It struck me that supporters of Israel all use the same fallacies; they claim the conflict is complex. Take, for instance, Tim Goudriaan and Leonard Suransky in ScienceGuide, who object to an academic boycott. When I searched LexisNexis for ‘complex and Israel,’ I found more than 300,000 results, including 6,015 in Dutch. Many of these are interviews or op-eds by supporters of Israel. I see this as a rhetorical trick.
Contradiction
Firstly, there’s a contradiction. Supporters of Israel claim the conflict is both complex and simple: they argue that Israel, surrounded by enemies seeking its destruction, always acts in self-defense. This explanation extends to various events, including the Israeli invasions of neighboring countries like Egypt in 1956 and 1967, the invasions of Lebanon, the construction of the wall, expropriations, the occupation of the Golan and the West Bank, and the illegal settlements. Furthermore, they justify Gaza being blockaded and bombed regularly. According to them, Israel evacuated its settlers from Gaza only to receive rockets in return. They also claim Israel has offered many fair peace proposals, which were consistently rejected by the Arabs. In their view, all supporters of Palestine, whether Jewish or not, along with the media, human rights organizations, the UN, the Red Cross, the International Court of Justice, and the International Criminal Court, are anti-Semitic. Thus, Israel’s supporters depict the conflict as a simple narrative: David against a gigantic world conspiracy.
Complexity paralyses public opinion
In his book ‘Getting Things Done,’ David Allen explains that we often procrastinate on large, complex projects. Whether it’s writing a book, completing a PhD thesis, or cleaning out a garage, these tasks can be postponed for years. This is why convincing the public that a problem is complex can be effective. When faced with a seemingly big, unfathomable, and unsolvable issue, you might think, ‘What am I getting myself into?’ Consequently, this mindset discourages putting pressure on the government to intervene in the Palestine conflict.
Collective action is needed
However, collective actions by governments worldwide can pressure Israel to end the occupation. André Nollkaemper, legal adviser to the cabinet and dean of University of Amsterdam’s law faculty, noted in the Dutch paper NRC that all states are legally obligated to ‘refrain from anything that supports the continuation of the situation, and must actively cooperate to end it.’ Yet, in the absence of public pressure, governments tend to drag their feet, particularly because Israel is considered a friend.
Illegal behavior should not be rewarded
In fact, if the Netherlands engages in academic cooperation with Israel as if nothing is wrong, it gives Israel the impression that we accept the occupation, thereby reducing its motivation to end it. Furthermore, collaborating with institutions in the occupied territories may inadvertently encourage Israel to build more illegal settlements.
Ethos as a manipulation trick
Aristotle identifies three technical means of persuasion: ethos, pathos, and logos. Logos relates to logic, while pathos appeals to emotions. Ethos, on the other hand, pertains to the speaker themselves. An argument often appears more persuasive if the speaker is perceived as trustworthy and knowledgeable. For instance, in India, where men are often viewed as more intelligent, audiences have been found to be more convinced by the same speech when delivered by a man. Aristotle posited that ethos is the most effective means of persuasion. However, I believe ethos is irrelevant because the true merit of an argument lies in its content, the logos, which leads us closer to the truth.
Supporters of Israel also attempt to portray themselves as reliable and knowledgeable sources. For instance, in interviews and opinion pieces, employees of Center for Information and Documentation Israel (Dutch version of AIPAC) have claimed that the general public is uninformed (and misled by the media). They assert that they, in contrast, have access to their own trustworthy sources, enabling them to deeply understand the conflict, tracing it back to the Philistine epoch.
In the past, priests often proclaimed, ‘God works in mysterious ways,’ while keeping the Bible in Latin, ensuring they remained the sole interpreters. Similarly, figures like shamans and the Oracle of Delphi claimed to have direct contact with gods, possessing true knowledge that was inaccessible to others. This approach is mirrored by supporters of Israel when they assert the complexity of the conflict. They position themselves as having complete knowledge and understanding of the bigger picture. In this narrative, you, perceived as uninformed, may see only babies dying in Gaza, but you’re told there’s a complex explanation behind it.
Ironically, while Israel supporters ask you to condemn Palestinian attacks, they simultaneously insist on the complexity of the situation regarding the occupation. If this complexity supposedly prevents forming an opinion about the occupation, shouldn’t it also preclude judgment on the attacks? Isn’t there a possibility of an equally inscrutable explanation for them?
The right to self-determination
In reality, the conflict is very simple. The Palestinians have the right to self-determination. All states recognize that the Palestinians have the right to self-determination. The Dutch Advisory Council on International Affairs did not consider the conflict to be complex, but simple:
“The conclusion that can be drawn is that there can be little difference of opinion on the most important questions of law relating to the conflict. Israel has a duty to respect the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. The establishment of Israeli settlements on the West Bank of the Jordan River and the restriction of the freedom of movement of Palestinians in the occupied territories as a whole constitute violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The same applies to the construction of the separation wall, insofar as it runs across Palestinian territory.”[1]
However, I haven’t come across any media piece that explains what this right to self-determination actually entails. Here’s an explanation. In discussing rights, we typically address three key questions: who, what, and how.
Who has the right to self-determination?
Peoples have the right to self-determination. However, the term ‘people’ in international law differs from its use in ethnology. Notably, even the United Nations lacks a definitive definition of this term. Practically, ‘a people’ is often viewed as the entire population within a specific administrative territory. It’s important to note that minorities within these territories do not possess a separate right to self-determination under this framework.
Take Mauritius as an example. Ethnically, it’s home to several groups, including Creoles from East Africa, Indians, Chinese, British, and French, each differing in ethnicity, skin color, religion, and language. However, in the eyes of international law, these diverse groups collectively constitute a single entity: the Mauritian people.
The situation is similar for Palestinians in Israel; they are not considered a separate people but are part of the Israeli people, alongside Jews, Christians, Druze, and other minorities. In contrast, the Palestinian people, as a distinct entity, are recognized only in Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem.
Beyond state boundaries, the concept of peoples extends to those in non-self-governing territories, colonies, League of Nations mandates, and regions under military occupation. Additionally, peoples living under apartheid and foreign domination are also recognized as having this right. The mandates, which were formerly German and Ottoman colonies, eventually transitioned into trusteeships under the United Nations. Similarly, Palestine, once an Ottoman colony, became a mandate territory.
The International Court of Justice conceptually views the Palestinian occupied territories as a region still awaiting decolonization, reflecting its history as an old Ottoman colony and mandate territory. Based on this understanding, as well as the unanimous international consensus, the Court has concluded that Palestinians possess the right to self-determination. This right is further underscored by the fact of their occupation. Additionally, the right may also stem from their subjection to apartheid and foreign domination.
What does the right to self-determination mean?
Within a state, the right to self-determination embodies two principal aspects: freedom from foreign interference and the right to participate in political decisions. In contrast, outside of established states, in territories like colonies or occupied areas, this right extends further. It encompasses the right of the people to freely determine their political status and pursue their own economic, social, and cultural development. Additionally, these peoples hold rights over their natural resources and other resources.
How does one fulfil one’s right to self-determination?
Peoples can exercise their right to self-determination in several ways: by forming an independent state, joining an existing state, associating with a state, or freely opting for another solution.
How does a people ‘freely choose’ their path? The United Nations traditionally views referendums as the ideal manifestation of a people’s will. However, it has been acknowledged that colonies and similar entities can also express this choice through other means, such as through elections.
The consequences
The right to self-determination implies that the people have sovereignty over a territory. However, legal scholars have noted instances where states might have a legitimate claim over colonies (for example, France’s discovery of an uninhabited Mauritius), which seems to conflict with the right to self-determination. In such dilemmas, who has the ultimate authority? In these cases, the state’s title tends to diminish over time. The right to self-determination also encompasses territorial rights. Consequently, this right often takes precedence over other claims. This principle suggests that Palestinians have an inherent right to the occupied territories, irrespective of any previous legitimate title holder. As Judge Higgings articulated in her separate opinion at the International Court of Justice:
“This is not difficult – from Security Council resolution 242 (1967) through to Security Council resolution 1515 (2003), the key underlying requirements have remained the same – that Israel is entitled to exist, to be recognized, and to security, and that the Palestinian people are entitled to their territory, to exercise self-determination, and to have their own State.”[2]
Thirteen eminent Dutch professors of international law articulated their understanding in a letter to the government, further illustrating the simplicity of the conflict:
“The indisputable nature of Israel’s settlement policy as a continuous violation of international law, applicable also to the Netherlands, has been established by the UN Security Council. These settlements directly infringe upon the Palestinian right to self-determination. This right, as affirmed by the International Court of Justice in The Hague in 2004, imposes binding obligations on all countries. Accordingly, the Dutch government is obligated under international law to contribute to the realization of Palestinian self-determination and to refrain from facilitating Israeli settlement policies. Any facilitation or support of settlements deemed illegal under international law could potentially result in liability at the international level.”[3]
Thus, the Netherlands is bound by three legal obligations: firstly, to refrain from supporting Israel’s annexation of occupied territory; secondly, to ensure that Israel adheres to humanitarian law; and thirdly, to assist Palestinians in realizing their right to self-determination. It really is as simple as that.
Notes:
- Advisory Council on International Affairs, Between Word and Deed: Perspectives on Sustainable Peace in the Middle East, 16 April 2013 – no.83. p. 20. ↑
- ICJ, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Separate opinion of Judge Higgins, para. 18 ↑
- 4 December 2013, Letter to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Signed: Prof. K. Arts Erasmus University Rotterdam, Prof. P.H.F. Bekker University of Dundee (U.K.), Prof. Th. C. van Boven Maastricht University, Prof. M.M.T.A. Brus University of Groningen, Prof. I. Dekker Utrecht University, Prof. J. Dugard Leiden University, Prof. C. Flinterman Utrecht University, Prof. M.T. Kamminga, Maastricht University, Prof. B.E.P. Myjer, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (emeritus), Prof. dr. P. de Waart, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (emeritus), Prof. R.A. Wessel, University of Twente, Prof. W.G. Werner, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Prof. L. Zegveld, University of Amsterdam ↑
Be First to Comment