"Israel’s use of force through the occupation with respect to the Gaza Strip and the West Bank has been illegal since 1967." opiniojuris.org
"Given that the Palestinian people have a right to self-determination in international law, Israel has been obliged to terminate this use of force immediately, and every day it has continued, it has been an illegal use of force—an aggression... and a violation of this right"
"approaching Israel’s current military action in Gaza as if it is an isolated incident of the use of force, and asking whether Israel has a right to self-defence in international law justifying this action, is to fundamentally mischaracterize the situation."
"Israel’s current action is actually a re-configuration of the existing use of force it has exercised, in the form of the blockade (with episodic bombing and land incursions) and before that in its original boots-on-the-ground, and settlements... adding new means and methods."
"To say that Israel has somehow a right to do this new, amplified form of an existing use of force in self-defence because of violent acts of resistance to the earlier form of the same use of force... is circular logic."
"Israel never claimed it captured the Gaza Strip and the WB in 1967 because of threats emanating from...there. If there was no original lawful basis for it to use force then...there cannot then be a basis to continue the use of force in response to violent acts of Pal resistance"
There is a logically unstoppable argument in this opinion, and you should read the whole article carefully. opiniojuris.org
"as a matter of international treaty law... provisions purporting to legalize the occupation in Oslo (accords) are void (even if the accords as a general matter remain in force)."
"The (Oslo) accords do not, then, provide a valid treaty-based entitlement on the part of Israel to exercise any authority over the West Bank, nor a reciprocal acceptance by the Palestinian people to such exercise of authority."
Another argument is that "the representatives of the Palestinian people were supposedly offered deals in negotiations, which could have ended the occupation, which they turned down. And that, therefore, somehow Israel can maintain the occupation."
"But according to the law of self-determination, and the use of force, the occupation is existentially illegal and therefore must end for this reason alone."
"Israel has no legal right, then, to insist on concessions from the Palestinian people... in terms of things they have a legal right to... as the price for ending the occupation."
"The Palestinian people may freely agree to some sort of further compromise (beyond the fact that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip is already less than a quarter of the territory of Mandatory Palestine), but if they decide otherwise, this is their legal right in intern'l law."
I am quoting from a brilliant paper with impeccable logic as to the rights of Palestinians and the duty of Israel. I am following these days international law scholars as I used to follow virologists and epidemiologists during the Covid pandemic !
opiniojuris.org
opiniojuris.org
"by choosing to flagrantly disregard compliance with intern'l law on the use of force (and the law of self-determination), Israel ... is not in a position to benefit from the intern'l law framework that permits states to address certain forms of cross-sovereign-border threats."
"Not only did Israel’s own action degrade intern'l law... Also, in doing this it operated an arrangement in a territory which, because of this illegality, rendered inoperable the intern'l legal right states have to defend themselves as far as threats... are concerned."
"Israel did not... inherit a Mandate-era-based entitlement to the remainder of the land beyond its 1948 borders, since it was not the legal continuation of the Mandate and, more fundamentally, there was no such entitlement vested in the Jewish people through the Mandate"
"The alternative security basis for controlling the West Bank and Gaza has no valid intern'l legal basis either. States can only lawfully use force outside their borders for defensive purposes in extremely narrow circumstances... "
"A state cannot use force illegally, precipitating resistance, and then claim it has a right to defend itself against that resistance, even when that resistance goes beyond what is lawful in that regard."
"Israel took advantage of its victory in its illegal use of force in 1967 to maintain control over the Gaza Strip and the West Bank for over half a century, for annexationist purposes that are illegal according to the law on the use of force and the right of self-determination"
"What the world is witnessing now is, essentially, a further extension of this process whereby Israel asserts rights for itself which are not accepted in international law. In this case, then, illegality begets illegality."
"The consequence of Israel originally using force with respect to the Gaza Strip... illegally is that it cannot then extend this force into a more extreme manifestation without this being necessarily part of, and thereby tainted by the illegality of, the original use of force."
"Israel is obliged to end this use of force immediately—a ceasefire in Gaza, and a complete termination of the broader force-enabled siege of the Strip, as well as a complete withdrawal of its authority in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem."
"Because this illegality involves breaches of fundamental rules of international law which have jus cogens and erga omnes status, all other states are in a special legal position, with both negative and positive obligations."
"They (states) are not entirely free in their behaviour in relation to this situation, as if it is only Israel and the Palestinian people that have applicable legal rights and obligations."
"In the first place, they (states) are legally obliged not to recognize as lawful, or provide any aid or assistance to, Israel’s use of force, including through the occupation, in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank."
"This means, necessarily, not affirming that Israel has a right to use this force, and ceasing support, including mil support, to Israel... In the 2nd place, they are obliged to take positive steps to bring the illegal situation to an end. This means...calling for a ceasefire"
"At the moment, some states behave as if they are free to cherry-pick discrete aspects of illegality—commonly, the purported annexation of East Jerusalem...which they object to... while staying silent on, and, even, supporting, other more fundamental aspects of illegality."
"States need to face up to the more comprehensive nature of the legal position they are in, and what this means for their policies, statements and actions."
"If, as these states affirm, international law is indeed law, then by definition it is universally-applicable, and not simply something to observe insofar as it aligns with their political preferences."
The author of the paper is "currently acting as Senior Counsel and Legal Advisor to the League of Arab States in the current Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory... Advisory Opinion case before the ICJ."
Loading suggestions...