UN rhetoric, international law and alienation

In the wake of Israel’s acceleration of home demolitions and forced displacement, segments of the international community issued their repetitive rhetoric of condemnation and appeasement. However, the issue of Israel destroying EU-funded structures gained more attention than the violation of maintaining Palestinians as perpetual refugees.

An additional statement on forced displacement comes from UN Coordinator for Humanitarian Aid and Development Activities Robert Piper who visited Abu Nuwar yesterday. He declared that the “repeated rounds of demolitions, restrictions on access to basic services and regular visits by Israeli security personnel promoting ‘relocation plans’ are all part of a coercive environment that now surrounds these vulnerable Palestinian households.”

According to OCHA (oPt), 64 Palestinians were displaced by Israel last week, through the demolition of 29 structures in eight different locations. This month alone, 2,100 Palestinians were negatively affected by the destruction of civilian structures which have affected their basic needs and livelihoods.

With reference to the recently-targeted areas, Piper said: “These are just some of the highly vulnerable communities where families, many of whom are Palestinian refugees, live in permanent fear of becoming homeless and children wonder if they will still have a school to attend tomorrow.”

The echoing of these legitimate fears is dimmed by alienation and international law, which are synchronised in order to allow the continuation of human rights violations and impunity. Since legitimising Israel’s colonial presence in Palestine, the international community has based much of its criticism of Israel upon the confines of international law and specifically, the obligations of Israel as an “occupying power” which is not an accurate definition of Israel, given the lack of reference to Israel’s colonial character. Given its convenience both as regards the two-state paradigm and the associated lack of accountability, the UN will remain partial to discussing forced displacement from an “occupation” perspective, rather than a continuation of the early colonial expulsions.

Under international law, Israel is expected to ensure fulfilment of basic needs of Palestinians, the facilitation of humanitarian aid and development. Since Israel’s inception, none of these obligations have been upheld. Apart from the fact that it has consistently disputed the applicability of international law to its crimes, with the approval of the international community, there is no proper deterrent within international law that can force Israel to abide by its obligations. International law specifies violations, prohibitions and obligations, yet the absence of implementation has generated severe repercussions and, in return, lack of accountability from both Israel and the UN.

Indeed, the UN’s exploitation of Palestine through its quoting of international legislation has contributed to creating a nation of permanent refugees. The absence of any action against Israel is also part of the ambiguity created by the international community and its legal framework. Even without any inclusion of Israel’s security propaganda, which has become an established, albeit erroneous narration, the colonial entity’s assurance of its own existence and lack of formidable opposition to it is garnered from the same legislation that claims to safeguard the rights of the oppressed people by shifting responsibility upon the violator. Needless to say, Israel will not acknowledge responsibility, given that such responsibility will extend beyond the military occupation and ultimately target its colonial structure.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.