The Israel-Palestine conflict has a long history, stretching back to significant events that shaped its current state. The conflict intensified in 1967 when Israel captured Jerusalem and the West Bank during the Six-Day War. This event was preceded by extensive Jewish migration from 1918 to 1947, which increased the Jewish population in Palestine from 6% to 33%, ultimately sparking the Palestinian revolt between 1936 and 1939. In 1950, Israeli Prime Minister Ben-Gurion declared that the “Israeli Empire should extend from the Nile to the Euphrates,” suggesting the use of both invasion and diplomacy to achieve these territorial ambitions.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ), a judicial arm of the United Nations, is tasked with delivering advisory opinions on legal questions referred by international bodies like the United Nations. While these opinions are respected for their moral authority, they do not legally bind the states involved. The ICJ delivered its advisory opinion on the “Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Including East Jerusalem” this Friday, July 19th. This context sets the stage for revisiting Pakistan’s involvement in the matter. Pakistan has been a vocal participant in this international discourse since the outset of the Six-Day War, initially proposing a resolution in the General Assembly against Israel’s actions on the first day of the conflict. Over the years, Pakistan has consistently supported the Palestinian cause and advocated for their rights in various international forums. Representing Pakistan at the ICJ, Mr. Ahmed Irfan Aslam addressed five main critical issues: the right to self-determination, the legality of occupation and annexation, systemic racial discrimination and apartheid, the status of Jerusalem and its holy sites, and the viability of a two-state solution.
Pakistan initiated its arguments by highlighting the court’s acknowledgment of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination, a right enshrined in several United Nations human rights conventions, including Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Mr. Aslam emphasized that this principle is considered jus cogens, so fundamental that it obligates all states without exception. Therefore, he argued, Israel’s actions that hinder the Palestinian right to self-determination represent a violation of this international law principle.
In discussing Israel’s occupation and annexation, Mr. Aslam referenced the UN’s stance that changes in status resulting from military actions contrary to the UN Charter are not condonable. Following the Six-Day War, the Security Council adopted Resolution 242 (1967), which demanded Israel withdraw from occupied territories. This was further underscored by Resolution 476 in 1980, which called for an end to the occupation that began in 1967. Mr. Aslam contended that Israel’s prolonged presence in these areas constitutes an annexation rather than a mere military occupation, citing historical precedents such as the French withdrawal of a million settlers from Algeria in 1962 to demonstrate that significant changes are indeed possible. Mr. Aslam also argued that Israel’s policies since 1967 amount to racial discrimination and apartheid, given the system in place distinguishes individuals based on ethnicity and religion. Another significant point for Pakistan involved Jerusalem and its sacred sites. Despite the city’s historical recognition as holy for all three Abrahamic religions, restrictions have limited Christian access to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher and Muslim access to the Al Aqsa Mosque.
In his final submission, Mr. Aslam advocated for a Two-State solution, previously supported by the ICJ in its opinions. He suggested that the advisory opinion from the court could serve as a catalyst for negotiations toward a Two-State resolution to the conflict. Concluding with the principle that “no State can benefit from its own wrong,” Pakistan called for a mandatory withdrawal from the Palestinian territories and declared the occupation unlawful.
In its advisory opinion, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) declared that Israel’s policies in the Occupied Palestinian Territories demonstrate a deliberate effort to establish a “permanent and irreversible” presence. The court noted that despite Israel’s withdrawal of military forces and settlements from these territories in 2005, it retained effective control over critical aspects such as airspace and trade, thereby continuing its role as an occupying power. Consequently, Israel still bears responsibilities towards the people in these areas. The ICJ supported Pakistan’s assertion that Israel’s actions hinder the Palestinian right to self-determination, a right the court recognizes as inalienable and not subject to restrictions by the occupying power. Furthermore, the court classified Israel’s actions as a form of annexation, stating that the extended misuse of power and ongoing annexation make Israel’s presence in these territories unlawful. This illegality applies to all Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, with the court emphasizing that the illegality of occupation does not absolve Israel of its obligations under international law to the Palestinian population.
Pakistan’s arguments, particularly concerning the right to self-determination and the illegality of annexation, align with international legal norms and echo the sentiments of many other nations and legal experts worldwide, including the ICJ itself. This support underscores the global consensus on the necessity of a viable two-state solution and the importance of adhering to international law to achieve lasting peace in the region.
As the world reacts to the ICJ’s findings, it is imperative for all stakeholders, including states and international organizations, to leverage this advisory opinion to foster dialogue and negotiation with Israel. The hope is that this pivotal moment will lead to renewed efforts to address and resolve the complex array of issues that have long fueled the Israel-Palestine conflict. Ultimately, the pursuit of justice and peace in the region requires unwavering dedication to the principles of equality, liberty, and respect for international law.
Sara Naseer
The writer is studying Law at the Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS) and is a freelance columnist.
