Chris Doyle
One element has always been painfully absent from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Its absence has allowed a more powerful bullying occupying power to dominate and subjugate a captive occupied people, the Palestinians. Yet, now, as an Israeli genocide may be in progress in Gaza, it might finally be making a late appearance – a last-minute but vital entrant into the proceedings: accountability. In other conflicts, it is a player. Palestinian groups, including Hamas, typically pay for their crimes with their lives and do not even get to defend themselves in court.
Pretty much ever since this conflict first erupted 100 years ago, the Zionist movement and subsequently Israel have rarely, if ever, had to account for their actions. At times, there may have been reversals, such as in 1956, when US President Dwight Eisenhower compelled Israel to pull back from the Sinai and Gaza. But 11 years later, Israeli forces were back. And, in the case of Gaza, Israel has remained as an occupier ever since.
The debate has been ever-present. What would happen if Israel was held to account? Would it change its behavior if it genuinely faced consequences for its actions and crimes? What if the US severed the pipeline of billions of dollars of aid and the massive arsenal of the latest weaponry?
Pre-Oct. 7, Israel was merrily continuing its system of apartheid, expanding settlements, demolishing Palestinian homes, engaging in forcible transfer and collectively punishing the Palestinians in Gaza. War crimes were witnessed and recorded but not challenged. Israeli soldiers and settlers killed record numbers of Palestinian civilians and children. The copy and paste press releases of concern from a handful of European embassies were laughed off with contempt by Israeli ministers, not least those in this most extreme coalition in Israeli history.
Yet, the Israeli leadership’s appetite for crushing the Palestinian people, its institutions and future since Oct. 7 may have finally nudged the US and others into a new approach.
A tot up of the varying legal challenges Israel faces is telling. Since 2021, the International Criminal Court has been investigating possible war crimes and crimes against humanity in Palestine. Many states had opposed this for spurious reasons. Then-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson wrote in 2021 to an anti-Palestinian lobby group in his party to state that the UK did not support the court’s investigation into Israel, that it did not have jurisdiction and that it was a “partial and prejudicial attack on a friend and ally of the UK.” Yet, this position changed in November. The UK has shifted to being less hostile to the court.
The International Court of Justice, meanwhile, has Israel effectively on trial for genocide, having issued provisional measures after deeming that there were plausible grounds that Israel was perpetrating genocide against the Palestinians. Tel Aviv has to report on its adherence to the orders of the court in a few weeks. Unsatisfactory progress could lead to further provisional measures.
Donor states will be most concerned not about the potential genocide, as they should be, but the issue of Israel facilitating the entry of humanitarian aid. The anti-Palestinian mob still tries to smear the court’s judgment, but even the Israeli ad hoc judge Aharon Barak agreed that Israel must let in more humanitarian aid and prevent and punish any incitement to genocide.
But many forget that the International Court of Justice is also about to rule on whether the 57-year-old Israeli occupation is illegal. Remember, the Israeli occupation is not illegal in and of itself, but it is meant to be temporary. Five and a half decades stretches that term beyond the farcical. How will the US and its allies react? Many of them did not approve of the court being involved in the first place.
Israel’s allies did not welcome last month’s ruling, not least because their involvement in arming Israel raises uncomfortable questions about complicity in genocide. Biden said the case was “meritless.” The British foreign secretary deemed it “nonsense.” Fifteen judges thought otherwise. Who would you trust on a matter of international law? Leaders of states terrified they will be found complicit or 15 eminent legal figures who have carefully considered the available arguments and evidence?
Perhaps the case has triggered some reflection, even in these states. As dismissive as they may be in public, officials admit discomfort. In an unprecedented step, more than 800 Western officials last week issued a collective condemnation of their governments’ policies, arguing that there is a “plausible risk that our governments’ policies are contributing to grave violations of international humanitarian law, war crimes and even ethnic cleansing or genocide.” Many officials will refuse to be a party to actions that could be deemed to be in support of genocide.
Many will only be more anxious after a Californian court also ruled last week that Israel may be plausibly committing genocide in Gaza. What have these major allies done? Until very recently, precious little – and almost nothing on Gaza.
Instead, the US and UK have pushed on two major issues. The first criticism of Israeli leaders post-Oct. 7 was after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected outright a Palestinian state. Bombings of hospitals, schools, universities, bakeries, churches, mosques, libraries and water works were not enough, nor was the killing of 11,500 Palestinian children in Gaza. But on statehood, there was pushback. Both the US and UK are revising their positions on recognition and even contemplating doing it. This is not so much to recognize legitimate Palestinian national rights, but to send a warning shot to Netanyahu and his entourage that Israel’s allies are serious about the two-state solution. The second area – one that is perhaps more dramatic – was the US, EU and UK’s actions on settlements and settlers. First came the decision to ban a number of violent settlers. Many said “big deal,” but it acknowledged for the first time that Israeli actors may face consequences.
Secondly, building on these visa bans, US President Joe Biden last week issued a historic executive order with far-reaching implications. The headline was the imposition of sanctions on four violent settlers.
Yet, if you dissect the order, it has considerable powers. Officials have also admitted that settler Cabinet ministers such as Itamar Ben-Gvir were considered for sanctions. Others saw Biden as having electoral motives behind this move, given how he is bleeding support over his unwavering backing of Israel. The UN Relief and Works Agency, in contrast, knows all about proper accountability and even improper levels of accountability. It is being treated as guilty until proven innocent. Imagine if the same was done to Israel.
This risks getting ahead of ourselves. The US has not swapped sides. But we should recognize that these baby steps can become bigger. For now, the door has been wedged open. For those who deem justice and accountability to be pillars of a final settlement and genuine peace, it matters.
