In Part 2 of my series on my mission to Israel, I discussed what I learned about international law. I announced that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) will soon issue an opinion on the status of the West Bank, known as Judea and Samaria. control On Friday, unsurprisingly, the ICJ ruled that Israel was occupying the territory in violation of international law.
There is this Single opinion It is combined with 14 separate court documents. (The court has 15 members.) It saves time and allows you to move on to the only member who dissents from the overall decision. Ugandan Judge Julia Sebutinde. Here is a summary of her comments:
The court has jurisdiction to address requests for advisory opinions. However, in order to exercise discretion carefully and maintain the integrity of the judicial role, the court should refrain from issuing requested advisory opinions. Advisory Opinion Omit historical background It is important to understand the multifaceted Israeli-Palestinian conflict. One-sided “forensic audit” The advisory opinion on Israel’s compliance with international law does not reflect a balanced and fair examination of the relevant legal and factual issues. It is essential to understand the historical nuances of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, particularly the parties’ competing territorial claims in the former British Mandate of Palestine, and their previous and ongoing efforts to resolve the conflict through the negotiation framework identified by the Security Council. The Court There is a lack of adequate, accurate, balanced and reliable information. In order to ensure a fair assessment and careful conclusion on the disputed issues of fact, the advisory opinion not only avoids Israel’s consent to the court’s resolution of the relevant issues, but also It could potentially jeopardize the existing internationally recognized and legally binding negotiating framework for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.— The advisory opinion contains several shortcomings, particularly with regard to its answer to question 2. Namely, the court’s proposed timetable for Israel’s withdrawal from the occupied territories is impracticable and It ignores the need to balance agreements made in existing negotiating frameworks, security threats to Israel, and competing sovereignty claims.—The Court’s application of the principle of full reparations is inappropriate to the circumstances of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.—The Court misapplied the law of occupation and adopted presumptions inherent in the General Assembly question without prior critical analysis of the relevant issues, including the application of the uti possidetis juris principle to the territories of the former British Mandate, Israel’s border issues and competing sovereignty claims, and the nature of Palestinian self-determination and its relationship to Israel’s rights and security concerns.—The only way to a permanent solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is through a negotiation framework outlined in the United Nations and bilateral agreements.
Sebutinde captures my understanding of the proceedings at the ICJ precisely: a unilateral effort to use legal principles to force Israel to surrender to a complicated diplomatic situation. It is a myth that some elite lawyers in The Hague can resolve issues that Israel and Palestine have been grappling with for decades with in an opinion.
You may not think of Uganda as a staunch defender of Israel, but Sebutinde has consistently challenged various rulings made by the ICJ against Israel in relation to the Gaza Strip. Unfortunately, Judge Sarah Cleveland, who was appointed to the court by President Biden, Agreed With the majority.
Robert Nicholson The Wall Street Journal Provides background on Sebutinde that may explain her case.
Even more interesting is the phenomenon represented by Judge Sebutinde. She is an African woman steeped in Pentecostal Christianity who feels a natural affinity with one side of the conflict. If Judge Salam’s Muslim identity shapes his views, Judge Sebutinde’s Christianity undoubtedly shapes hers. She is not an alien. In a major geopolitical development of the past century, American missionaries spread evangelical Christianity throughout Africa, Asia, and Latin America, and with it the famous evangelical Zionist slant. The political consequences are only now becoming apparent.
I agree with Robertson’s conclusion.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict must be resolved through a political process based on negotiations between the parties, not through a judicial settlement in The Hague, Judge Sebutinde wrote. She is a courageous person who has broken with her colleagues in insisting on the legitimacy of Jewish rights in all Mandate Palestine. She cites legal documents and principles that justify these rights, recounts the history of Palestinian resistance, and points to the Jewish presence that goes back to ancient times. “Israel is not a colonizer,” she wrote.
Judge Sebutinde also points out how the “group of Palestinian states” has hijacked institutions like the ICJ to create on paper what they cannot build on the ground. This group of states speaks the language of law, but its goals and motivations are far removed from the law. After rejecting seven peace proposals and mismanaging the West Bank and Gaza, the Palestine Liberation Organization has been subject to a multifaceted legal Intifada It was designed to change public opinion and force action from the UN Security Council.
So far, President Biden has been quite firm on Israel, but that could change. He is limping along, no longer seeking the nomination or trying to win votes in a general election. And given his deteriorating mental capacity, it is unclear who actually makes the decision. Whichever committee decides, he will now have to choose how to respond to the ICJ’s decision. The president can condemn the decision and side with Israel, for the reasons Sebutinde explained. Or he can call for sanctions. Or he can do nothing.
Vice President Harris, who is likely to be the Democratic nominee, may or may not agree with President Biden. If there is some agreement between them, it could create some confusion and embarrassment in our foreign policy. This six-month boiteux period, combined with the president’s declining mental capacity, will present many new difficulties for a single administration.
