The following article was published by my friend, Dr Chandra Muzaffar, on January 4th, 2023, after the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) voted to refer Israel to the International Court of Justice over the ongoing occupation of Palestine and associated human-rights violations. It is unlikely that the Israeli government will pay any attention to the determination of the World Court. Even so, Dr Muzaffar believes that the UNGA decision is important.
with Dr Chandra Muzaffar in Kuala Lumper, Malaysia, in 2013
THE UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY DRAGS ISRAEL TO THE WORLD COURT
By Chandra Muzaffar
The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) voted last week to refer Israel to the International Court of Justice (World Court) for its on-going violation of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination in the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza and for adopting measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the holy city of Jerusalem.
Before we analyse the significance of the vote, let us probe the actual voting pattern. 87 states voted to refer Israel to the World Court. This represents almost all the Muslim majority states including those that had recently established diplomatic relations with Israel. It shows that on this issue at least, the diplomatic manoeuvres of Israel and its backers have not helped the Zionist state. Other largely non-Muslim majority states in Latin America, Africa and Asia also endorsed the resolution. It is notable that both China and Russia supported the move to haul Israel before the World Court. 26 countries voted against the UNGA resolution. Among them were of course the US, Britain and a number of other Western states. A huge number — 53 — also abstained. India which at the time of the creation of Israel in 1948 was in the forefront of the struggle to defend the rights of the Palestinians was one of the abstentions. Its growing ties with Israel, especially in the military sphere have often been cited as the main reason for this change in attitude.
The Indian stance does not in any way nullify the significance of the vote for the resolution. The UNGA is asking the highest jurisdictional authority in the world to state its stand on Israel’s conduct as the Occupying Power over lands it has held in its grip for the last 55 years. Right from 1967, the UNGA has viewed Israel not only as an Occupying Power but has also demanded that Israel withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza. Needless to say, Israel has ignored this plea. It is worth observing that this time the UNGA’s request is being made when Israel is led by perhaps its most extreme right-wing government which has pledged to pursue policies that will undermine even further what little is left of the rights of the Palestinian people and demolish even more the Christian and Muslim features of Jerusalem.
By asking the World Court to examine Israeli behaviour in the Occupied Territories, the UNGA is telling Israel that it is under scrutiny. It is holding Israel accountable. It is forcing a rogue state to behave properly —a State that since 1948 has refused to abide by the norms and standards of conduct that all states are expected to uphold.
If the World Court concurs in essence with the UNGA resolution that Israel has violated the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and has attempted to alter the character of Jerusalem, how would the Israeli government under Benjamin Netanyahu respond? Going on the basis of his past and present conduct, it is almost certain that he will ignore the World Court’s position and even rail against the body just as he has condemned the UNGA for its recent resolution. In other words, there will be no change in Israeli behaviour in the Occupied Territories or in Jerusalem. After all, in 2004 the World Court had already ruled that Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories were in breach of international law but Israel continued to expand the settlements which today house about 700,000 Jewish settlers.
But this should not in any way diminish the usefulness of going to the World Court or working through the UNGA. These are important routes to take for at least two reasons. One, they reveal that Israel is the real problem and that it is this problem that has to be resolved in the interest of genuine peace. Two, by harnessing support from UN member states and UN agencies, the Palestinian cause is enhanced. It strengthens the Palestinian position as it confronts not just Israel but its principal backer, the US and a number of European states, sometimes joined by Japan and South Korea.
It is perhaps at this juncture that we should examine briefly Palestine’s relationship with the UN. It has been ambivalent at best. It was the UN under the influence of the US and other Western powers that presided over the unjust partition of historical Palestine in 1948 giving the less than 30% Jewish population two-thirds of the land while the 70% Palestinian majority comprising Muslims and Christians was awarded the remaining one-third. There was no plebiscite to determine how the people — the entire population — felt about the proposed partition. By ignoring the people’s feelings, the UN in effect transgressed its own Charter.
But after Israel seized Gaza and the West Bank including East Jerusalem in 1967, UN resolutions — as we have seen — clearly recognise Palestinians living in those territories as victims of Occupation. It should also be emphasised that through various resolutions the UN continues to recognise the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, national independence and sovereignty. Besides, since November 2012, Palestine is a non-member observer state of the UN General Assembly.
The UN also looks after Palestinian refugees. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) provides education, health relief and social services for over 5 million Palestinian refugees in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria. Gaza and West Bank, including East Jerusalem.
Palestine’s relationship with the UN is one wrapped in obligations, responsibilities, rights and aspirations. It has had its ups and downs. But it should continue to be viewed as one of the many channels through which the Palestinian people seek to secure their justice, freedom and dignity.
Dr Chandra Muzaffar is the president of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST).
Filed under Israel and Palestine, israel and palestine conflict by on Jan 7th, 2023. Comment. 
Friends of Sabeel, Australia, join the rest of the world in distaining the US President’s ‘Deal of the Century’ as a solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict.
The fact that no Palestinian was involved in the formulation of the proposal, nor was present when it was unveiled, is indicative of the fact that the US and Israeli leaders prepared their deal for domestic consumption. It offers nothing to the Palestinian people – no land, no real sovereignty, and no right of return for refugees. It is, as some commentators have suggested, the Monty Python parody of Israel-Palestine peace initiatives.
Friends of Sabeel, Australia, stands with the Palestinian people in the fundamental demands as outlined in the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) program:
- An end to the Israeli Occupation of Palestinian lands
- Equal rights for Arabs in Israel
- The right of return for refugees
No meaningful deal can be made with the Palestinian people that does not address these basic demands.
Father Dave Smith, President of Friends of Sabeel, Australia, said “If Mr Trump wants to make a deal with the Palestinian people, he needs to actually deal with the Palestinian people and their demands. This one-sided parody of a peace initiative does nothing to move us closer to a just settlement of the Israel-Palestine conflict”.
Filed under Israel and Palestine by on Feb 14th, 2020. Comment.
Father Roy writes: Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has refused to comment on the decision, but many observers view it as a deliberate impediment to the two-state solution. Also note: U.S. condemns Israel’s settlement expansion plan in Jerusalem, West Bank and Hillary Clinton warns Israel on settler homes. Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert calls the decision A slap in Obama’s face… JPost. The International Debate about the Holy Land issues is growing more robust every day. Peace, Roy
source: news.antiwar.com……
Israel Authorizes Controversial New Settlements in Revenge for Palestine’s UN Bid
The location of the new settlements are intended to break the contiguity of Palestinian territory in the West Bank, negating two-state solution
by John Glaser, November 30, 2012
Following the overwhelming UN vote for implicit recognition of Palestinian statehood, Israel has authorized the construction of 3,000 more housing units in East Jerusalem and the West Bank and is also speeding up the processing of 1,000 additional planning permissions.
According to the New York Times, the bulk of the new housing units are set to be built “in a controversial area of East Jerusalem known as E1, where Jewish settlements have long been seen as the death knell for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”
Other parts of the construction projects will connect Jerusalem and the illegal Jewish settlement of Maale Adumim, and “therefore make it impossible to connect the Palestinian cities of Ramallah and Bethlehem to Palestinian neighborhoods of East Jerusalem.”
Connecting Jerusalem to Maale Adumim “will create geographical continuity between the capital and its northern suburb, a move that the US and European countries have warned against,” Haaretz reported.
The Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has refused to comment on the decision, but many observers view it as a deliberate impediment to the the two-state solution, in revenge for the Palestinians’ peaceful diplomatic efforts to national self-determination at the UN, which was supported by an overwhelming international consensus.
Israel, and especially the administration of Benjamin Netanyahu, simply refuses to accept a Palestinian state. Their efforts, including this latest settlement authorization, to colonize Palestinian territory and undermine the viability of a Palestinian state is representative of their refusal to give up the prospect of a Greater Israel with full sovereignty over all of historic Palestine.
Father Roy writes: They really are up-to-date in Chapel Hill, N.C. A few years ago, a public forum on a subject related to Israel would not have been allowed. There would have been no ads like this one to debate. The ad in question was paid for by the Church of Reconciliation, a Presbyterian Church which teaches: “Public debate is critical to a democratic society.” Peace, Roy
Bus ad policy scrutinized at Chapel Hill Town Council forum
By Holly West | The Daily Tar Heel
At a public forum Thursday night, more than 30 local residents discussed Chapel Hill’s controversial bus advertising policy, with some calling for the end of political advertising.
The forum was held in response to a petition filed on Sept. 12 urging the Chapel Hill Town Council to revise its transit advertising policy after some residents were offended by the content of a widespread ad.The ad — which runs on Chapel Hill Transit buses — that calls for an end to U.S. military aid to Israel.
It was paid for by the local Church of Reconciliation as part of the “Be On Our Side” national campaign, which argues foreign aid to Israel is perpetuating the conflict between Israel and Palestine.
The council did not make a decision at the forum, but many residents voiced their opposition to the ad and others like it.
West End Wine Bar owner Jared Resnick spoke at the public forum on behalf of several businesses on Franklin Street.
“Collectively, we share a strong belief that these ads are negative, detrimental and just overall bad for our community,” he said.
But some residents fear putting restrictions on ads would stifle free speech.
Janie Freeman, from the Salaam-Shalom committee at the Church of Reconciliation, said the purpose of placing the ad was to bring about discussion on the issue.
“Public debate is critical to a democratic society, and public debate can take place on buses,” she said. “It has been pointed out that the First Amendment would not be needed if it only protected speech that is agreeable to all.”
Chris Brook, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina, agreed that the town should not restrict speech on bus ads.
“There’s a lot of danger in attempting to bar ads because people find them offensive,” he said.
But forum attendee Bill Carr said discourse should happen in places such as the Town Hall.
“This is a wonderful forum for public discussion,” he said. “Buses and subways are not.”
Moving forward, the council will consider a number of options that were proposed at the meeting.
The council could ban political advertising, as suggested in the petition.
“We don’t want people to feel like they are being bullied and then hide behind freedom of speech,” said councilwoman Penny Rich.
The council could also decide to keep the town’s current policy, which many think is working well.
“At the end of the day, I don’t want to live in a community where, when faced with controversy, we shut down the dialogue,” councilman Lee Storrow said. Another option would be to end bus advertising altogether. “What has been made clear this evening is that there is not a political or religious ad that would not be found offensive by someone,” councilwoman Donna Bell said.
Filed under Israel and Palestine, israel and palestine articles, israel and palestine conflict by on Oct 12th, 2012. Comment.
Recent Comments