On September 18, the United Nations Common Meeting handed a decision requiring Israel to finish its unlawful occupation of Palestinian territories inside one yr. The vote, which ended with 124 votes in favour, 12 in opposition to and 43 abstentions, was interpreted by some as a significant victory for Palestinian advocacy.
Nevertheless, the truth that 54 international locations (excluding Israel) – roughly 28% of all member states – didn’t assist the decision can’t be ignored. Not solely does it symbolize a failure of ethical braveness, it additionally highlights the pervasive hypocrisy that continues to have an effect on international governance. In truth, it displays the continued efforts to weaken worldwide establishments to make sure impunity for Israel.
The decision calls on Israel to “instantly stop its unlawful presence within the occupied Palestinian territories”. It reiterated the findings of the Worldwide Courtroom of Justice, which dominated in July that Israel’s occupation is against the law, as are its settlements in occupied Palestinian land, have to be dismantled, and that Israel must be compensated for the injury it has brought about. individuals.
Worldwide regulation could be very clear on occupation: it’s a legal act. The consensus amongst worldwide students emphasizes that occupiers can not invoke the suitable of self-defence in opposition to the individuals they occupy—an argument utilized by Israel to justify its heinous genocide.
Within the context of this World Courtroom ruling, voting in opposition to and abstaining from voting on UN Common Meeting resolutions can’t be thought-about merely political neutrality. By selecting to not assist resolutions that reaffirm the illegality of the Israeli occupation, these international locations implicitly assist Israel’s actions and contribute to the perpetuation of a established order marked by brutal oppression and struggling. Additionally they blatantly ignore and thereby assault the provisions of worldwide regulation.
It is very important do not forget that this vote passed off amid ongoing Israeli aggression in Gaza and the West Financial institution, wherein almost 42,000 Palestinians, most of them ladies and kids, have been killed and greater than 100,000 injured. In January, the Worldwide Courtroom of Justice issued a preliminary ruling that Israel’s actions in Gaza “appeared” to have violated the Genocide Conference. This genocidal violence is a direct results of Israel’s decades-long unlawful occupation of Palestinian land.
The assault by Hamas on October 7 final yr can’t be seen in isolation. It has its roots in a long time of brutal occupation that left Palestinians trapped in what many say is the world’s largest open-air jail, the place systemic oppression, displacement and violence outline the lives of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. Understanding this context is vital to addressing the underlying points and transferring towards simply and lasting options that respect the dignity and humanity of all these affected.
The US, one among 12 international locations that voted in opposition to the decision, has lengthy supported Israel’s occupation and shipped billions of {dollars}’ price of weapons to its navy round October. The US has repeatedly been accused of Israeli conflict crimes and crimes in opposition to humanity for its function in arming Israel.
Oddly, though Choose Sarah Cleveland, who represented the US on the ICJ, voted in favor of the July ruling, the U.S. consultant to the United Nations voted “no.”
What makes the U.S. place much more problematic is that it has taken precisely the alternative stance on occupation elsewhere. In 2022, when Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine and occupied components of its territory, Washington was on the forefront of world condemnation and offered billions of {dollars} in navy and monetary assist to the Ukrainian military. This set a disturbing double normal, and different international locations allied with the US adopted go well with.
The UK, for instance, expressed “critical concern” over the January ruling by the Worldwide Courtroom of Justice rejecting genocide fees in opposition to Israel. On September 18, it selected to abstain. Regardless of warnings from its personal authorized advisers that British weapons may very well be used to commit human rights abuses in Gaza, the British authorities has continued to ship arms to the Israeli military, suspending solely 30 of 350 arms export licenses.
Like Washington, London has offered important navy assist to Ukraine’s battle in opposition to the Russian occupation and wholeheartedly helps investigations into conflict crimes dedicated by Russian forces.
Germany additionally abstained from the vote on September 18, one other instance of a rustic in a disturbing scenario. As a significant arms provider to Israel, Germany faces critical accusations of selling genocide, complicating its ethical standing and calling into query its dedication to human rights. His authorities has introduced plans to intervene in the primary hearings of the Worldwide Courtroom of Justice’s genocide case in opposition to Israel, flatly rejecting accusations of genocide with out enough justification.
Whereas making an attempt to dam authorized proceedings in opposition to Israel, Germany has accelerated its personal justice system’s investigation into conflict crimes dedicated by Ukraine.
Different international locations in Europe, Latin America, Asia and the Pacific, primarily the US and NATO allies, additionally voted in opposition to or abstained from the UNGA decision, prioritizing geopolitical issues over worldwide regulation and ethics.
The inherent hypocrisy of those geopolitical alliances raises critical questions concerning the integrity of the worldwide authorized framework. Why are violations dedicated by Israel, an ally of Western powers, met with silence or insufficient condemnation, whereas others should not? This inconsistency not solely deepens the divide between the West and the World South, it additionally undermines the legitimacy of worldwide regulation and its capability to forestall atrocities.
The extra Israel is protected by these international locations, the extra it ignores worldwide regulation with out concern of the results, and the extra brutal and lethal its abuses change into. Its violations don’t solely have an effect on the Palestinian individuals. This mannequin of impunity undermines elementary ideas of justice and accountability and encourages others to interact in such crimes.
43 international locations abstained from voting on the UN Common Meeting decision, whereas 11 different international locations opposed it, sending a transparent message to the world: “There aren’t any guidelines.” This alarming development reveals that international locations with highly effective militaries can act unilaterally and ignore worldwide regulation with none penalties. If we fail to cease this erosion of the authorized system, we threat falling right into a world dominated by the “regulation of the jungle.”
Such a breakdown in worldwide regulation would have catastrophic penalties for human civilization. It is going to create an environment wherein the highly effective can trample on the rights of the weak, perpetuating cycles of violence and oppression. The obvious hypocrisy within the international response to the Palestinian plight exemplifies this harmful disregard for justice and accountability. As these 54 international locations proceed to show a blind eye to critical violations, the foundations of the worldwide order are threatened.
To revive confidence in worldwide regulation, states should put human rights forward of strategic pursuits. This requires the worldwide group to type a united entrance. International locations should maintain one another accountable for his or her actions and converse out in opposition to violations, no matter political affiliation or alliance. A real dedication to justice requires constant, non-biased utility of the ideas of worldwide regulation.
Solely via decisive motion can the beliefs of worldwide regulation be upheld and the world escape a darkish, lawless future.
The views expressed on this article are the creator’s personal and don’t essentially replicate the editorial place of Al Jazeera.
