BICOM

What happened: On Friday a UN Special Committee voted in favour of a Palestinian motion to have the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague draft an advisory opinion about the ongoing Israeli occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

• The ICJ will be asked to rule whether the Israeli occupation is not a temporary situation but instead constitutes de facto annexation.
• The motion was supported by ninety-eight countries, including Israel’s regional allies; Egypt, Jordan and the UAE.
• Seventeen countries opposed the motion, including the US, Germany, Canada, Australia and the Czech Republic.
• A further fifty-two countries abstained, including the UK, several other European countries, India, Japan and South Korea.
• Israel’s Ambassador to the UN Gilad Erdan said during the debate, “No organisation is going to decide that the Jewish people is an occupying power in the land of our forefathers.” Adding this will be, “the final nail in the coffin for any future reconciliation and making process in the future. Unilateral moves by the Palestinians will be answered with unilateral moves.”
• US Deputy Ambassador to the UN Richard Mills said, “We encourage the General Assembly to look for a new way forward and abandon resolutions that are biased against Israel and distract from efforts to achieve peace. The United States is committed to supporting the path to a two-state solution through constructive measures.”
• Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Malki called the vote an “historic diplomatic victory and achievement.” Adding, “This decision opens a new era in which Israel will be called to account.”
• Responding to the vote outgoing Prime Minister Lapid strongly rejected the resolution. “This is another unilateral Palestinian move which undermines the basic principles for resolving the conflict and may harm any possibility for a future process. The Palestinians want to replace negotiations with unilateral steps. They are again using the United Nations to attack Israel.
• “This step will not change the reality on the ground, nor will it help the Palestinian people in any way; it may even result in an escalation. Supporting this move is a prize for terrorist organisations and the campaign against Israel.
• “We thank the many countries that did not support this resolution and made it clear that this is neither the way to promote stability nor to resolve the conflict.”

Context: This is the latest effort by the Palestinians to internationalise the conflict and use lawfare against the State of Israel.

• Ahead of the debate, there had been diplomatic efforts to prevent the vote.  Both President Herzog and US Secretary of State Blinken appealed to Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas but failed to persuade him to drop the initiative.
• For the last decade PA have sought to use international institutions to shame and isolate Israel. At the same time, the PA continued their security coordination with the IDF in the West Bank.
• The traditional Israeli position maintains that only a negotiated solution can bring a peaceful resolution.  Israeli officials argue that these declarative moves change nothing on the ground and disincentivise the Palestinians to negotiate and compromise.  Furthermore, they run the risk of raising Palestinian hopes and expectations, that when nothing materialises can increase motivation for violence.
• Israel has long suffered in various UN institutions including the General Assembly, where Palestinians enjoy the support of a built-in majority among Arab, Muslim and non-aligned countries.
• Ambassador Erdan also pointed to the inbuilt bias at the ICJ, “where the judges are selected via a political process by countries, many of which are hostile to us.”
• Defence Minister Benny Gantz said, “The UN’s plan to allow this to happen will not only undermine regional stability and the chance of reaching agreement in the future. This is a political move that is not anchored in the reality on the ground.”

Looking ahead: The resolution will now be debated in a month’s time at the UN General Assembly.

• Lapid appealed to the countries that supported the motion, “to reconsider their position and oppose it when it’s voted upon in the General Assembly. The way to resolve the conflict does not pass through the corridors of the UN or other international bodies.”
• If voting remains similar and it passes, the motion will move to The Hague. The court could take several months – even years – to draft an advisory opinion.
• The Israeli government is not expected to cooperate with their inquiries. Instead, Israel will appeal to friendly countries to submit their own legal opinions.