INTERNATIONAL law is power politics. Those were the unforgettable words of my lecturer in public international law, delivered in late 1969.
They are still fresh in my mind as if they were uttered only yesterday. I am reminded of this recently after listening to the latest announcement by United States president Donald Trump. On Dec 7, Trump declared that he would move the US Embassy in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, signalling to the world that the US officially recognises Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, an action clearly in contravention of international law.
Jerusalem was occupied and annexed by Israel at the conclusion of the 1967 War. Two years later, the United Nations Security Council (in its Resolution 267, July 1969) declared that the acquisition of any territory by military conquest “is inadmissible” — a resolution which Israel ignored. Again in September 1971, the Security Council (in its Resolution 298) stated that all actions taken by Israel to change the status of Jerusalem were illegal.
In 1980, Israel passed a Basic Law declaring Jerusalem as the “complete and united” capital of Israel. The Security Council responded by adopting Resolution 476 stating that “measures which have altered the geographic, demographic and historical character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem are null and void”.
This was soon followed by Resolution 478 (on Aug 20, 1980), with the Security Council condemning the Basic Law in “the strongest terms” and calling upon all states “that have established diplomatic missions” in Jerusalem to withdraw them from the city. The Security Council also declared that Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem was in violation of international law. As before, Israel continued to ignore all these resolutions.
Back in 1947, when the UN drew up its Partition Plan (Resolution 181, Nov 29, 1947), Jerusalem was to become an international city under a permanent trusteeship regime administered by it.
However, war broke out soon after Israel’s declaration of independence and when it ended in 1949, the armistice border (called the Green Line) divided the city into two parts — Israel in control of the western half and Jordan the eastern half, which included the famous Old City.
During the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel (the victorious party) occupied East Jerusalem. After that, all of Jerusalem had been under Israel’s authority. The Palestinians, and many other states in the international community, continue to consider East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state.
Approximately 850,000 people now live in Jerusalem — 40 per cent Arabs and the remaining Jewish. The Arab population consists largely of Muslims (96 per cent), the rest Christians (4 per cent). The majority of the Palestinian population lives in East Jerusalem.
Trump’s decision to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem was opposed by almost every national leader across the globe. UN Secretary-General António Guterres said he opposed “any unilateral measures that would jeopardise the prospect of peace for Israelis and Palestinians”. King Salman Abdulaziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia told Trump by telephone that a change to Jerusalem’s status would escalate regional tension.
A spokesman for Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, said the US was “plunging the region and the world into a fire with no end in sight”. Turkey said it might sever diplomatic ties with Israel if the embassy move (from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem) was carried out. Qatar’s foreign minister described Trump’s move as “a death sentence for all who seek peace”.
Jordan said Trump had violated “international legitimacy”. Its state minister for media affairs, Mohammad al-Momani, said that Jordan rejects the decision, as it will “fuel tension” in the region. Even before Trump announced his decision, Jordanian King Abdullah had said “there is no alternative to a two-state solution, and Jerusalem is key to any peace agreement.”
Egypt rejected the decision to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi issued an official statement saying that Trump’s decision ignored “the special position of Jerusalem for Arabs and Muslims”. Opposing and condemning the decision, Pakistan urged the US president to revisit his decision as soon as possible to avoid the potentially grave repercussions in the region and beyond.
French president Emmanuel Macron rejected Trump’s decision, stating that the final status of Jerusalem must be settled by peaceful negotiation. British Prime Minister Theresa May (in more polite language) called Trump’s decision on Jerusalem as “unhelpful in terms of the prospects for peace in the region”.
Germany did not support Trump’s decision. Chancellor Angela Merkel’s spokesperson, Steffen Seibert, said Germany does not support the decision because the status of Jerusalem must “be negotiated within the framework of a two-state solution”.
In Malaysia, the Foreign Ministry condemned the decision, with Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak saying that Muslims across the globe will never accept Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas said Trump’s decision is in violation of international law. Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) Secretary-General Saeb Erekat remarked that Trump can no longer play a role in the peace process, having made “the biggest mistake of his life”. Hanan Ashrawi, PLO’s executive committee member, called Trump’s move as sounding “the death knell” for any peace process in the region.
Palestinian leaders subsequently called for three “days of rage” in protest, and the third Intifada was born.
The general response by world readers towards Trump’s latest decision clearly indicates their adherence to international law in that if there is going to be any lasting peace in the region, Jerusalem must be shared between Israel and the Palestinians as part of the long-awaited two-state solution. Trump’s latest decision reveals that the claim by US that it is “an honest broker for peace” between Israel and the Palestinians is no longer credible.
A truly sad day for international law.
The writer formerly served the
Attorney-General’s Chambers before he left for practice, the corporate sector and, then, the academia