Palestine.. When International Law Becomes Powerless in the Face of Force

When we examine the history of Israel since its establishment, we find that a general approach has remained present in its policies, namely protecting its interests, expanding its influence, imposing new realities on the ground, and then treating international objections as political obstacles that can be overcome.

This approach has appeared clearly in the continuation of settlement activity, the confiscation of land, the expansion of settlements, and the fragmentation of the West Bank, making the establishment of a contiguous and viable Palestinian state more difficult. In its advisory opinion issued in July 2024, the International Court of Justice confirmed the illegality of the continued Israeli presence in the occupied Palestinian territories, and also clearly addressed the policies of settlement, annexation, land confiscation, and forced displacement.

The matter does not stop at the land, but extends to people and their sources of livelihood; there are ongoing reports and testimonies concerning the seizure of land, farms, property, and homes, the eviction of Palestinians from their homes or lands, and then enabling Israeli settlers to use or reside in them. The International Court of Justice itself referred to forced evictions, house demolitions, and restrictions on residence and movement as components of the Israeli policies under its consideration.

Arrests targeting Palestinians from different groups are also increasing, including young people, children, and women, making the issue of detainees an essential part of any serious discussion about peace. There can be no genuine peace while the fate of thousands of detainees remains outside the scope of international oversight.

Jerusalem and the Al-Aqsa Mosque represent another aspect of the conflict over land and identity. The incursions by settlers and extremists into the mosque courtyards, and the performance of Jewish rituals inside it or in its courtyards, alongside restrictions imposed on Muslim access to it at different times, raise Palestinian, Arab, and international concerns about changing the status quo at the first qibla and the third holiest site in Islam.

Here, it is necessary to pause before the idea of “Greater Israel” repeated by extremist Israeli currents, and the maps, slogans, and expansionist ideas associated with it. A map presented by Netanyahu at the United Nations in 2023 sparked widespread controversy after the Palestinian territories appeared within the Israeli conception of the region.

It is not difficult to connect these conceptions with what is happening on the ground in terms of settlement, expansion, and the imposition of a fait accompli; when military and settlement control becomes a permanent reality, the question becomes greater than merely temporary borders and concerns the future of the Palestinian land itself.

If we move to education and upbringing, early military preparation of Israeli youth is openly acknowledged, with programs such as “Gadna” linking school students to military training and preparation for service in the army. Likewise, hate speech and incitement against Arabs and Palestinians are not merely marginal issues, but matters that deserve examination and accountability whenever materials or statements emerge that incite hostility or dehumanize the other side.

The paradox is that Israel has succeeded in establishing peace and normalization relations with a number of Arab countries, followed by relations in the fields of trade, tourism, technology, education, and others. But the danger emerged when normalization became an alternative to resolving the Palestinian issue, so relations with Israel became normal while the occupation, settlement activity, and displacement remained unresolved.

History confirms that the issues of borders, Jerusalem, settlements, and sovereignty have remained unresolved, despite numerous agreements and international resolutions. Therefore, the problem is not merely the signing of an agreement, but the existence of a binding mechanism to implement it and hold those who violate it accountable.

This leads us to the current Gaza agreement. The presence of Egypt, Qatar, Turkey, and the United States as guarantors or mediators is not sufficient on its own; because a political guarantor is not necessarily an executive force capable of compelling the violating party to implement what it has agreed to.

Here, American responsibility becomes particularly evident. The United States is not a country incapable of influencing Israel; it is Israel’s strongest ally and possesses enormous political, military, economic, and diplomatic tools. Therefore, the real question is: Is America using its full influence to compel Israel to comply with what it has agreed to?

The question is not about American capability, but about political will. The United States is capable, if it wishes, of using aid, military support, diplomatic cover, and political relations to pressure Israel.

This question gains greater importance when considering the American veto in the Security Council. The United States has repeatedly used its veto on issues related to Palestine, Israel, and Gaza. In February 2024, Washington blocked a draft resolution calling for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza, and it also used its veto in November 2024 against a draft resolution calling for an immediate, permanent, and unconditional ceasefire.

The veto does not grant Israel legal immunity, but in practice it represents one of the most important forms of diplomatic protection that, in many cases, has prevented the adoption of Security Council resolutions that could increase pressure on Israel.

Here, the crisis of the international system becomes clear: the law exists, resolutions exist, international courts exist, but implementation sometimes comes to a halt before the balance of power and political vetoes.

The problem is not the absence of rules, but the absence of the ability or will to apply them to the powerful in the same way they are applied to others. Therefore, the world can form a unified international position, but it needs to move from statements of condemnation to implementation mechanisms.

As for the roadmap proposed by Trump, and what is associated with it in terms of a “Board of Peace,” a transitional Palestinian administration, an international stabilization force, reconstruction, and gradual disarmament, it is an attempt to move from merely stopping the fighting to reshaping the political and security situation in Gaza. But its success will depend on its ability to deal with the party that refuses to implement the agreement, not merely with the party that agrees to it.

The logical solution is reciprocal and gradual implementation: gradual disarmament, gradual Israeli withdrawal, cessation of operations, international monitoring, and the transfer of administration to a civilian Palestinian authority, so that the agreement does not become a tool for disarming one side while maintaining occupation or military control over the land.

The issue of Palestinian prisoners and detainees remains one of the most important issues that must not be marginalized. Peace cannot simply be a ceasefire while the fate of detainees remains unknown.

Even more seriously, the International Committee of the Red Cross confirms that it has been unable to visit Palestinian detainees in Israeli detention facilities since October 2023, despite its repeated requests for information about their whereabouts and for visits to resume.

This situation raises a serious question: How can the international community speak about human rights and the rule of law while an independent international humanitarian organization is unable to access detainees and verify their conditions?

All of this cannot be separated from the West Bank. If the war in Gaza stops while the confiscation of land, settlement activity, arrests, house demolitions, and displacement continue in the West Bank, this will not be comprehensive peace, but rather a freezing of one front while leaving the other front open.

Here, the question of double standards arises: Why does the international community’s reaction differ from one situation to another? Why do some cases of occupation lead to broad international sanctions and pressure, while the Israeli occupation has continued for decades despite accumulated international resolutions?

The issue is the application of one standard to everyone. If occupation is illegal when carried out by one state, it must be illegal when carried out by another state. And if targeting civilians, displacing them, or confiscating their land is a crime or a violation of international law in one place, it cannot become acceptable elsewhere because of political alliances.

Nevertheless, Egypt remains in an exceptional position, by virtue of its geographical location, historical role, long experience in mediation, and direct relationship with the Gaza Strip. Therefore, its role should not be limited to mediation for a ceasefire, but should extend to protecting the Palestinian cause from being transformed into merely a humanitarian issue, and keeping it as a political and legal issue concerning the occupation and the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination.

In the end, the Palestinian issue does not suffer from a lack of agreements, resolutions, or peace initiatives; rather, it suffers from a crisis of implementation.