The major powers relied on the logic of force and not the logic of right and law to establish the occupying state (Associated Press)
The occupying state was established as a foreign body in the Arab region on the basis of a legal resolution of the United Nations General Assembly in 1947, which creates a permanent weakness for it, which is its constant need for strong international support, as a condition for its continued existence.
Therefore, it considers compromising the foundations of this support a strategic threat, and is mobilizing its various diplomatic, media, security, and economic capabilities to confront it.
The foundations of international support for the occupation are represented in its functional role as an advanced military, political and economic base for the United States and other major countries. It guarantees their interests and perpetuates their hegemony over the region, and prevents the unification of its Asian and African parts.
This requires preserving the moral image of a democratic state in the midst of a “jungle of tyranny and backwardness” - as they portray it - which strengthens popular support for it in a West that colonized this region and imposed a mandate on it.
This picture is completed by the constant evocation of the role of the victim of the Holocaust at the hands of the Europeans, who should compensate the Jews for that suffering at the expense of the Arabs.
The concept of legitimacy
The origin of the word goes back to something having the quality of legality and general acceptance. From a legal perspective, legitimate is what conforms to the law. However, in the field of politics, the legitimacy of a regime is the amount of obedience it receives from the people, and internal and external satisfaction.
Since the end of World War II, the survival of any state has been linked to the presence of international recognition, and strengthening local and international conviction increases this regime’s ability to use force and gives its local decisions a mandatory status. It is considered a representation of the will of the people.
Therefore, ruling regimes are keen to gain legitimacy, even if it is only a formal image, through elections and international alliances.
The origin of the story
On May 14, 1948, David Ben-Gurion announced the birth of the State of Israel on the land of Palestine “in accordance with the natural and historical law of the Jewish people, and in accordance with United Nations General Assembly Resolution No. 181 in 1947 AD. This announcement is based on 3 types of legitimacy: They are: religious, historical, and international legitimacy.
The claim of religious legitimacy is based on the Torah’s promise to the descendants of Abraham - peace be upon him - with a land that varies between a maximum limit, which is between the Nile and the Euphrates, and a minimum limit, which is between the sea and the Jordan River.
It appears that this matter is a basis for the legitimacy of the occupation, at least because the descendants of Abraham also include Arabs, so there is no logic in displacing some of the sons of Abraham in order to settle others in their place.
While the claim of historical legitimacy is based on the claim that a Jewish state was established on the land of Palestine 1000 years before AD, and for a period of more than 400 years, what invalidates the validity of this claim is the establishment of many states before and after this state, and for longer periods, such as the states of the Pharaohs, Romans, and Muslims.
Among those who confronted the claims of Israel's religious and historical legitimacy were the movement of new historians, including historian and researcher at Tel Aviv University Shlomo Sand, author of the book "How the Jewish People Were Invented."
As for the claim of international legitimacy, it is based, in its legal dimension, on the Balfour Declaration in 1917, in which the British government pledged to establish a national homeland for the Jews in Palestine, the mandate granted by the League of Nations to Britain over Palestine in 1922, and United Nations General Assembly Resolution No. 181 in 1947 to partition Palestine. between Arabs and Jews, and its Resolution No. 273 of 1949, by which the occupying state gained full membership in the United Nations.
Invalidation of legal legitimacy
The invalidity of the legal foundations on which the international legitimacy of the occupying state is based appears with clear evidence. In his article entitled “Israel’s Legitimacy is Questionable and There is a Fear of its Being Stripped,” Lebanese legal jurist Muhammad Majzoub pointed out the legal invalidity of the Balfour Declaration, based on reasons including:
The promise was issued in 1917, that is, at a time when Britain had no legal connection to Palestine.
Britain announced that the goal of its occupation was to liberate Palestine from Ottoman control and establish a national government there.
The promise gave Palestine to a group of displaced persons or immigrants who had no right to it.
The promise is not an agreement between countries.
The promise harmed the acquired historical and national rights of the residents of Palestine, to whom the victorious countries in World War I recognized the right to self-determination and the right to choose the political and social system that suits them.
That the promise contradicts some articles in the League’s Charter; Such as: Article 20, which states: “All members of the League acknowledge that this Charter annuls all international obligations and agreements inconsistent with its provisions.” Britain had to adhere to this text and cancel the Balfour Declaration.
The promise contradicts the British promises contained in the letters exchanged between Sharif Hussein bin Ali and the British official Henry McMahon, which include a British pledge to recognize the independence of the Arab countries and establish an Arab kingdom. These messages do not mention the Jewish national homeland.
Invalidation of the partition decision
Al-Majzoub also outlined the reasons for the invalidity of the decision to partition Palestine, as viewed by international law experts, with three reasons: she:
The United Nations replaced the League of Nations as a global organization, but did not succeed it in its powers regarding the mandate over Palestine.
The powers of the General Assembly in the affairs of the territories subject to the mandate are restricted by two matters: the provisions of the mandate instrument, and the provisions of the United Nations Charter. The international organization cannot approve any solution that contradicts the provisions of the Mandate Instrument, which stipulated the end of the mandate, by establishing an independent government in Palestine.
The Assembly is obligated, when issuing recommendations related to the fate of a people, to respect the principle of self-determination stipulated in Article 1 of the Charter. It was its duty, when the Palestinian issue was presented to it, to resort to holding a referendum among the Palestinians to find out their desires. But she didn't.
As for the decision to recognize full membership of the occupying state, it was based on the partition decisions and the return of Palestinian refugees, which are the two decisions that the occupying state has not implemented to this day, in addition to the invalidity of the partition decision, as mentioned above.
The struggle over political legitimacy
With the above; It appears that the major powers rely on the logic of force, and not the logic of right and law, in establishing, recognizing, and defending the occupying state, despite the fact that this contradicts the bilateral and general laws and treaties that concerned international relations in the various stages of the conflict, with the exception of what is in the interest of these countries and the occupying state, of course.
On the other hand, a Palestinian, Arab, Islamic and international struggle emerged rejecting the legitimacy of establishing a homeland for the Jews in Palestine, since the early opposition to the Zionist project. Likewise, the Ottoman Sultan Abdul Hamid II rejected the Zionist efforts to settle in Palestine, which was one of the reasons for his overthrow.
As well as the early Palestinian rejection of the Balfour Declaration; As in the first Palestinian conference in 1919, in which representatives from various regions of Palestine participated, and rejected plans to settle Jews in Palestine. This position was at the heart of the causes of the Palestinian revolts against the British Mandate, in the years 1920, 1929, and 1936-1939, as well as in the war of 1947-1948.
At the diplomatic level, the Arab countries represented in the United Nations opposed it in 1949. They are: Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, the decision to recognize the membership of the occupying state, and cited that it was created illegally; Because the partition decision is tainted with absolute invalidity, and that its borders are unknown and undefined, and that it is not worthy of bearing the obligations stipulated in the United Nations Charter, because it did not implement the United Nations resolutions related to partition and the return of refugees and their compensation.
1967 defeat
Following the Arab defeat in the 1967 war, the UN Security Council issued Resolution 242, which called on the occupying state to return the lands it occupied, “or lands as in the English version.”
This decision strengthened the legitimacy of the occupying state on its previous borders, without implementing the conditions associated with the partition decision.
Since then, negotiations have revolved around restoring the newly occupied Palestinian and Arab territories and implementing the most recent Security Council resolution. No subsequent UN resolutions recognized the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of these lands.
The continuation of the revolution and Palestinian resistance actions was an important challenge to the political legitimacy of the occupying state, as it undermined a basic pillar of legitimacy, which is the availability of internal satisfaction and obedience. Resistance is an expression of dissatisfaction, and strikes and civil disobedience are expressions of the occupation’s weak ability to subjugate the people under its rule.
The conflict over the practices of the occupying state and the Zionist movement also continued at the international level, and one of its prominent milestones was United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379, in 1975, stating that “Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination.”
That resolution called on the countries of the world to resist the Zionist ideology, which “poses a threat to global peace and security,” but this resolution was canceled by Resolution 46/86 in 1991.
Settlement train
This coincided with the launch of the process of peaceful settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict, which the occupying state exploited to gain recognition from many countries of the world and normalize relations with countries that were biased towards Palestinian and Arab rights. Including China and approximately 20 other countries that recognized the occupying state, or began diplomatic relations with it in 1992.
Although Egypt had broken the Arab consensus not to recognize Israel by signing the Camp David Peace Accords in 1979, this did not change the position of the majority of countries rejecting the legitimacy of the occupation.
The Madrid Conference and the political settlement agreements with the Palestine Liberation Organization and Jordan created an atmosphere of acceptance of the legitimacy of the occupation, which prompted dozens of countries to recognize Israel during the 1990s.
This included the Palestine Liberation Organization accepting to recognize Israel, stopping the armed struggle, and amending its charter, which had a political impact in this regard, even though these positions did not express the will of the Palestinian people, who launched the first intifada in conjunction with the organization’s approach to a political settlement with the occupation.
The crimes of the occupation strip its legitimacy
The occupation took advantage of the atmosphere of negotiation with the Palestinians and Arabs to impose facts on the ground. It doubled the number of settlers in the West Bank and Jerusalem, was stubborn in its positions regarding prisoners, and excessively used force against any Palestinian protests.
He also launched successive wars on the Gaza Strip after his withdrawal from it, did not abide by the terms of the Oslo Peace Accords, and built the separation wall in the West Bank. These actions contributed to inciting international public opinion against him and the emergence of the dilemma of “removing international legitimacy from him,” which is what was expressed in the Riot Institute report. Israeli Research in 2010 pointed to indicators that prove this; Such as:
The establishment of major international bodies; Such as: Amnesty International and human rights organizations, directing harsh criticism at Israel and accusing it of violating those rights.
Issuing several arrest warrants against Israeli officials accused of committing international crimes, and prosecuting them before the judiciary in many capitals of the world.
Campaigns in Europe calling for a boycott of Israeli products.
Anti-occupation demonstrations in some universities in the United States.
Protests against Israeli actions in Palestine during sports matches taking place abroad.
This was after the issuance of the report of Judge Richard Goldstone, who was appointed by the United Nations as head of the fact-finding mission into the Israeli aggression on Gaza in 2008-2009. He accused Israeli officials of committing war crimes and recommended referring the matter to the International Criminal Court if Israel refused to open an investigation into those crimes.
Normalization train
Despite the breakthroughs made by the occupying state during the 1990s regarding its recognition, its lack of economic, political, and security integration with the surrounding region kept it in a state of constant threat, and provided suitable conditions for the rise of Palestinian and Lebanese resistance.
The end of that decade witnessed the liberation of southern Lebanon, the collapse of negotiations for a political settlement of the Palestinian issue, and then the outbreak of the Al-Aqsa Intifada. These conditions hindered the progress of Arab recognition of the occupation, as the “Arab Peace Initiative” stipulated achieving a two-state solution to normalize Arab-Israeli relations.
Although this condition was not met, many Arab countries advanced the path of recognizing the occupying state and normalizing relations with it under pressure from the administration of US President Donald Trump, and his temptation to form an Arab-Israeli alliance to confront Iran.
Among these countries were: the Emirates, Bahrain, and Morocco. While Saudi Arabia was issuing signals of the imminent normalization of relations with the occupation, without requiring the achievement of a two-state solution.
Al-Aqsa flood
In this atmosphere, the Al-Aqsa Flood Battle took place, which demonstrated the weakness of the occupation in terms of security, and that it is not a reliable party to be the focus of a new regional alliance.
The occupation's crimes had a profound impact on his international image, as the scale of popular protest against his crimes was unprecedented in the history of the conflict, and it was also the first time he was brought before the International Court of Justice on charges of genocide.
This atmosphere hindered regional normalization efforts, raised the cost of Western support for Israel, and demonstrated a sharp political difference regarding the two-state solution between the occupation and its Western sponsors.
The matter has reached the point where the American position on the war has become an effective factor in the chances of renewing the US President’s term or not, in the presidential elections scheduled to be held at the end of 2024.
In general, it can be said that the golden period of the legitimacy of the occupying state coincided with the rise of the paths of settlement and regional normalization, while this legitimacy declined in conjunction with the rise of Palestinian and Arab resistance to the occupation. The circumstances created by the Al-Aqsa Flood Battle are pushing towards an accelerated weakening of this legitimacy, and towards increasing rejection of the occupation and its practices locally, regionally and internationally.
Source: Al Jazeera