Time to wake up if world committed to peace, justice

The United Nations top court announced the decision on Friday concerning the 230-plus settlements that have been built in the West Bank, including East al-Quds, since the regime’s occupation of the Palestinian territory in 1967.

The court noted that the construction and existence of the structures on the territory amounted to its “de facto annexation” as well as possible “discrimination and apartheid.”

Though non-binding and of simply advisory nature, the court’s recommendations mount further legal pressure on the occupying entity, and are hoped by Palestinians and its supporters to be adopted by the UN General Assembly and Security Council.

To shed more light on the issue, we reached out to Hossein Askari an Economist and Emeritus Professor of Business and International Affairs at George Washington University.

Following is the full text of the interview:

Would you please elaborate a little on what happened in the ICJ recently and its history? 

In 2022, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a resolution asking the International Court of Justice (ICJ for an advisory opinion on the legal consequences arising from the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories in the aftermath of 1967, including the ways in which the policies of Israel affect the legal status of the occupation.

The ICJ in its opinion said Israel’s decades-long occupation of Palestinian land is “unlawful” and should be brought to an end “as rapidly as possible.” Israel has occupied the West Bank, including East Jerusalem (al-Quds) since 1967, and has built and expanded illegal settlements. It said Israel is under an obligation to cease immediately all new settlement activities, and to evacuate all settlers from the occupied Palestinian territory.

But please note that the opinion of the ICJ has no force of law.  It is an advisory opinion. The United Nations General Assembly (193 member states) cannot use force to restore the rights of Palestinians.

What was Israel’s response to this ruling?

“The Jewish people are not occupiers in their own land, including in our eternal capital Jerusalem (al-Quds) nor in Judea and Samaria (West Bank), our historical homeland,” Netanyahu said on X. “No absurd opinion in The Hague can deny this historical truth or the legal right of Israelis to live in their own communities in our ancestral home,” he added.

Netanyahu’s reaction oozes with arrogance and shows contempt towards the UN and its important institution, the ICJ. Some UN members will be offended to say the least.

As you told the ICJ ruling has no force of law. How should the Israeli regime be forced to respect international rules?

To get dramatic results for Palestinians, it is up to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). Yes, the UNSC has the power to enforce this opinion of the ICJ, which are binding on all UN members.  UN Charter’s Article 25 states that members agree to accept and carry out the Security Council’s decisions. The Security Council can use enforcement measures such as: economic sanctions, arms embargoes, financial penalties, travel bans, severance of diplomatic relations, blockades and most importantly collective military action to force the decision of the UNSC.

But as the world has painfully learned, the UNSC is a political institution dominated by five permanent members who have the instrument of the veto at their disposal. And when it comes to Israel, the United States of America has abused its veto power to protect Israel’s transgressions and undermine the institution and the collective will of its membership. The United States has used its veto power about 40 times to block UN Security Council resolutions that were critical of Israel.

In short, we should not hold our breath that the UNSC will do the right thing and vote to enforce the ICJ’s opinion as the U.S. would be sure to veto it and if by a miracle it chose not to do so, it could easily prevail on the United Kingdom to use its veto instead.

If the world is committed to peace and justice, it’s time to wake up. The United Nations has been hobbled by the structure of its Security Council. Each of five countries can negate the will the remaining 192 members of the body. And when it comes to issues pertaining to Israel, the United States is to blame—U.S. presidents and members of Congress blindly support Israel with arms, money and political support because of the power of the Jewish lobby in the United States. The lobby uses its money to ruthlessly press its pro-Israel agenda. Muslim countries and especially the rich Arab countries of the Persian Gulf can use their money and oil to counter the Jewish lobby, but they do almost nothing. They must stand up to the United States—recall their ambassadors to Washington and expel all American troops from their soil—until Palestinians receive justice. Otherwise nothing dramatic will happen.

What can be the marginal effects of the recent unbinding ruling of the ICJ?

Still the ICJ decision will have important marginal effects in a number of areas because countries will want to reduce their exposure to Israel. First, I believe more countries will recognize a Palestinian state, something that is at least symbolic, while others will downgrade their diplomatic relations with Israel. Second, more suppliers of military hardware, principally those in Europe, will scale back their arms sales to Israel. Third, I think that Arab countries of the Persian Gulf will reduce their intelligence cooperation with Israel lest they be exposed to domestic criticism. Fourth I believe that all future recognition of Israel will be frozen in place for the foreseeable future. Fifth, and most important, I am hopeful that Arab countries will in short time take up a united stand against Israel—on severing trade and diplomatic relations—and work behind the scenes to encourage the United States to change its policies when it comes to Israel.

In short, I think that this was a welcome decision by the ICJ. However, it will not immediately produce the dramatic results that any reasonable human being would be happy with—a viable Palestinian state, with reparations to Palestinians for their loss of property and suffering all these years. But it is another important brick encircling Israel and the United States and shaming Arab countries.