Chr. Michelsen Lecture 2026. Understanding Palestine through different frames - an interview with Ilana Feldman

What can the case of Palestine tell us about the capacities and limits of international humanitarian law? Ilana Feldman, professor at George Washington University, is this year’s Chr. Michelsen lecturer. She argues that the strength of international humanitarian law above all relies on the acquiescence of governments to let it be used.

‘International humanitarian law (IHL) is a set of rules that seeks, for humanitarian reasons, to limit the effects of armed conflict. It protects persons who are not, or are no longer, directly or actively participating in hostilities, and imposes limits on the means and methods of warfare.’ (The International Committee of the Red Cross)

Few contexts have generated as intense debate over the application of international humanitarian law as the Israeli war on Gaza that followed Hamas’ attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. Israeli authorities recently confirmed that over 71.000 Palestinians have been killed since the onslaught of the war on Gaza. Half of them are women and children. Has international humanitarian law been defeated?

Framing Palestine
The question of Palestine has been at the core of Ilana Feldman’s, Professor of Anthropology, History and International Affairs at the George Washington University, research. When she gives the Chr. Michelsen lecture on 12 March, she takes a closer look at how the international community and the law we like to think provides protection to civilians in times of war and conflict plays out in Palestine.

Palestine, at times, seems to represent a unique challenge when it comes to the international community being able to take a united stance for international humanitarian law. It is marred by polarized debates and opposing narratives, poorly hidden behind geopolitical and strategic interests that have no consideration for the well-being of civilians. To come closer to any kind of solution, we must first tackle these questions, argues Feldman: What kind of a problem is Palestine? How can it be understood?

The answer to these questions yields very different and distinct approaches to how various actors, states and organisations frame the matter of Palestine. To illustrate some of the different approaches that have been taken throughout history, Feldman will draw on three examples in her lecture:

-While the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has framed the situation in Palestine as a matter of international humanitarian law, the World Council of Churches framed it as a moral question just as much as a political one. For them, it’s a question of reconciliation. BADIL, a Palestinian rights organization, on the other hand, views the situation in Palestine  fundamentally as an instance of colonialism. They are actively trying to reshape the way in which the question of Palestine is being defined by working to educate international advocates, she says.

These frameworks, and the concrete examples of how different actors frame the question of Palestine, are also important because they clearly connect to ideas about complicity and resolution, which again are clearly connected to each other.

-In face of something that we understand as morally and politically wrong, people often try to avoid being complicit. This is an understandable, even admirable response, but it is also often impossible. One way of dealing with that dilemma is to see this complicity as an opportunity to name our own responsibility in the matter, by making it into a form of politics. And from that starting point, we can start thinking about a resolution. Depending on how the problem has been framed, this resolution will take different forms: Reconciliation is one such framework, decolonization can be another. These different frameworks all suggest different underlying notions of justice, says Feldman.

-The law is not blind
But no matter how you frame the question of Palestine, an elementary issue seems to dominate the debates about Palestine: Can nothing be done to protect civilian Palestinians from suffering?

1.3 million Palestinians in Gaza are in urgent need of shelter, with reports of babies freezing to death. Israel recently bulldozed the UNRWA headquarters, apparently with full immunity.

-We do see egregious violations of international humanitarian law, straight out letter of the law violations. We see that the law is not blind. It does not apply the same to everyone, says Feldman.

She is reluctant to say that international humanitarian law cannot protect people. Yet, she points to clear limitations in the law.

-There is a weakness that is built into the lack of enforcement. No clear mechanisms can force anyone to comply. Ultimately, we have to recognise that the capacity of international humanitarian law relies on the acquiescence of governments to let it be used, she says.