International law rulings on Israel’s occupation place clear obligations on all states, yet Australia continues to back US and Israeli military action in Iran.

We are in the middle of what is called ‘the Iran War’. The Australian people, led by their politicians and press, consider themselves to be on the side of the western world – in this instance, that is the US and Israel – and that side is the right side to be on. Are the Australian people wrong in so considering?

Let us consider some historical international instruments. We could go back to 1948 but for the purposes of this article, we can start with Security Council Resolution (SCR) 2334.

SCR 2334 was adopted by the Security Council on 23 December 2016. The resolution passed 14-0 with one abstention, that of the US. The vote was taken in the last month of the Obama administration. The resolution asserted the illegality of all settlement activity in the territory occupied by Israel in 1967 and demanded the immediate cessation of such activity. The Council stressed that such cessation was essential for salvaging the two-State solution. The reference in the Resolution to “occupied Palestinian territory” included Gaza. Israel immediately announced that it would not comply with its terms.

We can move forward to 19 July 2024 and the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), made up of the world’s most eminent judges on international law. That opinion stated that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory is illegal and must be ended as soon as possible. It found that Israel was an apartheid state. Settlements must be evacuated and reparations paid. All states (necessarily including Australia) must conduct themselves in their dealings with Israel in accordance with the rulings.

Israel’s response was again to reject the ruling. The ruling went back to the General Assembly.

On 18 September 2024 the General Assembly overwhelmingly endorsed the findings of the ICJ. Despite US and other western efforts to derail the resolution, 124 countries voted in favour (two-thirds of the world) while only 14 voted against. The resolution was adopted in an Emergency Special Session “with respect to the maintenance of international peace and security” (Art.18, r.2 of the UN Charter) and was thus not an ordinary UNGA resolution but carried extra weight.

Significantly, the resolution placed demands on all states to implement the resolution by participating in a military embargo of Israel and in boycott, divestment and sanctions to bring the occupation to an end.

More precisely, states were called upon to act by the Advisory Opinion and resulting General Assembly resolution. For western powers, that meant ceasing continuing arms sales, diplomatic cover and trade status. Further, all states are under a legal obligation to impose sanctions on Israel, and to not recognise as legal the situation arising from the illegal occupation of Palestinian territory.

Unfortunately, apart from a few minor actions, such as sanctioning seven violent settlers in the West Bank,  Australia has failed in its obligations. It is perhaps incumbent upon me to acknowledge that Australia has recognised the State of Palestine. However, that appears to be little more than symbolic. It has not recalled its ambassador to Israel, nor expelled Israel’s to Australia. It has imposed no sanctions, trade, cultural, sporting. Perhaps the most damning complicity is Australia’s participation in the global supply program for the Lockheed-Martin F35 fighter. The F35 has been prominent in the bombardment of Gaza. Australia’s Future Fund also has shares in Israeli defence contractor, Elbit Systems.

So, where does the Iran war stand in all of this? The big picture is that behind all that happens in the Middle East is the Palestine issue. We know that Israel advocated for the war and US participation. There can be no doubt that Israel did so because, unlike Australia and other western nations, Iran complied absolutely with the international law rulings detailed above. It may be that Iran can be said to have gone a little further, by giving material support to Palestinians resisting the illegal occupation. Should Iran be condemned for that? The answer is no. The right of Palestinians to resist, including by arms, is well recognised. Palestinians are so resisting through the Palestinian organisations, Hamas and Hezbollah. Is a country such as Iran precluded from providing material assistance? Clearly not – Israel has received material assistance from all and sundry. The US has provided something in the order of $4 billion dollars annually to Israel for its military forces. The UK and Germany are other prominent providers of military assistance to Israel.

As an aside, Palestinians who resist an illegal occupation are not – as our press would have it – terrorists!

Iran, then, should be recognised as complying with international law in its conduct in relation to the Palestinian issue; and it is beside the point that there are certain features of Iranian society that we in Australia take objection to, such as the repression of dissidents.

Returning to the question I asked in the first paragraph of this article, there is clearly a case for suggesting that the Australian people are wrong in siding with the US and Israel. In the event Australia should consider what it might reasonably do to assist Iran in that country’s present predicament. At the least Australia should withdraw its stated support for US and Israel’s military action against Iran.

© Pearls and Irritations