Year XXXVII, Number 3, November 2024

Giovanni Maria Flick
Emeritus Professor of Criminal Law at the LUISS University of Rome.
Former President of the Constitutional Court in Italy

The international press is reporting news of a Palestinian draft resolution  to be presented at the UN General Assembly that would incorporate the July 2024 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice and demand that Israel comply with international law, withdraw troops from the Palestinian territories, put an end to Israeli settlements there, send settlers back, remove barriers between Israel and the West Bank and ensure the return of displaced Palestinians to their homes, and compensation for damage suffered. Israeli authorities have contested that advisory opinion. Among the major criticisms advanced: it did not take into account the historical ties of the Israeli people to the territories; it focused only on Israeli conduct; it ignored UN Security Council resolutions; and it did not consider the interim agreements of the 1993 Oslo Accords.

In addition to the images of violent war, the international political confrontation is amplified by states which are formally uninvolved in the conflict but are interested in taking advantage of the current situation, in controlling resources, controlling outlets on the Mediterranean and conditioning the behavior of Middle Eastern countries.

The gravity of the situation with the war should not prevent negotiations. The Oslo Accords were concluded despite the previous 20-year Israeli occupation and the Palestinian Intifada after the fall of the Berlin Wall and Operation Desert Storm. The spirit of the Accords must be revived. Their focus on the cultural, social and economic development of Palestine is crucial. Economic cooperation, mutual security, free transit of people to and from Gaza. Only by identifying common goals for the pursuit of the welfare of both peoples can the influence of religious and political radicalism in the relationship between the two positions be set aside. This was the insight of European states and the basis of their path to integration: 75 years of peace thanks to a Europe of well-being. Other insights are found in the Italian Constitution: no to war as a means to resolve international disputes; yes to the acknowledgement of the need for cohesion.

It is clear that it is necessary to take a wider viewpoint: to pursue peace in the whole of the Middle East. It is necessary to involve other Arab countries. We had an attempt at this recently with the Abraham Accords between Israel, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, under the auspices of the US. We need to take note of the profound change in the social and political environment, caused precisely by the non-compliance with those Accords. It is impossible to achieve peace in the absence of an effective willingness to compromise. The actions of the Israeli government appear disproportionate to the extremely serious events of October 7: military incursions, the closure of Gaza, continuous evacuations imposed on Palestinian civilians, aggressive statements (there is speculation about changing the legal status of the Esplanade of Mosques).

The path to reconciliation must include the involvement of the most influential states. Peace is not built on learned interpretations of international law or on legal acrobatics and formulations exploited as a pretext to obstruct dialogue and refuse reciprocal renunciation of claims. Peace requires concrete actions and the pursuit of balance among the interests at stake, which often turns into the identification of the lesser evil. It requires the coexistence of two states for two peoples and not the victory of one over the other. There is a need to ensure the progress of the Palestinian territory so that it emancipates itself from the influence of fundamentalisms and from political conditioning due to the military power of other countries, perhaps more interested in maintaining the de facto situation than in resolving the dispute.