ISRAEL-PALESTENIAN CONFLICT: IS THE UNITED NATIONS FAILING THE WORLD AGAIN?

The debate should not be upon the duties and obligations of the United Nations as they are very clear at least to anyone, one can even guess where they aren’t aware. There was a time where the world was full of warfare and perhaps the worldly leaders then felt it reasonable to have a unifying body that will oversee all this and prevent aggression amongst different states, this is how the League of Nations came about. But perhaps because of its failure, it had to be rebuilt into the United Nations. Of course the United Nations coming as a rebuild of the League of Nations is a complete note that it had to be better, actually far better in its maintenance of worldly peace more so where it gets to peace among member states. Accordingly, all member states of the United Nations have to subscribe to the United Nations Charter and by subscribing it means abiding by the provisions there in. According to Article 1 of the United Nations Charter, the principle obligation of the United Nations is to ensure the observance of international peace amongst member states and to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace. Member states are urged to refer to peaceful means in case there are any conflicts among themselves rather than going in for warfare. This is what is usually referred to as “the prevention for the use of force” and all this is composed under Article 2 of the United Nations Charter.  It’s therefore clear that it’s only on rare occasions where the UN lets member states go scotty free where they have used force among other states according to its charter. That lets us to the purpose of the Security Council and the United Nations General Assembly, what about them!! Their duties aren’t that different as the major obligation still is to ensure the maintenance of international peace. It’s these bodies that form up the United Nations and of course hold the blame where the United Nations is seen to let loose.

It’s undisputed that on a number of times the United Nations has failed on its major obligation of maintaining international peace. Member states seriously threatening international peace at times luring it down and getting involved in warfare at times directly or even indirectly, in Libya in the overthrow of Libyan dictator, the aggression there by various European countries into that serious war cannot be left unnoticed, the war in Syria, India-Pakistan conflict no complete peace yet, Israel-Egypt conflict in 1979 and now Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Perhaps this time the weakness of the United Nations is being blown out by the serious aggression but even with this kind of it, is the war fare itself justifiable? Who is to blame anyway? Or anyway is there blame to cast on anybody? What should the United Nations have done to stop the happening of it? Could it have done anything even?

A number of questions may arise but perhaps I can try to integrate in the best way I can in regard to my understanding of international law.

In 1947 through the United Nations resolution known as the Partition Plan which sought the division of the British Mandate of Palestine into Arab and Jewish states which led to the creation of the State of Israel on 14^th May, 1948. The creation of the state of Israel sparked off the first Arab-Israel war for which the war led to the division of the territory into three parts inclusive of State of Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

A number of wars have surrounded this territory for which the United Nations seemed out of control inclusive of 1956 Suez Crisis which was between Israel against Egypt, Jordan and Syria, in 1967, in 1973 in what was known as “Yom Kippur War”.  Thou with various peace treaties, more conflicts spark off leaving a number of victims in the territory. A military confrontation between the Israeli Military and the Hamas occurred in 2014 where the Hamas fires rockets at Israel and Israel too retaliated but at the end of all that it’s stated that 73 Israelis and 2,251 Palestinians were killed.  Still in 2018 fight broke out between the Hamas and the Israeli Military where rockets were fired from Gaza into Israel, Israel too responded with strikes into Gaza.

Not so different from any of those, the conflict is back where strikes are laughed from Gaza to Israel and from Israel to Gaza.

Perhaps anyone may wonder who the Hamas are, featuring at the center of all these conflicts. Well the Hamas are regarded as a Palestinian militant group that controls Gaza. It disapproves all peaceful settlement with Israel and have on a number of encounters escalated conflicts between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

The major issues of conflict rotate around the city of Jerusalem where both the Israelis and Palestinians have interest, Palestinian statehood as the Palestinians want an independent state including the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, Israel’s recognition by the Palestinians that isn’t a ‘a national state of Jewish people’, about the borders, settlement of Israelis what are regarded as Palestinian territories, Palestinian refugees who displaced by the creation of the State of Israel.

In a statement about the conflict, UN reminded the parties to the conflict that “any discriminate targeting of civilian and media structures violates international law and must be avoided at all cost”. Should we say it’s all right for the conflict to go on so long as civilians aren’t targeted?

Israel has always based its airstrikes on a self-defensive motive after strikes from the Hamas. The International Court of Justice(ICJ) in its ruling over the known Nicaragua case helped us understand where self-defense broader from the mere provision of it under Article  51 of the United Nations Charter as its claimed by Israel can be an exception to the provision of the Charter where upon a member state resorts to the use of force. It was put clear that for a state to claim it was in use of a right to self-defense then such a state must have been the victim of an armed attack and such a state must declare itself a victim of an armed attack. The state then needs to report to the Security Council that an armed attack happened “as the absence of a report maybe one of the factors indicating whether the State in question was itself convinced that it was acting in self-defense”

Where the Hamas or the Palestinians based in the West Bank launch airstrikes against Israel is a clear indication of an armed attack of the State of Israel but where Israel declared itself a victim of an armed attack or whether it made a report to the UN Security Council all remains a question of fact.

Is the force used by the Israeli military relatable to the attacks on it or it’s far beyond.

Isn’t self-defense a mere excuse to the use of force, are the Israel attacks on the Palestinians justifiable!!? That may be a question according to perspective.

The justification of self-defense has been noted in what has been referred to as the Caroline Doctrine in 1837 when US Secretary of State Daniel Webster noted before reaching a conclusion that the British interruption of the Caroline voyage did not qualify as self-defense because self-defense is only justified “if the necessity of that self-defense is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation”. This may seem as an old rule but it fully gives justification to the actions of Israel. However they still seem overweight to what was required. Israel could not give any kind of patience to the attacks made on them, so we can say these attacks are at the point were justifiable so Israel isn’t to blame to some extent. And if it’s not to be blamed then who has to, of course the source of the attacks. I believe I have answered the question as to who to blame for the attack. It must be the Palestinians only because Israel is acting in self-defense “at the moment” (emphasis added).

With regard to the gravity of the force used by the Israeli forces on the Palestinians, is such force justifiable as a way of self-defense or the force used was over and beyond. That’s a questions I believe is dependent on personal perspective and so I won’t answer.

Getting to the United Nations, how is it to blame. From the start onto the creation of the State of Israel a completely Jewish nation into an Arabic (Palestinian) territory was the first mistake made upon the resolution of the United Nations and it’s not surprising that conflicts started there on in regard to its creation. The United Nations in 2019 through a resolution of the General Assembly accorded to Palestine a non-member observe state status in the United Nations which is regarded as “de facto recognition of the sovereign state of Palestine” and have some member states recognized it as an independent state. However there still remains a variety of views regarding the status of the Legal Status of Palestine both among the International Community and legal scholars.

Its clear there lays a blame on the United Nations on the fully recognition of the state of Palestine and its borders with the State of Israel as it’s the major essence of the conflicts.

In addition, the UN Security Council is put in place to handle situations where international peace and security is threatened, this means that required actions should be put up to stop any such conflict from getting into any armed nature. Unless otherwise, the UN carries a blame on failing in its duties. But I noted up, the weight of force used by Israel as a way of self-defense is way higher compared to the attacks made on them. Could we clear it out as being an action taken in self-defense? Should we blame Palestine for inciting the armed attacks on Israel that are now backfiring? Or what, the UN!? You realize that every side in this conflict carries a blame and of course the UN is also a side in the conflict by the act that it has been trusted to be the guardian of international peace and security.

However, all this is relatable to my perspective. This article is however open to discussion and I surely welcome all sorts of arguments, supplements or any kind of arguments.