Having Boxed itself into a corner when it eschewed truth and justice in favor of national and voting bloc expediency in its policy on the Israel -Arab conflict, the Un had for decades been trying to have Israel become a scapegoat for its mistakes that it can’t walk back now.
Starting from 1947, the UN made its first mistake in its relationship with the Jewish state when it refused to censure the British for their violation of international law. This the British did by not acting in good faith as it pertains to their obligations under article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations and the Mandate for Palestine document. This is in relation with helping and tutoring the Jews as they reconstitute their nation state. Under the Mandate for Palestine document, the Palestine established in 1922 was a Jewish nation state being reconstituted and Jews are to come in and settle on all the land. No part of the land should be given to any other nation and no other people were to move into the land but the Jews. However under the authority and caretaker of the British, those laws got violated. The British allowed Arabs to flood the land illegally and they restricted Jews from moving into the land. The British also proposed that the Jewish nation be partitioned in 1936 after placing the Jewish people’s back on the wall with their policies when they allowed the Arabs to keep attacking and trying to take the land from the Jews.
When the UN took over from the League of Nations, it adopted article 80 of its charter whereby it obligated itself to respect earlier treaties and said that no rights or agreements accrued to any people under the mandate arrangement should be altered in any way but are to be upheld. However, rather than call the British to order for violation of their obligations under international law, they also started toeing the path of the British by refusing to stop the Arabs. like the British, they also recommended that the Jewish nation be partitioned because the Jews were weak and can’t be able to stand the Arabs promised onslaught. The Arabs subsequently lost the war. In the 1950s, the UN made its second mistake by creating UNRWA to take care of the Arab refugees rather than have the UNHCR which is in charge of refugee issues worldwide to sort them out thus giving them a special status. The UN then continued its mistakes by accepting the Arabs narrative of an Arab people called a Palestinians due to the oil blackmail and OIC voting bloc in the 1970s and not for the justice or truthfulness of their claims.
Having got caught in the web of the whole plethora of mistakes they made through ignoring and violation of their own charter which they can’t walk back now, they now pile all kinds of pressures that lack truth, justice, legal legitimacy or morality against Israel. To right the wrong of their past which they are not willing to walk back, they kept passing resolutions and increasing pressure against Israel. They utilize all kinds of means and as days turn to months and then years and decades, they kept piling up more all in a bid to force Israel into becoming a scapegoat and bear the brunt of those errors.
Of course Israel refused to be that scapegoat or back down so the UN has been using all its powers to bully Israel into that. The UN after losing its legitimacy and credibility with its continuous illegal, worthless and immoral UNGA and UNSC resolutions against Israel, then ensured that its organizations like UNICEF, UNESCO, etc also got their own reputations tarnished so long as it has to do with Israel and the Arabs. Today, their statements, resolutions and decisions are not worth a grain of salt so long as credibility and justice or impartiality is concerned in the Israel and Arab/Palestinians issues. Today, nothing they offer whether it is right or wrong can be taken at face value for they have lost their legitimacy.
But the UN will not stop. They have moved on to judicial bodies and are also trying to make mincemeats of the legitimacy of global organizations that dispense justice. The ICC of Rome Statute acceded to by many nations and domiciled in the Hague is the first victim in destruction of legitimacy of global judicial bodies. This is seen when the organization made itself a joke in 2015 by recognizing Palestinians as a state when they are yet to fulfill the criteria under the Montevideo Convention of 1933 an entity must possess to be termed a state according to the provisions of customary international law. Since the ICC started by recognizing an illegality, then it has become tarnished and none of its statements can be trusted to be without bias and have credibility when it comes to the issues of Israel and the Arabs/Palestinians conflict.
In recent times, the UN has moved to another judicial organization, the ICJ, and is doing all it can now to make it a joke and have it lose credibility and legitimacy when it comes to issues of the Israel and Arab/Palestinians conflict. In trying to force Israel into becoming a scapegoat, the UN is gradually turning this organization into a laughing stock and in time its reports and decisions will be of no worth anymore.
Let us look at how the ICJ is gradually making itself lose credibility in the Israel Arab/Palestinians conflict as it is gradually turning into a judicial body of a banana republic.
The ICJ was created as the legal arm of the United Nations who is to dispense justice on legal issues between nations. According to article 34 (1) of the ICJ statute, “Only states may be parties in cases before the Court”. Also according to article 38 (1) of the same ICJ statute, the court’s function is to “decide in accordance with international law such disputes as are submitted to it” and to do so “shall apply:”
“international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting states.”(here we are talking bilateral or multilateral treaties between nations like the one USA had with Russia based on which Russia sold Alaska to USA in 1867, the Geneva Peace Accords based on which France gave up Vietnam, the Versailles Treaty, the San Remo Conference of 1920, the UN charter and numerous other ones between and amongst nation)
“international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law” ( here we are talking of international conventions that nations can accede to and be bound by its provisions like Geneva Conventions, Montevideo Conventions, Hague Convention, Vienna Convention, etc)………
In recent times, South Africa went to the ICJ with that joke of a lawfare to tie Israel’s hands in stopping Hamas with its accusations of genocide against the Gazans by Israel. Of course it is South Africa’s rights to take Israel to court for whatever it claims and the ICJ is looking into that case since Israel and South Africa are signatories to the Paris 1951 Genocide Convention. The ICJ only told Israel so far to do all it can to ensure that it does not commit genocide in Gaza which of course Israel is already obligated to do based on it acceding to that law.
However, the ICJ is gradually tending to start losing its credibility with its knack for giving advisory opinions on the Israel Arab/Palestinians conflict.
Under the article 65 of the ICJ statute, the court has rights to “give an advisory opinion on any legal question at the request of whatever body may be authorized by or in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations to make such a request”. In specifying the jurisdiction rights of this advisory opinion, the statute noted that the opinions are “based on contentious proceedings” and have special nature and purpose. In essence it is different from judgments passed when cases are argued and facts presented based on which decisions are given. The proceedings of advisory opinions also help to show how contentious and unreliable unlike judgments the advisory opinions are. After those seeking for the opinion send their request, the court gathers information from them on what it needs to give the opinion. In essence they determine for the court the information it is to use. Those contending may not have any input in the information the court needs to pass its opinion as it got expressly stated that “the Court draws up a list of the States and international organizations that are likely to be able to furnish information on the question before the Court. Usually, the States listed are the member States of the organization requesting the opinion, while “sometimes” the other States to which the Court is open in contentious proceedings are also included”.
It is in light of the above contentious proceedings, incomplete information as opposing sides may not present their own stances and the fact that the cases are not argued and points presented by opposing parties to the judges that the jurisdiction rights stated that the opinions are of no binding effect. This is found when it noted, “Contrary to judgments, and except in rare cases………….the Court’s advisory opinions are not binding. The requesting organ, agency or organization remains free to decide, as it sees fit, what effect to give to these opinions.” So the requesting agency can attach whatever function or value it wants to that opinion but it is not binding. However, they mentioned that the advisory opinions have legal and moral authority. And this point of legal or moral authority that the ICJ claims of its advisory opinion is what UN is destroying by having the organization in recent times eschew legal and moral considerations in its two advisory opinions issued so far against Israel in 2004 and 2024.
In 2004 during the second Intifada when the Palestinians were suicide bombing and killing Israelis in terror attacks, the government decided to build a security wall in Judea Samaria to checkmate to Palestinian terrorists. Of course the UN saw it as a move that may work against their trying to force Israel into giving up its Judea Samaria to the Arabs which they have been championing with their resolutions and diplomatic pressure for decades since they were forced to accept the Arabs Palestinians narrative and continue the legitimacy of the UNRWA they created. The UNGA then rushed to the ICJ for an advisory opinion on the wall.
In the advisory opinion, they asked the following question to the ICJ, “What are the legal consequences arising from the construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, as described in the Report of the Secretary-General, considering the rules and principles of international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions?”
So here they told the court the following premises to use in passing the opinion.
That Israel is an occupying power, the territory is “Occupied Palestinians territory”, and then it is to utilize not just international law to pass the opinion but UNSC and UNGA resolutions.
Of course the ICJ then told them to furnish it with all that it needs so the Arab League, Palestinians, and the whole lot of them supplied those myriads of non-binding illegal UN resolutions and their claims that have no basis. The ICJ then skimmed through the history of Eretz Israel from 1918 ignoring relevant laws and rights that would have negated the claims of UNGA and then said that Israel occupied Judea Samaria in 1967. They then continued with that since Israel is an occupying power because they said so (no one was there to argue and present how based on the definition of occupation by article 42 of the Hague Regulations of 1907 Israel could not be occupying the territories and that it is a liberation) therefore “The construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, and its associated régime, are contrary to international law”
Fast forward to twenty years later in 2024 after Hamas did October 7th, Israel in its reactive ways of responding to the Palestinians attacks and pressure from Joe Biden and the Europeans for a two state solution said that there won’t be anything like a Palestine in Judea Samaria for they will elect Hamas who promised another Al Aqsa Flood massacre. The UNGA, seeing Israel tell them to shove it with their trying to bury the nation as a scapegoat for their own mistake in accepting the Arabs narrative ran back again to the ICJ for another advisory opinion. The ICJ told them to furnish it again with what they want. Again they screamed the premise to the ICJ,
““(a) What are the legal consequences arising from the ongoing violation by Israel of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, from its prolonged occupation, settlement and annexation of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and from its adoption of related discriminatory legislation and measures?
(b) How do the policies and practices of Israel referred to . . . above affect the legal status of the occupation, and what are the legal consequences that arise for all States and the United Nations from this status?”
Like the earlier one of 2004, they told the ICJ that its opinion should be based on the following assumptions.
Israel is violating the rights of Palestinians to self-determination, Israel is engaged in prolonged occupation, settlements and annexation of Palestinians territories since 1967, Israel is altering demographic nature of Jerusalem, etc.
And again the ICJ goes through the motions telling them to supply those information that it needs and they did. It goes through the motions talking of how it has rights to give the opinion and all that. It also said that it is satisfied with giving the opinion just from the one sided information given to it which is enough.
Again like it did in 2004, it skimmed the history of the conflict and relevant facts of laws from 1918 till 1967 and said that Israel’s liberation of Judea Samaria in 1967 is an occupation because they and UN resolution said so. Of course no one was there to show them that again based on the definition of occupation by international law, Israel cannot be in occupation of the land nor was anyone there to show them how their clams were violating the UN charter article 80 and other relevant laws giving Israel rights to the land. So they harped on all those non-binding UN resolutions and then concluded that “they are of the opinion that the State of Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is unlawful” and a host of other opinions which naturally follow after the premise of unlawful presence.
And so the court toed the path of the organization that created and fund it. The UN dictates the terms and premise the court should base their opinion in the Israel Arabs/Palestinians case and of course the judges toe the path. One wonders where the legal and moral authority they claimed of their advisory opinion is found in those opinions they pass when they skim relevant facts of history and law and refuse to actually show how an occupation existed based on its definition by law in Judea Samaria before giving their opinion. It is true that their advisory opinion is non-binding and not a case where judgments are passed after the sides present their facts, but the rate at which the ICJ is rushing to use one sided information to give those opinions lacks moral and legal legitimacy. At least some form of credibility ought to have been seen to be accorded their opinion based on the fairness it should strive to represent by considering all relevant facts.
Talking of how shallow and completely unfair and of no real legal or moral authority that opinion which sounds like what Nigerian election petition tribunal can give, Judge Sebutinde; a lone voice of truth in that house of jokers in the ICJ calling themselves judges had this to say about the opinion.
She made a statement that the ICJ is actually destroying its judicial legitimacy and credibility by joining in the bandwagon of claiming that the Palestinians have a right to a territory that is still under dispute and is yet to be settled by the conflicting parties for its status to be clear under the law before they can utilize that status to give an opinion. This point is found when she noted “In rendering its Advisory Opinion, the Court should have been careful to guard its judicial character and integrity by ensuring that the nuanced and more complex issues that require resolution through negotiation such as the competing territorial claims of the parties in former British Mandatory Palestine, and unresolved permanent-status issues such as a possible two-State solution, security, borders, refugees and the status of Jerusalem are left to the negotiation framework already agreed upon by the parties to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”
She also talked of how the court ignored facts of the historical context and disputes in that conflict, and how it assumed erroneous premises in its occupation claims and applicable laws from the information given to it by UNGA which they used as premise. This is found when she said that the court “misapplied the law of belligerent occupation and has adopted presumptions implicit in the question of the General Assembly without a prior critical analysis of relevant issues. These issues include the application of the principle of uti possidetis juris to the territory of the former British Mandate, the question of Israel’s borders and its competing sovereignty claims, and the nature of the Palestinian right of self-determination and its relationship to Israel’s own rights and security concerns“
And thus, the ICJ is been drawn down the cesspool that the UN dug for itself and is wallowing in it. It is true that the ICJ advisory opinion is not binding as it is based on contentious proceedings and thus not law but at least they should know better than to erode their own judicial and moral legitimacy which they are presently doing by joining the UN in that slippery slope it flung itself since its inception. The ICJ needs to stop before it reaches a point of no return like the UN and become another joke like other UN organizations when it comes to issues of Israel Arab/Palestinians conflict.
So not only does the ICJ advisory opinion not binding, but it also has no justice when it comes to Israel and is becoming a political tool been deployed by the UN hence it has no legal or moral credibility.