On July 18, Israel’s Knesset (its non-partisan legislature) passed a resolution rejecting possible Palestinian sovereignty and a ‘two-state solution’ with a vision of a stable state. successful Palestinian as well as Israeli. The resolution was passed by a large majority (68 to 9) a day before the International Court of Justice gave a crucial (non-binding) opinion on July 19, which the UNGA had requested in 2023 regarding the capture Palestine. Although the Court has classified most of Israel’s actions in the occupied territories as a violation of international law, the new decision is the first direct part of the illegality of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory. On the other hand, the ICJ asked states to distinguish between Israel and the occupied territories, called on Israel to stop its illegal occupation and planning, and suggested that Israel is blame Palestine for “damage caused to all natural or legal persons” in the occupied territories. On the other hand, the Knesset resolution announced that it “firmly opposes the establishment of a Palestinian state west of Jordan. The establishment of a Palestinian state in the middle of the State of Israel will pose an existential threat to the State of Israel and its citizens, perpetuate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and destroy the region.
More than anything else, it is a major endorsement of the decision that undoes any lingering notion that the rhetoric of abandoning the two-state solution is a political survival tool for PM Benjamin Netanyahu and those far- away Support for the decision from Benny Gantz’s relatively centrist National Unity Party furthers this issue. Finally, that the leaders of the opposition (such as Yesh Atid and Labor parties) chose not to participate in the elections rather than vote against them, it seems that there is no for the idea of two countries and that the parties of How much money is Israel willing to spend on it? .
The past time
The Knesset’s decision was more than an immediate response to the (then) upcoming opinion of the ICJ. Many resolutions of the UNSC and UNGA as well as other international organizations have long insisted that both Israel’s occupation and its construction of settlements in occupied Palestine are illegal. Historically, Israel’s response to such developments has been rhetorical, rhetorical, and exacerbated by the increasing settlement process. What is evident in the Knesset’s decision, however, is the clear rejection of the two-government solution, which is in some ways unprecedented.
Israel has long accepted this principle, especially since the Oslo Accords (1993, 1995). In 2009, even Netanyahu had accepted the state of Palestine (although there were conditions that were considered unacceptable by the Palestinian leaders). Netanyahu remained committed to this over the next few years, despite continued pushback from other far-right leaders who vowed to make it impossible to pass any resolution. which of the two-state Knesset solution. With his position vulnerable to corruption charges and unpopular judicial rulings, Netanyahu’s staunch rejection of a two-state solution appears to reflect the far-right party’s reliance on of living in politics, like anything else. The Knesset’s decision represents the largest, most assertive approach to Israeli policymaking (than Netanyahu’s), in history.
As world opinion (through multilateral organizations or otherwise) has ever converged against Tel Aviv on any issue, Israel has met that convergence with measures to reject such positions. , in similar situations. For example, when the UN increased its call for Israel to withdraw from the land it had conquered since the 1967 war, Israel responded by effectively annexing East Jerusalem with the Jerusalem Constitution of 1980 and it strengthened the capital of Israel. Although the UNSC declared the resolution null and void in Resolution 478 and asked countries not to accept the new capital, Israel persisted over the decades and received further reinforcement under the administration of Donald Trump in 2017, which moved the American Embassy to Jerusalem. This attitude has been true even in its relationship with its strongest ally, the United States, in matters where the country has maintained a critical position. In February, March and July this year, Israel announced another expansion of settlements in the West Bank, even when the US criticized this move. A testament to whether this is a continuation of a long-term trend is the fact that when Joe Biden visited Israel as Vice President in 2010, Israel welcomed him by announcing 1,600 new settlements in East Jerusalem. (conquered area) which received some correction then VP. Now, as world criticism mounts to generate new support for the two-state solution and the ICJ clearly calls Israel’s occupation illegal, Israel meets it by refusing to the same way – it destroys its original way of accepting the solution but adapts to it. conditions.
The future
The two-state solution is true in theory and in law. Even the US, together with the UN, has always supported this proposal (as Antony Blinken reiterated this position after the Knesset decision). Although 145 of the 193 UN countries recognize the Palestinian Authority, India has always stood by the two-state solution, despite its growing ties with Israel, and has been very vocal in show support for Palestinian sovereignty through 2024. A Palestinian state is based as much on political pragmatism as it is on ethics and principles. Due to the drift towards stability driven by economic integration that characterized the Middle East before October 7, the current crisis has driven the need to capitalize on this by addressing a critical issue. in the fault lines of West Asia, before it erupted. sustainability efforts. The more Israel continues to try to fight for a Palestinian state, the more it forces Arab countries to make a choice they don’t want to make – leave the Palestinian state or re-evaluate their new legal relationship with which are not planned with Israel. is already suffering from the unlimited and indiscriminate attacks of the IDF on the citizens of Gaza. On the other hand, when Israel rejects the Palestinian state for a long time, there is a great risk of major connectivity projects such as the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor, which depends heavily on the stable relationship of the Arabs and Israel.
If Israel’s history in terms of its past decisions against Palestinian sovereignty is any indication, Tel Aviv has a great opportunity to tone down its anti-Palestinian antagonism in the short term. than to reverse the decision. However, the future of stability in the Middle East is now again linked to the most important question of the Palestinian state, more than just the question of a cease-fire in Gaza. It is this basis that could force Israel to go back on its decision in the long run, if the political and economic costs end up being too high to bear. So far, these costs have been minimal.
Bashir Ali Abbas is a research associate at the Council for Strategic and Defense Research, New Delhi, and Visiting Fellow for South Asia at the Stimson Institute, Washington DC. Opinions expressed are personal.
#Eye #Middle #East #ICJ #decision #Knesset #decision #world #sees #countries #Israel #sees