On September 18, the United Nations Common Meeting (UNGA) adopted a decision calling for Israel to terminate its unlawful occupation of Palestinian territory inside one yr. The vote, which concluded with 124 in favour, 12 in opposition to, and 43 abstained, has been interpreted by some as a big triumph for Palestinian advocacy.
But, the truth that 54 nations (excluding Israel) – constituting about 28 p.c of all member states – didn’t again the decision can’t be ignored. It not solely signifies a failure of ethical braveness but additionally underscores a pervasive hypocrisy that continues to form world governance. Actually, it displays persevering with efforts to erode the worldwide regime in an effort to guarantee impunity for Israel.
The decision in query demanded that Israel “brings to an finish at once its illegal presence within the Occupied Palestinian Territory”. It reiterated the findings of the Worldwide Court docket of Justice (ICJ), which dominated in July that Israel’s occupation was unlawful, that its settlements on occupied Palestinian land are additionally unlawful and should be dismantled, and that it must pay reparations for damages incurred by the Palestinians.
Worldwide regulation is sort of clear on the query of occupation: it’s a legal act. A consensus amongst worldwide students underscores that an occupier can’t invoke the fitting of self-defence in opposition to the individuals it occupies – an argument Israel has employed to justify its nefarious genocidal actions.
Within the context of this ruling by the World Court docket, voting in opposition to and abstaining from voting on the UNGA decision can’t be dismissed as mere political neutrality. By selecting to not help a decision that re-affirms the illegality of the Israeli occupation, these nations implicitly endorse Israel’s actions and contribute to the perpetuation of a established order marked by brutal oppression and struggling. In addition they brazenly disregard and thus assault the provisions of worldwide regulation.
You will need to keep in mind that this vote got here amid a seamless Israeli aggression in opposition to Gaza and the West Financial institution, wherein almost 42,000 Palestinians – nearly all of them ladies and youngsters – have been killed and greater than 100,000 injured. In January, the ICJ issued a preliminary ruling that Isreal is “plausibly” violating the Genocide Conference with its actions in Gaza. This genocidal violence is a direct consequence of the decades-long unlawful Israeli occupation of Palestinian land.
The October 7 assault final yr by Hamas can’t be considered in isolation. It’s rooted in a long time of brutal occupation that has left Palestinians trapped in what many describe because the world’s largest open-air jail, the place systemic oppression, displacement, and violence have outlined hundreds of thousands of Palestinian lives. Understanding this context is important to addressing the underlying points and transferring towards a simply and lasting decision that honours the dignity and humanity of all affected.
One of many 12 nations that voted in opposition to the decision – america – has been a long-time supporter of the Israeli occupation, sending billions value of weapons to its army earlier than and after October. For its position in arming Israel, the US has been repeatedly accused of complicity in Israeli struggle crimes and crimes in opposition to humanity.
Unusually, the US consultant to the UN entered a “no” vote even supposing Choose Sarah Cleveland, who represents the US on the ICJ, voted in favour of all of the courtroom’s opinions within the July ruling.
What makes the US place much more problematic is that it has had the precise reverse stance on occupations elsewhere. In 2022, when Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine and occupied components of its territory, Washington was on the forefront of worldwide condemnation, sending billions in army and monetary help to the Ukrainian military. This has set a troubling double commonplace that different nations allied with the US have additionally adopted.
The UK, for instance, expressed “appreciable considerations” concerning the January ICJ ruling and rejected genocide allegations in opposition to Israel. On September 18, it selected to abstain. Regardless of its personal authorized advisers warning that British weapons could possibly be used for human rights violations in Gaza, the British authorities has continued its arms shipments to the Israeli military, suspending simply 30 out of 350 arms export licences.
Like Washington, London has additionally prolonged important army help for Ukraine in its combat in opposition to Russian occupation and wholeheartedly backed investigations into struggle crimes dedicated by Russian forces.
Germany, which additionally abstained on September 18, is one other instance of a rustic with a troubling place. As a key provider of arms to Israel, Germany faces critical allegations of facilitating the fee of genocide, complicating its ethical standing and elevating questions on its dedication to human rights. Its authorities has introduced plans to intervene in the principle listening to of the genocide case in opposition to Israel on the ICJ, categorically rejecting the accusations of genocide with out substantial justification.
Whereas attempting to dam authorized proceedings in opposition to Israel, Germany has accelerated investigations launched by its personal justice system into struggle crimes dedicated in Ukraine.
Numerous different nations in Europe, Latin America, Asia and the Pacific – largely US and NATO allies – have additionally both voted in opposition to the UNGA decision or abstained, placing geopolitical concerns above worldwide regulation and ethics.
The hypocrisy inherent in these geopolitical alliances raises important questions concerning the integrity of the worldwide authorized framework. Why is it that violations dedicated by Israel, an ally of highly effective Western nations, are met with silence or inadequate condemnation and others will not be? This inconsistency not solely deepens the divisions between the West and the World South, but additionally damages the legitimacy of worldwide regulation and its potential to forestall atrocities.
The extra Israel is shielded by these nations, the extra it flouts worldwide regulation with out worry of penalties and the extra brutal and lethal its abuses develop into. And its violations don’t solely have an effect on the Palestinian inhabitants. This sample of impunity undermines the foundational rules of justice and accountability and encourages others to have interaction in such crimes.
The abstention of 43 nations and the opposition from 11 others relating to the UNGA decision ship a transparent message to the world: there are “no guidelines”. This alarming pattern means that nations with highly effective militaries can act unilaterally, disregarding worldwide regulation with out consequence. If we fail to halt this erosion of the authorized regime, we threat descending right into a world ruled by the “regulation of the jungle”.
Such a breakdown of worldwide regulation would have catastrophic implications for human civilisation. It will foster a local weather the place the highly effective can trample on the rights of the weak, perpetuating cycles of violence and oppression. The hypocrisy evident within the world response to the Palestinian plight exemplifies this harmful disregard for justice and accountability. As these 54 nations proceed to show a blind eye to grave violations, the foundations of worldwide order are threatened.
To revive religion in worldwide regulation, nations should prioritise human rights over strategic pursuits. This requires a unified entrance from the worldwide group. Nations should maintain one another accountable for his or her actions and converse out in opposition to violations, no matter political affiliations or alliances. A real dedication to justice necessitates that the rules of worldwide regulation be utilized constantly and with out bias.
Solely via decisive motion can the beliefs of worldwide regulation be upheld and the world saved from a darkish, lawless future.
The views expressed on this article are the writer’s personal and don’t essentially mirror Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.
