International Legal Issues on the Palestine-Israel Relationship - Essay Example

Hillary Clinton, Secretary of October 29, Purpose: Current International Legal Issues on the Palestine-Israel relationship. This is an analysis of the legality of the question of self determination that has sparked several long lasting conflict between Israel and Palestine. Background The Palestine-Israel conflict is one of the most sensitive global issues today. This is due to the legal complications that arise from Israeli’s occupation on its present territory and the intricacies surrounding the ownership of the Gaza strip and the West Bank on the Israel –Palestine border (Antonius 7). The international legal tenets of self-determination loom large over the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. One of the questions that have long been without a clear answer is whether Palestine is entitled to independence and self determination in an area it deems to be its ancestral homeland. International law does not allow nations to disregard peremptory norms, which are the international embodiment of the principles of justice and fairness (Caplan 12). The democratic principle of self-determination is one of the peremptory norms guarded under international law. In 1918 the British occupied the Palestinian territory and the following year, Palestine came under Class A Mandate. Until that mandate was terminated, it was agreed that the country’s independence would be provisionally recognized. A White Paper was issued in 1939 which formally stated the British Government approval of the formation of an independent Palestinian State in which both Arabs and Jews would “share in government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community were safeguarded” (Scobbie, Hibbin and Siegman 4). In 1948, Palestine’s population was made up of 74% Arabs and 26% Jews. It was therefore expected that Palestine would have become an independent state at the end of the Mandate, but this expectation did not materialize. Rather, the State of Israel was proclaimed in 1948. Arab states rejected the formation of Israel and the partition of Palestine, but the rest of the world welcomed the newest nation into the world (Tessler 33). The establishment of an independent Israel nation saw the beginning of an Israeli-Palestinian conflict that has never been resolved to this day. In 1993, the Oslo Peace Accord was signed between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) (Antonius 10). The Peace Accord grated Palestinians an interim period of five years of self rule. The main issues covered in the signing of the accord included transfer of power to Palestinians. This transfer of power and responsibilities from Israel to Palestine included control over the West Bank and Gaza (Lubell 3). This was meant to enable Palestinians to control their own affairs. The Accord granted Israel full control of its borders and Jerusalem, which had been one of the areas under contention in the conflicts between the two countries. In the same accord, the PLO formally recognized the right of Israel as a state to exist in peace (Caplan 20). Both countries formally agreed to conduct peace talks so as to end many years of conflict between them. Since 2000, Israeli occupation of the west Bank and Gaza flamed several armed conflicts between the two countries (Antonius 17). In 2008, Israeli troops carried out an offensive against Hamas on the Gaza strip. The offensive finally came to an end after three weeks on January 17, 2009 after Israel and Hamas both announced a ceasefire. During the 3 week offensive 1,300 Palestinians, mostly civilians lost their lives. 400 of these were children. Another 5000 received injuries. Of these 1800 were children and 800 were women. The Israelis lost 13 people, 3 of whom were civilians. Human lives were not the only ones destroyed in this offensive. Much of the Gaza strip was left in ruins. Thousands were left homeless and without food and water (Scobbie, Hibbin and Siegman 14). The west, and in particular were in full support of Israel’s overall objective. However, the horrific nature of the aftermath of the offensive left many appalled by Israel’s tactics. The U.S. in particular put much pressure on Israel to bring to an end the humanitarian crisis that had emerged after it launched its offensive on Hamas on the Gaza strip. However, the international community has not been very vocal in the Israel-Palestine conflict mainly due to the legal intricacies involved (Schmaglowski 5). Current Status The prospects of an Israeli-Palestinian peace are not so good at the moment. The tensions between the two countries, especially about the ownership of the controversial Gaza strip remain as high as ever (Lubell 9). Every single ceasefire that have been declared between the two nations has always been fragile, meaning that although the conflict may have subsided, the two sides are normally ready to attack ach other at the slightest provocation. The result is normally loss of civilian lives and damage to property. Israel believes that the Palestine Mandate was formulated with the objective of creating a Jewish State in Palestine. In the eyes of Israel, the question of elf determination is not existent since they are the rightful occupants of Palestine. On the other hand, Palestinians believe that Israel’s occupation of Palestine is illegal and its continued pursuit of the Gaza strip should be stopped. They also want Israel to return Palestinian territory, which to them, was taken forcefully with little regard to concession laws (Darkazally 85). The United Nation’s General Assembly declared in its Resolution 2625 passed in 1970 that: Every state has the duty to promote, through joint and separate action, realization of the principle of equal rights and self determination of peoples, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter, and to render assistance to the United Nations in carrying out the responsibilities entrusted to it by the Charter, regarding the implementation of the principle” (Scobbie, Hibbin and Siegman 4). This resolution places the burden of obligation on Israel requiring it to negotiate peacefully with Palestine under a “peremptory duty to promote Palestinian self-determination” (Milton-Edwards 13). The duty to respect and promote self-determination binds all nations recognized under the U.N., in which Israel and Palestine are part of. After the Six-Day war, the UN’s Security Council passed a resolution that made the acquisition of territory as a result of war inadmissible. The resolution had a default setting which would make it possible for the parties involved to return to status quo ante in case they failed to reach an agreement. Israel’s occupation guiding principles are based on the assumption that if no peace agreement materializes between the two countries, the UN’s default setting allows it to all of Palestinian lands. If Israel tries to intentionally block a peaceful solution with Palestine, this would be considered illegal. Under international law, the occupant of a land annexed during war has the duty to conduct peaceful negotiations with the objective of reaching a peaceful solution (Salinas and Abu Rabia 56). The UN Security Council has over the years been trying to pass resolutions meant to bring to an end the never ending-conflict between Israel and Palestine. The application of the International law in regards to self determination and the rules about acquiring territory through war is important if any resolution to the present predicament is to be reached (Akram, Dumper and Lynk 116). Summary of Facts and Key Considerations Israel and Palestine have been having conflicts since the State of Israel was formed in 1948. This conflict has involved the control of two important areas: the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (Darkazally 105). The main underlying issue is related to Palestinian’s right to self-determination and Israel’s insistence on its own sovereignty. The contemporary international law is unequivocal that the Arab population in Palestine. Therefore any occupation by Israel in Palestinian territory is illegal, and any occupation of Israel by Palestinians is equally illegal (Milton-Edwards 31). The issue of contention is on whom between Israel and Palestine should take control of Gaza and the West Bank. There is need for the quick identification of the places over which Palestine has a right to exercise self-determination. A look at the Palestine Mandate is necessary to come up with terms to bring an end to a conflict that has claimed lives and led to the destruction of infrastructure in both the West Bank and the Gaza strip (Antonius 7). Both Israel and Palestine need to understand and respect each others sovereignty as set out in international laws governing self determination. They both should understand that the acquisition of foreign land through war is not admissible (Salinas and Abu Rabia 76). Therefore, the country that has legal ownership of the Gaza strip and the West Bank should be left to conduct its affairs without external interference. Conclusion The conflict between Palestine and Israel over the control of Gaza and the West Bank has been in existence since the establishment of the Israeli state. International law regards all states as equal and that they should all respect each other’s rights to self determination. It is this issue of self determination that has caused the never-ending fight over control of Gaza and the West Bank. In a 1993 concession between Palestine and Israel, both states already agreed to respect each other’s sovereignty. However, little has been achieved in finding a solution to the West Bank and Gaza Strip contention as the two countries lay legal claim to the two areas. A through and honest analysis of international law should be conducted by parties involved in the conflict so as to find a lasting solution. Works Cited Akram, Susan, Michael Dumper, Michael Lynk and Iain Scobbie. International Law and the Israeli-Palestine Conflict. London: Routledge, 2010. Antonius, Rachad. The Relevance of Principles of International Law to the Israel-Palestine Conflict. 2003. Web. October 29, 2011. http://www.ieim.uqam.ca/IMG/pdf/Int_l_Law_and_the_Israeli-Pales.pdf Caplan, N. The Israel-Palestine Conflict: Contested Histories. New York: Wiley Blackwell, 2011. Print. Darkazally, Anwar. “U.S. Intervention in the Israeli-Palestine Conflict: Israeli Intervention in US middle East Policy?” Palestine-Israel Journal, 2004, Vol. 11, No.2, pp.76-105. Lubell, N. “Key Issues in the Israeli-Palestine Conflict from the Viewpoint of International Law”. Paper prepared for the independent panel appointed to review the impartiality of the BBC’s coverage of the conflict. 2006. Web. Web. October 29, 2011. http://www.bbcgovernorsarchive.co.uk/docs/reviews/lubell_law_report.pdf Schmaglowski, Dieter. The Israeli-Palestine Conflict: A Hopeless Case for U.S. Policy in the Middle East? 2007. Web. October 29, 2011. http://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=5408 Scobbie, Iain, Sarah Hibbin and Henry Siegman. The Israel-Palestine Conflict in International Law: Territorial Issues. The U.S./ Middle East Project. 2009. Print. Milton-Edwards, Beverly. The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: A People’s War. Oxon: Routledge, 2009. Print. Salinas, Moises and Hazza Abu Rabia. Resolving the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict; Perspectives in the Peace Process. Amherst, NY: Cambria Press, 2009. Print. Tessler, Mark. A History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1994. Print. Read More