written by : Ogiandhafiz Juanda S.H., LL.M., C.L.A., C.P.Arb., C.M.L., C.Me., C.M.L.C
Ogiandhafiz Juanda is an Indonesian lawyer and lecturer at Universitas Nasional in Jakarta. He is the Director of Treas Constituendum Institute for International Law, Human Rights Law and Political Studies. He is Also Certified Professional Arbiter at Indonesian Dispute Board. He obtained his LL.M in International Law and Global Justice at Sheffield University, UK.
BREAKING THE LINE OF THE ISRAEL-PALESTINE CONFLICT
The conflict between Israel and Palestine has lasted for decades and has become a serious issue, particularly in the Middle East.
A succession of ceasefires and peace talks between Israel and Palestine that happened on a regular basis did not “normalize” the two parties’ relationship.
A lot of parties believe that the two-state solution is the best way to end the conflict by creating two independent and coexisting entities. Several other parties, however, disagreed with the concept and supported a one-state solution that would unite Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip into a single entity.
Throughout the era of impasse, Israel’s illegal settlement construction and growth in Palestinian lands, particularly the West Bank and East Jerusalem, proceeded unabated, eroding the prospects for resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict and jeopardizing any resolution.
For example, the attempted forcible eviction in the Sheikh Jarrah district, which became a cause of unrest in May 2021, demonstrates how Israel has created a system to be able to change the demography of its territory by continuing to annex or “occupy” large areas of East Jerusalem. This is also done in other areas, such as the West Bank.
in Fact, Israel’s “occupation” of the eastern part of Jerusalem, which began at the end of the 1967 war, has never been recognized by the international community.
This is also confirmed in a number of resolutions issued by the UN Security Council Numbers 242, 252, 267, 298, 476, 478, 672, 681, 692, 726, 799, 2334 and also United Nations General Assembly Resolutions Number 2253, 55/130, 60/104, 70/89, 71/96, A/72/L.11 and A/ES-10/L.22 and supported by the Advisory Opinion issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 2004 on Legal Consequences of The Construction of A Wall in The Occupied Palestine Territory which states that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territories under Israeli “occupation”.
1 or 2 state solution
Returning to the author’s prior discussion of the two-state solution against the one-state solution. According to the author, the one-state solution does not appear to be the best option.
The facts on the ground demonstrate how Israel has carried out a policy of “apartheid” against Palestinians. such that the one-state solution legitimizes the policy and strengthens Israel’s position. Furthermore, Israel and Palestine are two parties with extremely diverse and opposing political and cultural identities that are difficult to reconcile.
Meanwhile, the concept of a two-state solution is difficult to put into practice. Because the concept remains too abstract, particularly in relation to one issue that is important to the Israel-Palestine conflict, namely the “partition” of territory between Israel and Palestine.
This is also why Israel and Palestine find it difficult to break the line of conflict between them and return to the status quo, which is not a solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict.
The status quo, is in fact a way for Israel to continue to “annex” more Palestinian territories by establishing widespread and systematic illegal settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Today, more than 600,000 Israeli settlers now live in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
In fact, a number of UN Security Council resolutions have stated unequivocally that Israel must stop expanding its settlements in the occupied territories and recognize the region’s sovereignty, geographical integrity, and political independence.
Thus, all legislative and administrative attempts and acts by Israel that have the potential to change the status and demographic composition of East Jerusalem and the West Bank must be opposed. Because this is a violation of international law’s fundamental principles.
Fundamental thing
To find a solution to the conflict, it is necessary to look back at the core of the conflict that the author has mentioned earlier, and the best way to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is to encourage Israel to immediately end the “occupation” that it began in 1967, and return the settlements to the pre-Islamic borders 1967 In accordance with UN Security Council resolution No. 242.
But who can halt the illegal Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, which are infringing on Palestinian territories?
In this situation, states around the world must demonstrate their “political will” to continue urging Israel to comply with the provisions of international law, international humanitarian law, international human rights law and also the UN Security Council Resolutions.
At the same time, the international community must be able to encourage the United Nations, especially the United Nations Security Council, as the organ that has the main responsibility for maintaining and creating world peace and security based on Article 24 of the United Nations Charter to take constructive and effective steps in order to enforce all United Nations Resolutions, and dare to sanction violations committed by Israel, and also ensure that Palestinian rights are important to protect.
So, do not let this weak enforcement of international law become an external factor that also “perpetuates” the cycle of the Israel-Palestine conflict. It will demonstrate that John Austin was correct when he stated that international law is merely positive morality , not true law.
And in the end, the most fundamental thing is that the blockade, illegal development, violence, and violations of international law must end. Because the ceasefire in the Israel-Palestine conflict is only a temporary solution to the conflict.