Palestine and the role of international laws and conventions

by Dr Chandra Muzaffar

Public hearings in the case South Africa v. Israel, view of the ICJ courtroom on 16 May 2024 [UN Photo/ICJ-CIJ/Wendy van Bree]

Israel’s wanton aggression against Lebanon has overshadowed an important decision by the UN General Assembly. On Wednesday, 18 September, 124 nations voted in favour of a General Assembly resolution to end Israel’s illegal occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem in Palestine. The resolution was prompted by an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the world’s highest judicial body, issued on 19 July, which reiterated that Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories is unlawful. The ICJ opinion was undoubtedly influenced by Israel’s blatant genocide in Gaza and its oppression and violence in the West Bank. The UN General Assembly resolution gave Tel Aviv 12 months to withdraw from the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Given Israel’s track record, no one should expect the occupation state to abide by the General Assembly resolution. Nonetheless, the 124 nations which endorsed the resolution should go all out to ensure that the resolution is implemented. They represent almost two-thirds of the total membership of the UN. Their vote, viewed collectively, is the voice of the vast majority of the human family. The huge public demonstrations held around the world over the course of the past year against Israel’s genocide and for the right of the Palestinians to have their own sovereign, independent state in accordance with UN resolutions, attest to the overwhelming support that the Palestinian quest for self-determination enjoys among the people of the world.

The 124 member-states of the UN supporting the latest General Assembly resolution on this issue should remember that the ICJ opinion that underscores it requires member states not to recognise “the unlawful presence of Israel in the OPT” and not to render aid or assistance to Israel in maintaining its illegal occupation. Translated into tangible action, the 124 states should appeal to the five veto wielding members of the UN Security Council not to use their veto to repudiate the UNGA vote when the issue is brought to the Council for its endorsement. Needless to say, the resolution can only be enforced by the Council.

If there is any indication that the veto is going to be used to deny the will of the majority of the UN membership — and thus the majority of the people of the world — the endorsers of the General Assembly resolution should establish a committee to explore ways by which the resolution can be rendered meaningful.

In doing so, they should keep in mind that while “advisory”, the laws upon which the ICJ opinion is based are binding on UN member states.

Countries such as South Africa, Indonesia, Malaysia and Brazil can be part of such a committee. The UN Secretary-General will also be a crucial member. Apart from organising a permanent ceasefire, the Committee can ensure that food, fuel, medicines and other essentials are readily available to the people of Gaza and other parts of Palestine. The proposed Committee should also facilitate the release of all hostages presently held by Hamas. Most of all, the Committee should lay out a framework for the resolution of all conflicts between Israel and Palestine, and Israel and its neighbours. Final recommendations should be presented to the UN General Assembly for its approval.

Such approval would signal that the General Assembly — not the Security Council — is the body within the UN that decides on fundamental issues of war and peace. This is the empowerment of the General Assembly that we should work towards, as it will give hope to people everywhere that international laws and conventions have an indispensable role to play in global affairs.