op-ed: Infamous British position defending Israel on ICJ

Britain added to its unforgivable record and history against the Palestinian Arab people a sin, rather a new crime against it. After the ominous Balfour Declaration for which it did not apologize to this day and did not bear its responsibility, the implementation of the British Mandate over Palestine in a manner loyal to the Jews, Partition Resolution No. The weak resolution of Resolution No. 242 of 1967 through its delegate, Lord Karadon, and its opposition to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice in the 2004 wall case, even submitting a legal review against it, and its refusal to apply the universal mandate regarding war crimes and against humanity to Tzipi Livni, the Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs and others, and even to amend the law that affects them, Instead of urging the International Criminal Court and its Attorney General Karim Khan, the British, to pursue the Israeli perpetrators for being a member of its charter, and instead of the British government taking the initiative to recognize the Palestinian state and supporting it in obtaining membership in the United Nations, instead of all that, the British government, as a friend of the entity, presents a lengthy review of more than Forty pages, rejecting in advance any role of the International Court of Justice in the request made by the United Nations General Assembly to clarify the legal effects and consequences of the Israeli occupation on other countries.

It seems that Britain, the colonial empire, is still nostalgic for its colonial role that denies the legitimate rights of peoples, including the Palestinian people, and stands in solidarity with them. Hence its suspicious role by submitting a lengthy memorandum to the International Court of Justice in the Hague rejecting the entire matter, misleading it and distorting the request itself, even though it is not a party to the dispute or the case. As if the colloquial proverb says with fullness, “Who steps on her tail?” applies to its request, meaning its not her job. Note that it had initially refused to refer the matter to the International Court of Justice, when it voted against it in the United Nations General Assembly on the thirtieth of December of last year.

Although the talk is about a legal advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, regarding the consequences of the long-term Israeli occupation, and not about a binding judicial ruling of the Court regarding the occupied territories. That is, the talk is about a non-binding decision and its moral effect, the British government refuses and insists on committing the sin and forbids It is wrong and resolutely rejects even the mere fact that a legal advisory opinion is issued showing the effects of the Israeli occupation of the occupied Palestinian territories, and would be an additional legal reference for the Palestinian cause and a legal support for it.

The argument of the British government, friendly to the entity, in its reading that the International Court of Justice in The Hague in the Netherlands, is not in its ability to examine the broad and complex issues between the two conflicting parties, and that the court's advisory opinion will complicate the matter, and that it will undermine the negotiations and that it is inappropriate. An excuse worse than a sin. The author of the British memorandum to the court forgot or overlooked that the role of the court is to adjudicate in all matters pertaining to international peace and security and to adjudicate on issues regulated by the Charter of the United Nations and/or treaties and agreements in force.

Glory be to Allah, a court composed of fifteen judges from all over the world, representing its civilizations, values and principles, entrusted to it by the United Nations Charter to resolve international disputes (Articles 92, 93 and 94 of the United Nations Charter), Britain claims that this international court is unable to resolve this dispute due to its length, breadth and complexity. Who will solve it then, the united kingdom? And what is the reference and support for resolving this dispute, the British? Is it strength, is it the alleged divine promise, is it the Torah or religious books, is it financial strength, is it the principles of evangelical Christianity, is it financial ability, is it the whiteness of skin, is it acceptance of homosexuality or what? In disputes always and never, legal rules resolve factual disputes. That is, the reference for resolving any dispute, small or large, internal or international, financial, familial, water, maritime, territorial, criminal, is the legal rules only and not the desires or inclinations of the parties. So why not apply these general rules to the Palestinian cause and to apply them in turn to the Argentine Falkland Islands, which are thousands of kilometers away from the British Isles?

The Charter of the International Court of Justice in The Hague, from the moment of its approval immediately after the Second World War, did not leave the foundations for resolving international disputes to lean, mood, philosophy, vacuum, diligence, political color or military force, and did not work to ignore or circumvent it. But rather confronted and codified it in Article 38 of that Charter exclusively that stated, international treaties and their covenants, international custom, rules of international law, principles of law in civilized countries, senior jurists in international law, and court decisions are sources of resolving international disputes.

Accordingly, it is no longer acceptable for the sinful British policy or the pragmatic American policy to constitute a source for resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, regardless of the strength of the two states. However, it is acceptable and required that the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, for example, which is full of neutral rules of international humanitarian law, constitute a source for resolving the conflict. An agreement that has become part of customary international law in the world is rejected in the eyes of the British, while breaching it and its principles, rules and fundamentals by the Israelis, which are war crimes, is accepted by the British. The British had to stand firmly against the Israeli violations in accordance with the first article of this agreement, which was ratified by Britain and became part of British customary law. Britain should have respected and ensured respect for this agreement in all circumstances.

And this example must be measured, for example, the Charter of the United Nations, the Declaration of Independence and Control over Natural Resources of 1960, the Charter of Civil and Political Rights of 1966, the Declaration of Friendly Relations of 1970, and the Charter of the International Criminal Court of 1998 are rules of international law in times of peace and war, which were endorsed the decisions and rulings of the International Court of Justice and the Nuremburg and Tokyo Tribunals for war criminals, were guided by the books of jurists of public international law and human rights.

Unfortunately, the news of the submission of the British memorandum to the registrar of the International Court of Justice passed quietly and without fuss, noise or condemnation, and in fact it should not pass like this, until Britain and other countries that reject the role of the International Court of Justice know that there is a Palestinian, Arab and human opinion, and there are organizations Human rights, and there are peoples and intellectuals who reject the despicable British role in the International Court of Justice. Enough of humiliation and welcoming the symbols of British diplomacy,  visiting its embassies, and receiving its envoys.

Countries interested in Palestinian human rights should protest against the increasing British role in favor of Zionism, and we call on countries and international human rights organizations to submit memorandums to the International Court of Justice supporting the right of the International Court to issue an advisory opinion on the legal consequences of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands. The disaster is not the injustice of the evil people, but the silence of the good people. International justice is indivisible, and when the law ends, tyranny begins.