Pratap Bhanu Mehta writes: Cries buried under rubble of Gaza will come back to haunt global system

It is in this context that the International Court of Justice has issued a very significant advisory opinion on Israel’s occupation. There is near unanimity that Israel is in breach of its obligations under international law in every respect, whether it be respecting the Palestinians’ right of self-determination, human rights law or humanitarian concerns. Even the dissenting opinion of Justice Julia Sebutinde does not quite dispute the illegality of Israel’s occupation. The more elaborate joint explanation by Sarah Cleveland and Georg Nolte concedes that Israel has a right to self-defence but such a right cannot be used for the purposes of annexation and suppression of the right of self-determination of Palestinians. While concurring with the majority opinion in the substance on its findings, Cleveland’s single-authored explanation registers two cautionary notes: First, that the opinion does not address threats to Israel’s security and that it has no implications specific to the current war in Gaza (as opposed to Israeli occupation in general). But it rightly argues that this conflict will not be solved unless the right of self-determination of both Israel and Palestine are satisfied, a solution that has eluded the international system since 1948.

The order has several technicalities. But the bottom line is that Israel’s practices in the West Bank and East Jerusalem clearly violate the prohibition on the use of force, and the forcible acquisition of territory. The Court finds the Israeli regime’s practices systematically discriminatory. “The Court observes that Israel’s legislation and measures impose and serve to maintain a near-complete separation in the West Bank and East Jerusalem between the settler and Palestinian communities.”

International law has provided little protection against the sheer barbarity of this war. But those of us who wish Israel well should also be shocked by the sheer self-defeating irrationality of its response. What Israel has done cannot, by any measure, be described as a strong response to Hamas’ barbaric attack. The purpose of a strong response would have been to make Israel more secure, not less. Yet, on almost every dimension, this war will make Israel less secure.

An authoritative pronouncement by the ICJ on the scale of the illegality of Israel’s occupation and humanitarian violations weakens its standing. It lost the global sympathy it had gained after the October 7 attacks that a more measured response would have preserved. As the drone attack launched by the Houthis shows, Israel’s security has not been enhanced. If the objective was to weaken and undermine radicalism directed against Israel, the opposite has occurred. To bring utter ruin upon a whole people as Israel is currently doing in Gaza, creating a population not just without hope, but increasingly without means of dignified survival, subjecting children to carnage, is almost certain to create conditions for an even greater radicalism, in the region and outside. Israel authorised an endless war without an exit strategy, and converted a serious crisis into an existential one. Groups like Hamas and Houthis also have a violent will and almost revel in inviting total war. But it is a measure of the irrationality of Israel’s response that it has managed to legitimise the thought that only violence can provide any leverage on Israel.

The United States’ strategic irrationality here also raises serious questions. As a supporter of Israel, it is not acting in Israel’s self-interest. It has destroyed whatever little slivers of moral authority it had left, cementing its place as the leading obstacle to the institutionalisation of international law. Even its bumbling humanitarian efforts would be considered a parody, if the context were not so profoundly tragic. The grotesque spectacle of an authoritarian figure like Benjamin Netanyahu being invited to address both houses of the Congress at a moment when the role of the United States ought to be to defuse the crisis rather than deepen it, defies logic. In its dealings with Netanyahu, the United States comes across as either weak or duplicitous towards the world. Biden’s remark in an interview that “I am the guy that did more for the Palestinian community than anybody” is exactly the kind of mendaciousness that makes any other politician’s lies or self-delusions look good.

There are other conflicts in the world as well. But the festering legacy of this conflict has global ramifications. A new administration in the United States, a new “moderate” leader in Iran, might be an opportune moment for a reset. But there are grounds for pessimism. The progressive destruction of normal political life in Palestine makes finding a workable modus vivendi on this issue harder. The temptation of politicians in the West to use the spectre of Hamas to avoid confronting the underlying problem, the now bipartisan delusion in the US that peace can come to the Middle East by sidelining Iran, and the Gulf states’ attempts to repress discussions of this problem in the hope that it will go away and not rebound on their regimes, make it likely that the politics of avoidance will continue. There are no adults left in the international system on this issue. But one thing we know: Each attempt to resolve this issue by force, whatever short-term benefits it might bring, creates an even deeper longer-term problem. The cries buried under the rubble of Gaza will come back to haunt the global system and humanity like a curse.

The writer is contributing editor, The Indian Express