 curtailed speech, vigilantes with the American Protective League physically assaulted anti-war activists, mail and newspapers were censored and radicals such as Emma Goldman were deported.

“In terms of free speech, it was the most repressive period in American history,” Kazin says.“It became potentially illegal to speak out against the war, disparage the president or try to organize people to restrict the draft. There was an atmosphere of fear. The socialist press was basically put out of business when the postmaster general denied second-class mailing privileges. Wilson made it very clear that he wasn’t going to allow any kind of dissent that went against the mission. Leaders of the left were put in jail. It had a chilling effect on other dissenters.”

Kazin argues that it was hardly a foregone conclusion that the Allies would have lost World War I had the United States not joined the fight. “The Germans were not doing well either in 1917. The most popular party in the Reichstag was already split, and there was a lot of disaffection among ordinary Germans. One reason the German military wanted to win quickly with unrestricted submarine warfare was they were worried about the country coming apart.”

Even had Germany won World War I if the United States stayed on the sidelines, Kazin says it still wouldn’t have posed an existential threat. “The political complexion would have been quite different than under the Third Reich. Germany might have evolved into more of the socially democratic society it is today. Certainly, Hitler ’s party was able to exploit Germany’s loss in the war, which was a major reason why Germany rearmed and World War II happened.”

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

Take the Quiz: Find the Best State for You »

What's the best state for you ».

Norway Hands Over Papers for Diplomatic Recognition to the Palestinian Prime Minister

Norway has handed over papers to the Palestinian prime minister in the latest step toward recognizing a Palestinian state

Virginia Mayo

Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority Mohammed Mustafa, left, speaks after receiving a document handed over by Norway's Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide, right, prior to a meeting for talks on the Middle East in Brussels, Sunday, May 26, 2024. Norway on Sunday handed over papers to the Palestinian prime minister to officially give it diplomatic recognition as a state in a largely symbolic move that has infuriated Israel. The formal recognition by Norway, Spain and Ireland, which all have a record of friendly ties with both the Israelis and the Palestinians, while long advocating for a Palestinian state, is planned for Tuesday. (AP Photo/Virginia Mayo)

BRUSSELS (AP) — Norway on Sunday handed over diplomatic papers to the Palestinian prime minister in the latest step toward recognizing a Palestinian state, a largely symbolic move that has infuriated Israel.

Ireland and Spain made a concerted pledge with Norway to recognize a Palestinian state, a historic move that increases Israel’s isolation more than seven months into its grinding war against Hamas in Gaza .

The handover of papers by Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide to the prime minister was made in Brussels, where Mohammad Mustafa is also meeting with foreign ministers of European Union nations and high-level EU officials on Monday to drum up support for the Palestinians. Norway itself is not part of the EU.

The diplomatic move by the three nations was a welcome boost of support for Palestinian officials who have sought for decades to establish a statehood in east Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip — territories Israel seized in the 1967 Mideast war and still controls.

“Recognition means a lot for us. It is the most important thing that anybody can do for the Palestinian people," said Mustafa. "It is a great deal for us.”

The formal recognition by Norway, Spain and Ireland — which all have a record of friendly ties with both the Israelis and the Palestinians, while long advocating for a Palestinian state — is planned for Tuesday.

Some 140 countries — more than two-thirds of the United Nations — recognize a Palestinian state but a majority of the 27 EU nations still do not. Several have said they would recognize it when the conditions are right.

The EU, the United States and Britain, among others, back the idea of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel but say it should come as part of a negotiated settlement.

Belgium, which holds the EU presidency, has said that first the Israeli hostages held by Hamas need to be freed and the fighting in Gaza must end. Some other government favor a new initiative toward a two-state solution, 15 years after negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians collapsed.

Sunday's handover of papers came only two days after the United Nations’ top court ordered Israel to immediately halt its military offensive in the southern Gaza city of Rafah in the latest move that piled more pressure on the increasingly isolated country .

Days earlier, the chief prosecutor for the International Criminal Court requested arrest warrants for Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, along with Hamas officials.

The war in Gaza started after Hamas-led militants stormed across the border, killing 1,200 people and taking some 250 hostage. Israel’s ensuing offensive has killed more than 35,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry, and has caused a humanitarian crisis and a near-famine.

Copyright 2024 The  Associated Press . All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Photos You Should See - May 2024

Join the Conversation

Tags: Associated Press , politics , world news

America 2024

Health News Bulletin

Stay informed on the latest news on health and COVID-19 from the editors at U.S. News & World Report.

Sign in to manage your newsletters »

Sign up to receive the latest updates from U.S News & World Report and our trusted partners and sponsors. By clicking submit, you are agreeing to our Terms and Conditions & Privacy Policy .

You May Also Like

The 10 worst presidents.

U.S. News Staff Feb. 23, 2024

Cartoons on President Donald Trump

Feb. 1, 2017, at 1:24 p.m.

Photos: Obama Behind the Scenes

April 8, 2022

Photos: Who Supports Joe Biden?

March 11, 2020

U.S. Military Deaths, by War

Elliott Davis Jr. May 25, 2024

Takeaways From the NCAA’s Settlement

Laura Mannweiler May 24, 2024

Noncitizen Voting: the Fiction and Facts

Aneeta Mathur-Ashton May 24, 2024

Quiz: Who Said What in Trump’s Trial?

U.S. News Staff May 24, 2024

CDC: COVID-19 Strains Are on the Rise

Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder May 24, 2024

Consumers See Worsening Job Market

Tim Smart May 24, 2024

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• Auto Racing
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Norway hands over papers for diplomatic recognition to the Palestinian prime minister

Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority Mohammed Mustafa, left, speaks after receiving a document handed over by Norway’s Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide, right, prior to a meeting for talks on the Middle East in Brussels, Sunday, May 26, 2024. Norway on Sunday handed over papers to the Palestinian prime minister to officially give it diplomatic recognition as a state in a largely symbolic move that has infuriated Israel. The formal recognition by Norway, Spain and Ireland, which all have a record of friendly ties with both the Israelis and the Palestinians, while long advocating for a Palestinian state, is planned for Tuesday. (AP Photo/Virginia Mayo)

Norway’s Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide, right, prepares to hand a document to Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority Mohammed Mustafa prior to a meeting for talks on the Middle East in Brussels, Sunday, May 26, 2024. Norway on Sunday handed over papers to the Palestinian prime minister to officially give it diplomatic recognition as a state in a largely symbolic move that has infuriated Israel. The formal recognition by Norway, Spain and Ireland, which all have a record of friendly ties with both the Israelis and the Palestinians, while long advocating for a Palestinian state, is planned for Tuesday. (AP Photo/Virginia Mayo)

Norway’s Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide shows a document which will be handed to Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority Mohammed Mustafa prior to a meeting for talks on the Middle East in Brussels, Sunday, May 26, 2024. Norway on Sunday handed over papers to the Palestinian prime minister to officially give it diplomatic recognition as a state in a largely symbolic move that has infuriated Israel. (AP Photo/Virginia Mayo)

Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority Mohammed Mustafa, second left, and Norway’s Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide, second right, meet after the handover of a document prior to a meeting for talks on the Middle East in Brussels, Sunday, May 26, 2024. Norway on Sunday handed over papers to the Palestinian prime minister to officially give it diplomatic recognition as a state in a largely symbolic move that has infuriated Israel. (AP Photo/Virginia Mayo)

Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority Mohammed Mustafa, left, speaks with the media after the handover of a document by Norway’s Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide prior to a meeting for talks on the Middle East in Brussels, Sunday, May 26, 2024. Norway on Sunday handed over papers to the Palestinian prime minister to officially give it diplomatic recognition as a state in a largely symbolic move that has infuriated Israel. (AP Photo/Virginia Mayo)

Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority Mohammed Mustafa, left, reaches out to shake hands with Norway’s Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide prior to a meeting for talks on the Middle East in Brussels, Sunday, May 26, 2024. Norway on Sunday handed over papers to the Palestinian prime minister to officially give it diplomatic recognition as a state in a largely symbolic move that has infuriated Israel. (AP Photo/Virginia Mayo)

Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority Mohammed Mustafa, left, shakes hands with Norway’s Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide prior to a meeting for talks on the Middle East in Brussels, Sunday, May 26, 2024. Norway on Sunday handed over papers to the Palestinian prime minister to officially give it diplomatic recognition as a state in a largely symbolic move that has infuriated Israel. (AP Photo/Virginia Mayo)

Norway’s Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide, right, speaks with Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority Mohammed Mustafa after handing over a document prior to a meeting for talks on the Middle East in Brussels, Sunday, May 26, 2024. Norway on Sunday handed over papers to the Palestinian prime minister to officially give it diplomatic recognition as a state in a largely symbolic move that has infuriated Israel. The formal recognition by Norway, Spain and Ireland, which all have a record of friendly ties with both the Israelis and the Palestinians, while long advocating for a Palestinian state, is planned for Tuesday. (AP Photo/Virginia Mayo)

• Copy Link copied

BRUSSELS (AP) — Norway on Sunday handed over diplomatic papers to the Palestinian prime minister in the latest step toward recognizing a Palestinian state, a largely symbolic move that has infuriated Israel.

Ireland and Spain made a concerted pledge with Norway to recognize a Palestinian state, a historic move that increases Israel’s isolation more than seven months into its grinding war against Hamas in Gaza .

The handover of papers by Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide to the prime minister was made in Brussels, where Mohammad Mustafa is also meeting with foreign ministers of European Union nations and high-level EU officials on Monday to drum up support for the Palestinians. Norway itself is not part of the EU.

The diplomatic move by the three nations was a welcome boost of support for Palestinian officials who have sought for decades to establish a statehood in east Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip — territories Israel seized in the 1967 Mideast war and still controls.

“Recognition means a lot for us. It is the most important thing that anybody can do for the Palestinian people,” said Mustafa. “It is a great deal for us.”

The formal recognition by Norway, Spain and Ireland — which all have a record of friendly ties with both the Israelis and the Palestinians, while long advocating for a Palestinian state — is planned for Tuesday.

Some 140 countries — more than two-thirds of the United Nations — recognize a Palestinian state but a majority of the 27 EU nations still do not. Several have said they would recognize it when the conditions are right.

The EU, the United States and Britain, among others, back the idea of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel but say it should come as part of a negotiated settlement.

Belgium, which holds the EU presidency, has said that first the Israeli hostages held by Hamas need to be freed and the fighting in Gaza must end. Some other government favor a new initiative toward a two-state solution, 15 years after negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians collapsed.

Sunday’s handover of papers came only two days after the United Nations’ top court ordered Israel to immediately halt its military offensive in the southern Gaza city of Rafah in the latest move that piled more pressure on the increasingly isolated country .

Days earlier, the chief prosecutor for the International Criminal Court requested arrest warrants for Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, along with Hamas officials.

The war in Gaza started after Hamas-led militants stormed across the border, killing 1,200 people and taking some 250 hostage. Israel’s ensuing offensive has killed more than 35,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry, and has caused a humanitarian crisis and a near-famine.

• International
• Premium Stories
• 🗳️ Elections 2024
• Express Shorts
• Maharashtra HSC Result
• Brand Solutions

Norway hands over papers for diplomatic recognition to the Palestinian prime minister

Ireland and spain made a concerted pledge with norway to recognize a palestinian state, a historic move that increases israel’s isolation more than seven months into its war against hamas in gaza..

Norway on Sunday handed over diplomatic papers to the Palestinian prime minister in the latest step toward recognizing a Palestinian state, a largely symbolic move that has infuriated Israel.

Ireland and Spain made a concerted pledge with Norway to recognize a Palestinian state, a historic move that increases Israel’s isolation more than seven months into its grinding war against Hamas in Gaza.

The handover of papers by Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide to the prime minister was made in Brussels, where Mohammad Mustafa is also meeting with foreign ministers of European Union nations and high-level EU officials on Monday to drum up support for the Palestinians.

Also Read | Why Norway, Ireland, and Spain have decided to recognise Palestine as a state

Norway itself is not part of the EU. The diplomatic move by the three nations was a welcome boost of support for Palestinian officials who have sought for decades to establish a statehood in east Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip — territories Israel seized in the 1967 Mideast war and still controls.

The formal recognition by Norway, Spain and Ireland — which all have a record of friendly ties with both the Israelis and the Palestinians, while long advocating for a Palestinian state — is planned for Tuesday.

Some 140 countries — more than two-thirds of the United Nations — recognize a Palestinian state but a majority of the 27 EU nations still do not.

Several have said they would recognize it when the conditions are right. The EU, the United States and Britain, among others, back the idea of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel but say it should come as part of a negotiated settlement.

Also Read | What did Ireland, Norway and Spain announce on a Palestinian state?

Belgium, which holds the EU presidency, has said that first the Israeli hostages held by Hamas need to be freed and the fighting in Gaza must end. Some other government favor a new initiative toward a two-state solution, 15 years after negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians collapsed.

Sunday's handover of papers came only two days after the United Nations’ top court ordered Israel to immediately halt its military offensive in the southern Gaza city of Rafah in the latest move that piled more pressure on the increasingly isolated country.

Days earlier, the chief prosecutor for the International Criminal Court requested arrest warrants for Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, along with Hamas officials.

The war in Gaza started after Hamas-led militants stormed across the border, killing 1,200 people and taking some 250 hostage.

Israel’s ensuing offensive has killed more than 35,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry, and has caused a humanitarian crisis and a near-famine.

• More Stories on
• Gaza Palestine
• Israel Palestine conflict

Deepak Tijori on not asking Shah Rukh Khan, Aamir Khan for help

Deepak Tijori, a veteran actor and filmmaker, spoke about his 30-year journey in the industry and the challenges faced by independent producers. He discusses the impact of the star system on film distribution and his preference for unconventional stories. Despite having superstar connections, he prioritised charting his own path.

• Rajkot Fire Live Updates: After Gujarat govt, PM Modi announces ex gratia of Rs 2 lakh for kin of fire incident victims 173 mins ago
• KKR vs SRH Live Score, IPL 2024 Final: Shreyas Iyer's Kolkata Knight Riders lock horns with Pat Cummins' Sunrisers Hyderabad 174 mins ago
• BSE Odisha 10th Result 2024 Live Updates: Matric result at bseodisha.ac.in, apply for rechecking from May 29 175 mins ago
• CHSE Odisha 12th Result (Out) Live: +2 HS result out at chseodisha.nic.in, orissaresults.nic.in, DigiLocker 181 mins ago
• Maharashtra SSC 10th Results 2024 Live Updates: At what time MSBSHSE SSC results will be declared this year? 191 mins ago

May 26 : Latest News

• 0 1 Modi talks about Muslim rapport one day, Ram Mandir the next day: Nana Patole
• 0 2 IPL 2024 points table update: RR remain 2nd after PBKS defeat, but could be overtaken by SRH soon
• 0 3 Athletics: Animesh Kujur, with build of an international runner and swagger to boot, makes confident mark at Fed Cup
• 0 4 From a no-contest to a close fight, BJP and Congress to battle it out in Dhule
• 0 5 Watch | Slovak PM’s bodyguards spring into action after ‘assassination attempt’

• Elections 2024
• Political Pulse
• Entertainment
• Movie Review
• Newsletters
• Gold Rate Today
• Silver Rate Today
• Petrol Rate Today
• Diesel Rate Today
• Web Stories

What lies beneath Gaza’s rubble and ruin

The hysteria over campus protests in the United States has shifted American attention away from the depth of the ongoing calamity in Gaza.

You’re reading an excerpt from the Today’s WorldView newsletter. Sign up to get the rest free , including news from around the globe and interesting ideas and opinions to know, sent to your inbox every weekday.

In a fit of ideological pique last week, far-right Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) scoffed at protesters agitating against pro-Israel policies on campuses across the United States . “I get a strange inkling that all these Columbia and UCLA students running around yelling ‘Free Palestine’ would not be jumping at the opportunity to do a semester abroad in Gaza,” she wrote on social media , before later journeying to a protest encampment at George Washington University and almost sparring with students when trying to pull down a Palestinian flag.

Boebert’s scorn is shared even by some of her opponents in the Washington establishment, many of whom have cast the student demonstrations as, at best, unproductive far-left agitprop or, more darkly, dangerous antisemitic behavior that must be expunged from the academy. Hundreds of campus protesters have been arrested in recent days in police crackdowns from California to New York.

Boebert’s comment, though, drew derision on two counts: First, that protesters angry about alleged Israeli war crimes in Gaza would need to go to the besieged territory itself to justify their anger. And, second, that students could even do “a semester abroad” in Gaza, where Israel has spent the past half year systematically destroying most of its educational institutions, including all of its universities .

GET CAUGHT UP Summarized stories to quickly stay informed

How Florida’s abortion law is affecting East Coast abortion clinics

In France, two young politicians are in a bitter fight over the future of Europe

Schools that never needed AC are now overheating. Fixes will cost billions.

World Central Kitchen draws criticism for its neutrality in Gaza

A Black rising star lost his elite orchestra job. He won’t go quietly.

For months, Palestinian civil society activists have drawn attention to the steady eradication of Gaza’s cultural patrimony. Israel’s punishing campaign against militant group Hamas has seen much of the territory reduced to ruin. In the process, many libraries, museums and colleges have been ransacked and razed — in some instances, by deliberate Israeli demolition. Thousands of artifacts in various collections, including Roman coins and other materials from Gaza’s pre-Islamic past, have been potentially lost during the war .

The hysteria over campus protests in the United States has shifted American attention away from the depth of the ongoing calamity in Gaza. U.N. officials and aid agencies are still grappling with the scale of the destruction in the territory, where dozens are still dying every day. Since Hamas launched its Oct. 7 terrorist strike on southern Israel, more than 34,500 Palestinians in the territory — many of them women and children — have been killed. Some 5 percent of Gaza’s overall population has been killed or injured, according to a U.N. report that cites local data.

That figure doesn’t include the more than at least 10,000 people that the U.N. estimates are still missing beneath the rubble, citing the Palestinian Civil Defense (PCD). The challenge of finding the missing is growing more dire, given the widespread destruction of heavy machinery and equipment needed to dig through the debris.

“Rising temperatures can accelerate the decomposition of bodies and the spread of disease,” the U.N. humanitarian affairs office said in a statement , adding that the PCD was appealing to “all relevant stakeholders to urgently intervene to allow the entry of needed equipment, including bulldozers and excavators, to avert a public health catastrophe, facilitate dignified burials, and save the lives of injured people.”

Sifting through Gaza’s wreckage will be no simple task. Israel has dumped a huge amount of ordnance on the territory. Mungo Birch, head of the U.N. Mine Action Program in Palestinian territory, said last week that the amount of unexploded missiles and bombs lying in the rubble is “unprecedented” since World War II. He said tiny Gaza is a site of some 37 million tons of rubble — more than what’s been generated across all of Ukraine during Russia’s war — and 800,000 tons of asbestos and other contaminants. He said his agency has only a fraction of the funding it needs to begin clearing operations whenever the war ends.

Over the weekend, U.S. and Egyptian officials attempted to facilitate a last-ditch effort to broker a truce between Israel and Hamas . A delegation from the Palestinian militant group was in Cairo and expressed optimism that a breakthrough could be found. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who faced mass protests at home against his continued tenure in office, seemed more wary of the arrangement and remains bent on carrying out a full offensive against the southern Gazan city of Rafah, where more than a million Palestinians already displaced in the territory have taken shelter.

Top U.N. officials say famine has already gripped parts of Gaza. Beyond the desperately insufficient trickle of humanitarian aid into the territory, the war has also “severely hampered” Gaza’s “ability to produce food and clean water,” according to my colleagues . “Israeli airstrikes and bulldozers have razed farms and orchards. Crops abandoned by farmers seeking safety in southern Gaza have withered, and cattle have been left to die.”

The fear surrounding Rafah and the uncertainty over a potential cease-fire sit against the looming reality of how difficult it will be for Gaza to recover. More than 70 percent of all housing in the territory has been destroyed. A report by the U.N. Development Program (UNDP) found that the war has reversed 40 years of development and improvement in social indicators such as life expectancy, health and educational attainment in Gaza.

The agency estimated that reconstruction, at this point, would cost some $40 billion to $50 billion. And if it follows the pace observed after previous conflicts, UNDP estimates that it will take “approximately 80 years to restore all the fully destroyed housing units” in Gaza.

“My very big concern — in addition to the numbers — is the breaking down of communities and families in Gaza,” UNDP regional director Abdallah al-Dardari told The Washington Post . “If you know 60 people in your family have been killed — like our colleague Issam al-Mughrabi who was killed with 60 people in his family during one raid — you will go numb,” Dardari said. “The consequences of this war will stay with us far beyond the end of the war.”

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

With I.C.C. Arrest Warrants, Let Justice Take Its Course

By David Kaye

Mr. Kaye is a law professor at the University of California, Irvine.

In seeking the arrests of senior leaders of Israel and Hamas, the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court has given the world a promise of accountability.

Regardless of the outcome of the cases, the prosecutor’s request that the court issue arrest warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Hamas’s Yahya Sinwar helps cut through the polarizing language of the moment and promotes the idea that the basic rules of international humanitarian law apply to all. Anyone demanding an end to the conflict in Gaza and the release of all hostages from the grasp of Hamas should embrace the decision.

The prosecutor, Karim Khan, has also brought accusations against Hamas’s Muhammad Deif and Ismail Haniyeh. Mr. Khan has charged the three Hamas leaders with crimes against humanity and war crimes arising out of the Oct. 7 attacks, and he emphasized that some of these crimes are being committed “to this day,” a reference to the hostages still being held by the group.

Mr. Khan is charging Israel’s most senior leadership, including Mr. Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, for war crimes and crimes against humanity. While Mr. Khan recognized Israel’s “right to take action to defend its population,” he accused them of having “a common plan to use starvation as a weapon of war,” the targeting of civilians and other forms of collective punishment.

Crucially, the request recognizes compelling claims for justice on both sides of the conflict. Soon after Hamas’s attack on Israel, families of Israeli victims urged Mr. Khan to investigate Hamas for its actions, including forced disappearances, which is viewed by the court as a crime against humanity. “They simply want justice to be done,” a lawyer for some of the families said . Mr. Khan, after visiting the Rafah border crossing in late October, said of the hostage-taking, “When these types of acts take place, they cannot go uninvestigated, and they cannot go unpunished.”

The prosecutor also recognized demands on the Palestinian side. When Mr. Gallant announced a “complete siege” of Gaza days after the Oct. 7 attacks, a potentially grave violation of international law, the prosecutor had little choice but to set in motion an investigation that led to today’s action.

Palestinian human rights defenders have long urged international investigations and prosecutions of senior Israeli officials. They believed that the court’s failure to issue arrest warrants against Israeli officials early in the current war — or even before, over repression in the West Bank — undermined the deterrent effect that accountability could create. Justice delayed is justice denied, they argued .

The prosecutor heard both parties. There is no doubt that by pursuing parallel, if independent, actions against these officials, he risks the perception of equivalence between Hamas, a terrorist organization with little concern for its own people, and Israel, a democratic member of the United Nations. But that is the wrong way to read what he has done. Instead, he has acknowledged that people on both sides of this conflict have legitimate claims and that the law is designed to protect all of humanity.

Mr. Khan’s action is unprecedented: It is the first time the court has targeted a Western democracy with a vibrant court system or the top leaders of a close U.S. ally. The International Criminal Court’s founding charter, the Rome Statute, generally rules out pursuing prosecutions in countries that are able and willing to investigate and prosecute people accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Israel will no doubt make this a central plank of its rebuttal. But Mr. Khan’s approach remains focused on allegations like the deprivation of humanitarian aid and other collective punishments that are the responsibility of senior leaders. These are the people least likely to face accountability not just in Israeli courts but in any national court worldwide.

Similarly, the accusations against Hamas’s leaders are focused on the murders, sexual violence and kidnappings of Oct. 7. They align with provisions of the Rome Statute that provide the court with jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute war crimes and crimes against humanity.

By lodging allegations against individuals, the prosecutor moves the world away from the broad and dangerous claims of collective responsibility that have dominated sloganeering since Oct. 7. In neither case does Mr. Khan cast doubt on underlying historical or divisive political views; the charges avoid any language that questions Israel’s legitimacy as a state or claims of Palestinians’ right to self-determination. Instead, the request is an affirmation of the principle that individuals have the power to behave within the bounds of international law and to bear responsibility when they break its gravest rules.

To be sure, many people in the United States and Israel will not see it this way. House Republicans have already introduced legislation threatening to impose sanctions on Mr. Khan and his team of investigators and lawyers if they were to investigate or prosecute. Some Israelis will no doubt say that the prosecutor is acting like a friend to Hamas. And the prosecution, even if the court approves the warrants, has extraordinary barriers to surmount, not least that it cannot carry out prosecutions until the defendants are in custody in The Hague. Israel is not a member of the court and does not recognize its jurisdiction within its borders or in Gaza.

Courtroom arguments will determine the prosecution’s fate. Israeli officials may argue that the court’s jurisdiction should not extend to them because there is no Palestinian state capable of accepting its jurisdiction, even though the court previously decided otherwise. They may also contend that Hamas’s violence and use of Gazans as human shields bear the blame for the catastrophic humanitarian situation and that they do everything possible to minimize harm to civilians and ensure aid deliveries.

Let Israel argue all of this in court or start investigations to demonstrate that it has legitimate national processes to hold accountable the most senior officials responsible for I.C.C. crimes, thereby making a court prosecution unwarranted.

There is a global cost to opposing the International Criminal Court. With U.S. and European support, the court is seeking to prosecute President Vladimir Putin for alleged crimes in Ukraine. The court promotes the global interest in accountability for the worst crimes under international law. Attacks on it only benefit those who, like Mr. Putin, seek to delegitimize its existence.

The court must do its work of demonstrating the promise of global justice and individual accountability for the recognition of victims on both sides. It can show protesters around the world that international institutions can still function and help bring about justice. Both Israelis and Palestinians are owed it.

David Kaye is a law professor at the University of California, Irvine.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .