What are the legal consequences of Israel's occupation? | Inside Story

Summary

The UN General Assembly's resolution to seek an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on Israel's occupation of Palestine has sparked diverse reactions. Palestinians view it as a victory, while Israel condemns it as hypocritical. The resolution's potential impact on the ground and its implications for international law and peace talks are discussed, highlighting the challenges faced by both sides.

Takeaways

• 🌐 The U.N. General Assembly passed a resolution in 2022, calling on the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to give an opinion on the legal consequences of Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory, with 87 votes in favor, 26 against, and 53 abstentions.
• 🏛️ The ICJ's rulings are binding but not enforceable, and the court deals with disputes between states.
• 📢 Palestinian officials welcomed the U.N. decision, seeing it as evidence of global support for their rights and historical claims.
• 🔍 Hamas criticized the resolution, stating that past international decisions have not led to practical implementation on the ground, and accused the U.S. of supporting Israeli aggression.
• 🇮🇱 Israeli politicians, such as Knesset member Victor Liberman, condemned the U.N. decision as hypocritical and unjust, reflecting a broader denial of the occupation within Israel.
• 🤔 Israeli attorney Daniel Sidman argues that Israel is in denial about its occupation of Palestine, which is seen as a metastasizing issue that needs to be addressed.
• 🏙️ The resolution is seen as a test for the international system to clarify the facts on the ground and the legal obligations arising from Israel's occupation, potentially labeling it as a colonial enterprise.
• 🗳️ The vote breakdown indicates a potential shift in international sentiment, with some countries that have historically supported Israel abstaining or voting in favor of the resolution.
• 🔄 The new Israeli government under Benjamin Netanyahu, described as the most far-right in Israel's history, is expected to face challenges from this decision, potentially increasing instability.
• 🏛️ The ICJ's advisory opinion, once given, could lead to a push for countries to take action against Israel, such as sanctions or boycotts, if it is found to be in violation of international law.
• 🔎 The situation is compared to apartheid South Africa, where international resistance eventually gave way to support for dismantling the system, suggesting a potential future shift in attitudes towards Israel's occupation.

Q & A

What was the resolution passed by the U.N. General Assembly in 2022 regarding Israel's occupation of Palestine?

The U.N. General Assembly passed a resolution in 2022 calling on the International Court of Justice to give an opinion on the legal consequences of Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory.

What was the vote count for the U.N. resolution on Israel's occupation of Palestine?

The resolution was supported by 87 votes, opposed by 26, with 53 abstentions.

How does the International Court of Justice (ICJ) function in relation to disputes between states?

The ICJ deals with disputes between states and its rulings are binding, but the court itself has no power to enforce them.

What is the stance of Palestinian officials on the U.N.'s decision to seek an ICJ opinion on Israel's occupation?

Palestinian officials have welcomed the U.N.'s decision, with a presidential spokesman stating that the vote is evidence of the world's support for the Palestinian people and their historical rights.

What is the view of the Hamas spokesman on the U.N. resolution and its potential impact on the ground?

The Hamas spokesman noted that the resolution is one of many decisions by international institutions that have not led to practical implementation on the ground, and criticized the U.S. for supporting Israel's aggression against Palestinians.

What was the reaction of Israeli politician Victor Liberman to the U.N. resolution?

Victor Liberman condemned the U.N. resolution as a despicable decision, calling it the epitome of hypocrisy and injustice, and expressed distrust in international institutions.

Why is Israel concerned about the U.N. General Assembly asking the ICJ for an advisory opinion on Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories?

Israel is concerned because many in Israel are in denial about the occupation, and the resolution forces Israel to confront the reality of its occupation and its implications.

What does the resolution potentially signify for the Palestinians in terms of international legal accountability?

The resolution signifies a consistent path of legal accountability for the Palestinians, using international legal tools to expose the political reality of Israel's occupation and its transformation into a colonial enterprise.

How did the breakdown of the voting in the U.N. reflect the international community's stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

The breakdown of the voting showed a mix of support, opposition, and abstention, with some countries that Israel has been courting through the Abraham Accords voting for the resolution, indicating a potential shift in international sentiment.

What challenges does the resolution pose for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his new government?

The resolution poses challenges for Netanyahu's far-right government by compelling Israel to face the reality of its occupation and potentially leading to increased international pressure and scrutiny.

What are the potential outcomes of the ICJ's advisory opinion on Israel's occupation, and how might they impact Israel and the Palestinians?

The ICJ's advisory opinion could spell out the illegality of Israel's occupation and colonial practices, potentially leading to increased international pressure for sanctions, boycotts, and other actions against Israel, and further complicating the path to Palestinian self-determination.

Outlines

00:00

🏛️ UN Calls for ICJ Opinion on Israel's Occupation

The United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution in 2022, urging the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to provide an advisory opinion on the legal consequences of Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories. The vote was 87 in favor, 26 against, and 53 abstentions. The last ICJ opinion on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was in 2004, which ruled Israel's separation wall illegal. The ICJ's rulings are binding but not enforceable. Palestinians view the UN decision as a victory, while Israel condemns it as hypocritical and unjust. Israeli Attorney Daniel Sidman suggests that Israel is in denial about its occupation, and the resolution is a call to face reality.

05:01

📚 Palestinians Pursue Legal Accountability

The resolution is seen as part of the Palestinians' consistent strategy to hold Israel accountable through international law. Despite resistance, Palestinians aim to expose the reality of Israel's occupation, which they argue has morphed into a colonial enterprise. The ICJ's forthcoming opinion will test the international system's stance on Israel's practices, potentially labeling them as apartheid or settler colonialism. The vote's breakdown, with many countries abstaining or supporting the resolution, indicates a potential shift in international sentiment towards the Palestinian cause. The challenge for Israel's new far-right government, led by Benjamin Netanyahu, is to navigate this international scrutiny.

10:01

🌐 International System's Test and Netanyahu's Challenge

The ICJ's examination of Israel's occupation will be a test for the international system, forcing it to confront the reality on the ground and the legal implications of Israel's actions. Palestinians hope that the ICJ will recognize the illegality of Israel's settler colonial regime and compel countries to take action, such as sanctions or boycotts. The resolution poses a significant challenge for Netanyahu's government, which has adopted annexation as official policy and is seen as unwilling to end the occupation. Critics argue that supporting the resolution is beneficial for Israel, as it compels the nation to face the reality of its actions.

15:04

🔍 Political Leverage and the Future of Israeli Democracy

The resolution and the anticipated ICJ opinion could lead to increased international pressure on Israel, potentially affecting its relationship with the United States and other allies. The extent to which Israel has colonized the West Bank and implemented apartheid policies will be scrutinized. The political leverage of the United States, particularly under different administrations, may play a role in the outcome. The future of Israeli democracy is also at stake, with concerns that Netanyahu's government is undermining democratic norms in pursuit of its agenda. The situation is described as uncertain and potentially leading to increased instability.

20:04

🌍 Uncertainty and the Path Forward

The future of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is uncertain, with the UN resolution and potential ICJ opinion adding complexity. The international community, including the United States, has expressed a desire for peace talks, but the breakdown of talks in 2014 and the current Israeli government's stance add to the challenges. The resolution and its implications could lead to increased instability and pressure on Israel. The hope is that the international community will condemn Israel's actions and that Israel itself will reconsider its policies. The path forward is described as difficult, with the potential for things to worsen before they improve.

Keywords

💡International Court of Justice (ICJ)

The International Court of Justice is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, responsible for settling legal disputes between states. In the context of the video, the ICJ's role is pivotal as the UN General Assembly has called upon it to provide an advisory opinion on the legal consequences of Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory. This demonstrates the international community's reliance on legal frameworks to address geopolitical issues.

💡Occupation

In the video, 'occupation' refers to the control and governance by Israel over Palestinian territories. The term is central to the discussion as it highlights the ongoing conflict and the legal implications of Israel's actions. The script mentions that the Israeli Supreme Court and the Israeli Army acknowledge the occupation, but there is a denial of this fact by many in the Israeli government and populace.

💡United Nations General Assembly

The United Nations General Assembly is a key decision-making body within the UN, consisting of representatives from all member states. The video script discusses how the General Assembly passed a resolution, calling for the ICJ to provide an opinion on the legal consequences of Israel's occupation. This shows the Assembly's role in shaping international responses to global issues.

💡Palestinian Territory

The term 'Palestinian Territory' in the script refers to the areas under dispute between Israel and Palestine, primarily the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The script emphasizes the legal and political complexities surrounding the occupation of these territories, which are central to the conflict and the subject of the ICJ's advisory opinion.

💡Legal Consequences

The phrase 'legal consequences' in the video script pertains to the potential ramifications and obligations arising from Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories under international law. It underscores the importance of understanding the legal framework within which such actions are evaluated and the potential impact on international relations and the rights of the involved parties.

💡Settlements

In the context of the video, 'settlements' refer to Israeli communities established in the West Bank and other Palestinian territories. The script discusses the expansion of these settlements as a contentious issue, highlighting the role of the new Israeli government in promoting settlement expansion, which is seen as a violation of international law.

💡Apartheid

The term 'apartheid' is used in the script to describe a system of institutionalized racial segregation and discrimination. It is applied to the Israeli occupation, suggesting that the practices in the Palestinian territories resemble the policies of apartheid-era South Africa. This comparison is used to underscore the severity of the situation and the need for international action.

💡Colonialism

Colonialism in the video script is used to describe the Israeli presence in Palestinian territories as a form of control and exploitation similar to historical colonial practices. The script suggests that the occupation has evolved into a colonial enterprise, implying a long-term intention to maintain control and exploit the land and resources.

💡International Law

International law, as discussed in the video, is the set of rules and standards that govern the relations between states and international organizations. The script emphasizes the importance of international law in determining the legality of Israel's occupation and the responsibilities of states in addressing such issues.

💡Advisory Opinion

An 'advisory opinion' in the video refers to a non-binding legal opinion issued by the ICJ at the request of a UN body. The script highlights the significance of such an opinion in shaping international discourse and potentially influencing the actions of states regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

💡Benjamin Netanyahu

Benjamin Netanyahu, mentioned in the script, is the Prime Minister of Israel who leads a far-right government. His policies and stance on the occupation are central to the discussion, as they represent a significant shift in Israel's approach to the Palestinian territories and the potential implications for regional stability and international relations.

Highlights

The U.N General Assembly passed a resolution in 2022 calling on the International Court of Justice to give an opinion on the legal consequences of Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory.

The resolution was supported by 87 votes, opposed by 26, with 53 abstentions.

The last time the ICJ gave an opinion on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was in 2004, ruling Israel's separation wall illegal.

Palestinian officials welcomed the U.N's decision, seeing it as evidence of global support for their rights.

Hamas spokesman criticized the lack of practical implementation on the ground despite international decisions.

Israeli politician Victor Liberman called the U.N decision 'despicable' and indicative of hypocrisy and injustice.

Daniel Sidman, an Israeli attorney, suggests that Israel is in denial about its occupation of Palestinian territories.

Sidman argues that the occupation has surpassed legal parameters and morphed into a colonial enterprise.

The resolution is seen as a test for the international system to define the facts on the ground and the obligations arising from them.

The vote breakdown shows interesting dynamics, with some countries abstaining and others supporting the resolution despite Israel's efforts to secure support.

The new Netanyahu government's stance on occupation and settlements could pose challenges in light of the U.N resolution.

Sidman suggests that the resolution could compel Israel to face the reality of occupation and its implications.

The Palestinians understand that international law has been resisted in their case, but continue to pursue legal accountability.

The ICJ's advisory opinion is expected to spell out the facts of the occupation and the legal obligations, potentially leading to calls for sanctions or boycotts.

The case's outcome could be influenced by political leverage, particularly from the United States.

The future of Israeli-Palestinian relations is uncertain, with the potential for increased instability and pressure on Israel.

The international community's response to the ICJ's opinion could be a turning point in addressing the Israeli occupation and its effects on Palestinian rights.

Transcripts

what are the legal consequences of

Israel's occupation of Palestine the U.N

says the international court of justice

must decide Palestinians see that as a

victory while Israel calls it despicable

but will it change anything on the

ground this is Inside Story

[Music]

[Music]

hello welcome to the program I'm Hashem

the U.N general assembly and of the Year

2022 by passing a resolution calling on

the international court of justice to

give an opinion on the legal

consequences of Israel's occupation of

Palestinian territory

the U.N assembly voted

87-26 with 53 abstentions to support the

motion the last time the icj gave an

opinion on the conflict between the

Israelis and the Palestinians was in

2004 ruling Israel's separation war was

illegal the top U.N Court deals with

disputes between states and although its

rulings are binding the court itself has

no power to enforce them

Palestinian officials have welcomed the

un's decision the wafa news agency

reported presidential spokesman Nabil

abortina saying the vote is evidence of

the whole world's support for our people

and their inalienable historical rights

and the Hamas spokesman had this to say

about the resolution

this resolution is one of a long series

of decisions issued by all International

institutions regarding the Palestinian

issue none of which led to a practical

implementation on the ground

the important thing here is that as long

as the United States of America deals as

a partner with Israel in its aggression

against the Palestinian people and as

long as Washington provides full cover

for the occupation Within These

International institutions all these

resolutions will remain mere ink on

paper

meanwhile Israeli politician and knesset

member of Victor liberman expressed his

opinion on Twitter saying a Despicable

decision that must be roundly condemned

was passed at the U.N this is further

proof that the state of Israel at the

moment of truth will not be able to

trust the international institutions

this decision is the epitome of

hypocrisy and Injustice

let's bring in our guests in West

Jerusalem Daniel Sidman an Israeli

attorney specializing in the geopolitics

of Jerusalem he's also a communist for

foreignatters.com a consultancy welcome

to the program

Daniel the United Nations General

Assembly asked the international court

of justice for an advisory opinion

on

Israel's occupation of Palestinian

territories why is Israel concerned

Israel is concerned because official

Israel and much of the Israeli populace

is in a deep state of occupation denial

occupation what occupation

we are ruling over another people the

Palestinians against their will it is a

metastasizing occupation and we ignored

the fact that it even exists

our un

um Ambassador erdan and her prime

minister said how dare you accuse us of

being an occupying power well

the Israeli Supreme Court the Israeli

Army also say we're occupying and

um

most of official Israel

rejects the fact of occupation which is

exactly why we need resolutions such as

this

Israel will end occupation or occupation

will be the end of us and the message

sent by this U.N resolution is get real

stop ignoring reality

no it says that this is widely seen as

more than just a diplomatic victory for

the Palestinians after many many years

of uh major setbacks particularly for

the Palestinian Authority

look I think there are two things that

are happening with this resolution on

the one hand the Palestinians are going

on a very consistent uh path of legal

accountability using all the tools

available in the International System

despite International resistance to uh

kind of expose uh what the political

reality is which is that the Israeli

occupation has long surpassed the

um the legal parameters defined in

international law for occupation and it

has morphed into a colonial Enterprise

that has no intention of leaving and

that has legal ramifications

um on the International Community

um that is you know kicking and

screaming and and really trying its best

to dissuade Palestinians from going down

that route on the other hand

um the uh this resolution and what will

be

in front of the icj is a reality that

will test this International System

that for once will have to kind of spell

out what what the facts on the ground

are what the illegal obligations arising

from those facts are and kind of leave

the actors that have been hypocritical

and employed double standards for so

long with very few options but to face

the reality so far we've seen them

resisting legal qualifications of the

Israeli practices as apartheid we've

seen them rejecting uh also other legal

Scholars who say that what we have

um is not occupation it is settler

colonialism and now uh the highest legal

body in in international law will have

it say and the Palestinians will be able

to kind of lay it out there for the

world and say well you know show me what

you've got now are you are you uh really

going to play by the rules or are you

going to spell it out and say that

Palestinians are excluded from those

rules it's it's a it's quite a crossroad

I believe Bill for quite some time the

Palestinians understood that the uh the

the Dynamics of decision-making at

organizations such as the security

Council are quite different from the

United Nations General uh assembly and

this is why sometimes they took most of

the uh battles to the general assembly

now when you look at the vote itself 87

votes in favor 24 against 53

abstaining could

if we are to read into this could this

be an indication that there is a

momentum building towards more of a pro

Palestinian sentiment here

well I think I think there is a momentum

building

however I think we need to apply a bit

of caution on this uh this this decision

will take some time to play out and as

we know these things move slowly the

breakdown of the voting I think was

interesting uh you look at the countries

that abstained Sweden was one of the

abstainers of France Netherlands

abstained uh and also look at the

countries that uh Israel has been

assiduously wooing uh with the Abrahams

Accord

they all voted for the resolution that's

the bahrainis the Sudan uh UAE and of

course you had the Egyptians and the

jordanians voting and support

um and the Saudis so you could say well

of course that's to be expected on the

other hand uh Israel has invested a huge

amount of effort in securing support

from these authoritarian regimes the

people in the streets they still support

Palestinians and the Palestinian cause

so this is going to cause I think some

some issues some tension on that front

of course the fact that the Americans

I'm a Canadian I'm ashamed that the

Canadian

voted against uh to be honest with you

uh these these follow fairly predictable

patterns and and there are no surprises

there I do think that the Fury with

which the uh Israelis have responded is

a measure that this time that perhaps

this this vote has had more bite than

then then they wanted to see and they'd

worked hard actually over the past year

or so to try and get more and more

countries on their side and I think the

number of abstentions also speaks as

well to difficulties ahead particularly

given the extreme right-wing uh nature

of this new Netanyahu government

Daniel this decision what kind of uh

challenges does he pose for a prime

minister Benjamin Netanyahu who took

office Thursday as the head of the most

far-right government in the history of

Israel

by all indications

in the canal is going to make the work

of those who supported this resolution

much easier

and make the

um a job of those who oppose this

resolution much more difficult

occupation nothing else denies the

existence of occupation at precisely the

time when occupation is metastasizing

he's doubling down on it there's an

indication that this government is

unaware of the manifestations of

occupation and is unwilling to move in

order to end it

ironically those who are supporting the

resolution calling for in in the court

to examine this are doing a great

service to the state of Israel by

compelling us to Face Reality those who

oppose this resolution are akin to a

wealthy Uncle who are subsidizing our

crack addiction to occupation and

settlements instead of say taking that

same money and sending us off to rehab

we need we Israel read to confront the

reality of occupation and its

implications for us and the Palestinians

nor what can the

Palestinians hope to achieve in the

future knowing that if the icj is going

to be asked to provide an advisory

opinion on the legal consequences of

Israel's occupation settlement and

annexation knowing that this government

in particular has ministers who have

widely

been promoting the expansion of the

settlements

what what happens next

well this government is is has adopted

annexation as official policy not just

the expansion of settlements uh look

this is a long path and there is no easy

path to Palestinian Freedom Palestinians

understand that very well they

understand that countries even Those Who

present themselves as champions of

international law have long resisted to

employ that international law to

realize Palestinian self-determination

which is their obligation under

international law having said that

employing these tools is also

indispensable because at the end of the

day you cannot tell peoples of the South

if you will that there is an

international rule-based system that

they must adhere to it but they will be

held accountable to its rules while

Palestinians are excluded from this

system their exclusive included from the

recourse for remedy including the icj

and while countries Dodge their

obligations

in line with international law once the

icj renders its opinion and it is

expected to spell out what the facts are

which is that we have a settler Colonial

regime that is illegal under

international law and countries are

obliged to take action by way of

sanctions by way of boycott by way of of

severing at normal ties with a country

that is for all intentions purposes a

pariah State

um and and that will have its own

momentum and Israel and its benefactors

Israel and the occupation

whitewashers will have very little cover

if you will for their ongoing denial of

Palestinian rights and for their ongoing

complicity really in Israel really

crimes including annexation and

persecution and apartheid Bill if you

look at the case this case in particular

as with all cases presented to the

international

court of justice it can be resolved

either by a settlement between the two

parties or one of the parties dropping

the case or ultimately a verdict by the

icg how do you see the path you said

earlier is going to be a complicated

path do you do you think that there's

going to be a level of political

leverage here or political influence by

the United States of America in

particular to try to ensure that we're

not going to see anything

that is going to condemn Israel

well I think nurse put her finger on it

that is that this case will cause uh a

great deal of of

public measurement of the extent to

which

Israel has colonized the West Bank the

extent to which it has invoked an

apartheid policy

and and I think too the extent to which

it is prepared to go Netanyahu is

prepared to go to sacrifice Israeli

democracy in pursuit of of this extreme

agenda uh

I don't see either side backing down I I

think that there will be uh political

leverage uh we don't know yet uh whether

the Democrats will win next time around

uh it's very hard to say certainly if

the Republican come back I would expect

that their support for netanyahua will

be very very strong and of course to

support the Netanyahu already has with

the Biden Administration is very very

strong but but I do think that it

becomes increasingly threadbare uh this

claim that Israel is the only democracy

in the region a democracy that

appears prepared to Institute an

override Clause so that Decisions by the

Supreme Court will be overturned by a

vote in the knesset this is a democracy

that has brought in racists and

criminals and homophobes of the worst

order in order to keep

Mr Netanyahu out of prison so I think

that it's going to become increasingly

difficult for Israel's friends and there

are many still

to sustain support for such a a a a a

damaged and damaging uh regime this

regime that Netanyahu has put in place

and I think it will unfortunately be a

very hard year for the Palestinians I

think it's going to be a hard year for

Israel as well though and I think it's a

case of things are going to have to get

worse before they get better but I think

that Israel is more vulnerable now than

it was before this vote was taken

Daniel

Israel's historical allies have been

staying for quite some time that

at least in the past there was this

opportunity to have liberals reformers

within governing coalitions that would

give us a sense of diversity within the

Israeli political landscape now it's

a group of ultra-orthodox political

parties coming together under

Benjamin Netanyahu so what's next for

for him what are we expecting him to to

do in the in the near future given this

decision by the United Nations General

Assembly

I believe that we are not are not only

in uh

in the situation of the unknown where

the situation of the unknowable

uh there will be those who are tempted

to say oh you will work with Netanyahu

um and judge him on what he does we have

shared values and shared interests give

me a break

no good is going to come from this

government this government does not

share values and does not share

interests with the liberal democracies

and with those who are concerned with

Palestinian rights

um this is

um it's tempting to say well let's give

it time it may not be as bad as it looks

that's true it won't be as bad as it

looks it will probably be worse we just

do not know how we are deep in the

period of the unknowable and we have to

gird our loins and prepare ourselves for

a new normal uh moving the diamond

even before this government

occupation was becoming apologetic and

aggressive and at times fatal lethal uh

we will see more of that and we have to

see how does that work how can this

government be contained engaged and how

can we bring before the Israeli public

The Perils of Perpetual occupation not

only to Palestinians but to ourselves to

our children to our grandchildren

not uh over the last few years I mean

Palestinians have been saying that they

basically have been betrayed by the Arab

neighbors that they have been betrayed

by the International Community and most

particularly by the United States of

America if you look at this particular

case there's a chance it's going to go

to a verdict but then as you know the

isg has no powers of enforcements which

means that the Palestinians will have to

whatever happens to go to the security

Council but that's where

you have another problem which is

basically the Palestinians consider the

security Council to be a major stumbling

block an or an entity which has never

been sympathetic towards the

Palestinians

yeah you're right uh but I don't think

that uh you know uh going to the

Security Council is the only option and

I you know I want to remind uh the

viewers of uh apartheid South Africa

um and I'm not throwing a direct Fair

load but what I want to uh remind

everybody of is that um all these

countries uh that now sing the praise of

Nelson the late Nelson Mandela and talk

about championing uh the uh uh taking

down of uh the system of apartheid

actually resisted fiercely

uh to to support uh uh the dismantling

of apartheid and they were the last to

join

that bandwagon of of the righteous if

you will

um and Nelson Mandela was considered a

terrorist by the United States and by

Great Britain and by all these that

major International Western democracies

until that was not politically feasible

anymore I don't think we should expect

anything different when it comes to

Israel having said that

um the way this legal This legal battle

is going

um you know inch by inch it is

incremental and it's painstaking and

it's gut-wrenching and it will cost even

more Palestinian Blood and Tears but

that is where all these countries are

being pushed to that's the corner where

there'll be where they can't deny facts

anymore so Security Council or not once

the verdict is out there will be a

different kind of momentum in the

parliaments of Western democracies that

respect themselves that have have to

face the facts and try to find a way to

be consistent with their actions in at

similar situations with their own laws

which they're now violating in order to

stand with Israel and give it political

cover and make it uh um you know a

country above the law that is really

exceptionalism will be hard to maintain

okay once a legal definition of Israeli

colonialism is handed down uh Bill let's

let's look at the bigger picture the the

International Community of the Americans

said that they were looking forward to

see peace talks Brazil between the

Palestinians and the Israelis those

talks broke down in 2014 you have now

Israel with its most far-right

government

how do you see the future

more uncertainty more fears of

instability

well I think the future is is uncertain

as Daniel said we are entering to the

realm of the unknown and the unknowable

uh I I do think there is going to be

much more instability I do think that

the pressure

will increase as a result of this vote I

think that increasingly Israel uh will

find itself condemned I hope because if

liberal democracy is anything and it has

any value then it will step forward

finally and condemn what Israel is as a

state is doing I think it's a very it's

a very difficult Road and we've already

heard from King Abdullah and Jordan he

said there are red lines uh you know if

if there's an attempt to change the

status of the only sites in Jerusalem

that's a red line for him

there are many people in the region

amongst the

authoritarians who are very close to the

uh Israelis and Coast who do not want to

see instability I think that would be a

pressure point as well I hope that these

various forces will combine to uh cause

Israel to think again and this is what

this decision is saying think again you

are an occupying Force you are

destroying not only Palestinian lives

you're destroying what is left of

Israeli democracy and truly people in

Israel will will pick up that challenge

and speak of as well I hope they will

thank you unfortunately we'll have to

leave it there

Daniel said man below I really

appreciate you inside looking forward to

talking to you in the near future thank

you

and thank you two for watching you can

see the program again anytime by

visiting our website Al jazeera.com for

further discussion go to our Facebook

page that's facebook.com forward slash

AJ inside so you can also join the

conversation on Twitter our hand is at

AJ Inside Story for me and the entire

team here in Doha bye for now

[Music]

thank you