The Triad of Inescapable Justice
"History will judge this era not by the violence of the oppressed, nor by the power of the oppressor, but by the international community's choice at the precipice: to perpetuate a bankrupt paradigm of impunity, or to erect a new architecture of peace upon the inseparable triad of justice—the unconditional sovereignty of Palestine, the inviolable accountability of its occupiers before law, and the fundamental reform of institutions that have shielded atrocity. For peace is not the absence of conflict, but the presence of justice; it cannot be built upon the foundation of a denied statehood, a shielded crime, or a vetoed conscience."
— Surah Al-Ma'idah (5:8)
Whalid Safodien
The Feather Pen
The Imperative of Justice: Palestinian Statehood,
Accountability, and UN Reform as the Only Viable Path to Peace
Monday 06 October 2025
1 Introduction: The Failure of the Current
Paradigm
The protracted Israeli-Palestinian conflict has reached a
historical inflection point where the international community faces an
unavoidable choice: continue the failed paradigm of endless negotiations while
Israel creates facts on the ground, or embrace a new approach rooted in justice, equality, and
accountability. The current
international framework, characterized by asymmetric power
relations and the
systematic shielding of Israel from consequences, has proven utterly incapable
of delivering peace or justice. The ongoing violence in Gaza, the expansion of
illegal settlements in the West Bank, and the systematic denial of
Palestinian self-determination demonstrate the moral and practical bankruptcy of the
status quo. This essay argues that the only viable path forward requires three
interdependent transformations: the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian
state based on the 1967 borders, the arrest and prosecution of Israeli leaders
for international crimes, and the fundamental reform of United Nations mechanisms,
particularly the U.S. veto power that has repeatedly obstructed accountability.
These elements together form an inseparable triad of justice without which no lasting peace is
possible.
The urgency of this transformation has been amplified by recent
events, including the International Criminal Court's issuance of arrest
warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense
Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity,
including starvation of civilians as a method of warfare. Concurrently, the
growing wave of international recognition of Palestinian statehood—now
comprising 157 UN member states—signals an emerging global
consensus that the
Palestinian right to self-determination can no longer be deferred. Meanwhile,
the United States has repeatedly employed its Security Council veto to block
ceasefire resolutions and shield Israel from accountability, most recently when
it alone vetoed a resolution supported by 14 other Council members. This essay
contends that the international community has reached a point of no return
where continuing the current approach constitutes complicity in injustice, and
that the alternative path outlined here represents not merely an option but
a moral and practical necessity.
2 Historical Context and the Palestinian Quest
for Statehood
The Palestinian pursuit of self-determination represents one of
the most protracted struggles for national liberation in modern history,
characterized by persistent diplomatic efforts and repeated compromises by Palestinian leadership. The
1988 Palestinian Declaration of Independence marked a historic compromise, with
the Palestine Liberation Organization accepting the 1947 UN partition plan and
thus formally embracing a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders. This
concession—relinquishing claim to 78% of historic Palestine—demonstrated
Palestinian willingness to establish a state alongside Israel rather than in
place of it. The 1993 Oslo Accords further institutionalized this framework through
mutual recognition between Israel and the PLO, envisioning a five-year
transitional period leading to permanent status negotiations. However, these
agreements contained a fatal flaw: they failed to explicitly condition
continued Israeli occupation to the principle of self-determination and
sovereignty, instead creating a
perpetual interim arrangement that enabled Israel to deepen its control over
Palestinian territory.
The international community's approach to Palestinian statehood
has undergone a significant transformation, particularly following Israel's
military campaign in Gaza. Historically, Western powers conditioned recognition
on the outcome of bilateral negotiations, effectively granting Israel veto
power over Palestinian statehood. However, the humanitarian
catastrophe in Gaza—with
widespread destruction and famine conditions—has prompted a fundamental
reassessment. Multiple countries including the United Kingdom, France, Canada,
and Australia have recognized Palestinian statehood, with UK Prime Minister
Keir Starmer explaining this shift as necessary "to keep alive the
possibility of peace and of a two-state solution". This brings to 157 the
number of UN member states recognizing Palestine, representing 81% of the
international community. This diplomatic surge reflects growing recognition
that, as UN Secretary-General António Guterres stated, "Statehood for
the Palestinians is a right, not a reward".
Table: International Recognition of
Palestinian Statehood
|
Period |
Number of Recognizing Countries |
Key Developments |
|
1988-1990 |
80+ countries |
Initial wave following Palestinian
Declaration of Independence |
|
1991-2010 |
10+ countries |
Limited additional recognition
during Oslo peace process era |
|
2011-2022 |
40+ countries |
Second wave led by Latin American
countries and Sweden |
|
2023-2025 |
20+ countries |
Third wave including major Western
powers following Gaza war |
Israel's response to growing international recognition has been
characterized by categorical rejection and escalation of settlement activity. Prime Minister
Netanyahu has consistently stated that a Palestinian state "will not
happen," describing recognition as "an absurd prize for
terrorism". This position reflects the Israeli government's fundamental
rejection of Palestinian sovereignty, which has only hardened as far-right
coalition partners like Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir have gained
influence. The expansion of settlements has continued unabated, with the
Israeli population in the West Bank exceeding 700,000. This creates a demographic and
territorial reality that
systematically undermines the viability of a future Palestinian state,
rendering the two-state solution impossible without external intervention.
3 International Legal Accountability and the
Case Against Israeli Leaders
The International Criminal Court's issuance of arrest warrants
for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav
Gallant represents a watershed moment in the pursuit of accountability for international
crimes in Palestine. The warrants allege responsibility for "the war crime of
starvation as a method of warfare; and the crimes against humanity of murder,
persecution, and other inhumane acts" during the Gaza war. These allegations stem from evidence
that Israeli officials "intentionally and knowingly deprived the civilian
population in Gaza of objects indispensable to their survival, including food,
water and medicine" and "intentionally directed attacks against the
civilian population of Gaza". The starvation charge relates particularly
to statements like Gallant's declaration that "there will be no more
electricity, no more food, no more fuel... We are fighting against human
animals and will behave accordingly". This case marks the first time the
leader of a Western-backed democratic country has faced ICC arrest warrants for
war crimes.
The ICC's jurisdiction over the situation in Palestine stems
from Palestine's accession to the Rome Statute in 2015, which granted the Court
authority over crimes committed on Palestinian territory. All 124 ICC member
states are legally obligated to arrest Netanyahu and Gallant if they enter
their territory, placing them in the same category as Russian President
Vladimir Putin, who also faces ICC arrest warrants. The Court's actions have
already had tangible consequences, with Netanyahu's travel plans reportedly
constrained. These developments demonstrate how legal accountability can impose real costs on leaders who
would otherwise operate with impunity.
The case against Israeli leaders exists within a broader
framework of systematic violations of international law. A United Nations Commission of
Inquiry has recommended adding genocide charges to the ICC warrants after
finding the Israeli government guilty of multiple violations of the 1948
Genocide Convention. Meanwhile, the International Court of Justice has issued
advisory opinions reaffirming the illegality of Israel's occupation of
Palestinian territories. These legal processes collectively establish a pattern
of serious violations of peremptory norms of international law—the highest
category of international legal norms from which no derogation is permitted. As
Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch, summarized:
"When you put it all together, it's clear that Israel has chosen to fight
Hamas not just directly, not just by targeting fighters, but by squeezing
Palestinian civilians". The accumulation of evidence across multiple international legal
institutions creates an incontrovertible case for accountability that the
international community can no longer ignore.
4 The U.S. Veto Power: Shielding Crimes and
Subverting International Law
The United States has systematically employed its Security
Council veto power to protect Israel from accountability, thereby enabling the
very violations of international law that the UN system was designed to
prevent. Since the outbreak of the Gaza war, the U.S. has vetoed multiple
Security Council resolutions demanding an immediate ceasefire, the lifting of restrictions
on humanitarian aid, and the release of hostages. In the most recent veto, the
U.S. stood alone against 14 other Council members, with a U.S. representative
arguing the resolution "failed to condemn Hamas and it failed to recognize
Israel's right to defend itself". This unilateral obstruction occurs amid
what Amnesty International describes as "Israel's genocide against
Palestinians in Gaza," making the U.S. veto "morally
reprehensible" and effectively
"greenlighting Israel's campaign of annihilation". The pattern of
veto use represents not merely political support for Israel but active
complicity in international crimes by systematically blocking mechanisms
designed to prevent them.
The consequences of U.S. veto use extend far beyond the specific
resolutions blocked, fundamentally undermining the legitimacy and
effectiveness of the entire UN
system. As Secretary-General Guterres has emphasized, the veto power is
"not a privilege—it is a solemn responsibility meant to be exercised
rarely, with humanity in mind". When used repeatedly to prevent action in
the face of mass civilian casualties, famine, and systematic destruction, the
veto becomes a tool of complicity rather than responsibility. This dynamic has
led to growing calls for reform of Security Council working methods, with
numerous states noting that the Council's "failure" and
"inaction" have "never been so grave". The U.S. veto
practice has particularly damaging effects because, as China's representative
noted, "were it not for the United States' repeated abuse of the veto, the
Council's response to the Gaza crisis would not have been so inadequate".
This abuse creates a crisis of credibility for the entire UN system, demonstrating that the
architecture designed to maintain international peace and security has been
rendered impotent by unilateral veto power.
The U.S. veto practice forms part of a broader pattern of unconditional support that includes massive military
assistance and diplomatic protection across international forums. This
comprehensive shielding of Israel from consequences has created a culture of
impunity, enabling increasingly severe violations of international law. The
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace notes that "the diplomatic
impunity Israel enjoyed for decades is no longer assured" due to shifting
international opinion, but the U.S. continues to exercise its veto power to
block even mild censures of Israeli policies. This creates what the Amnesty
International Secretary General termed "a deadly disregard for the
survival of Palestinians in Gaza" that "endangers the lives of the
remaining Israeli hostages" and "further erodes a fragile global
legal system". The systematic obstruction of accountability mechanisms represents a fundamental
betrayal of the UN Charter's values and the principle of equal application of
international law.
5 The Imperative of Palestinian Statehood as
Justice and Practical Necessity
Palestinian statehood represents far more than a political
solution to a territorial dispute—it constitutes the essential foundation
for equal rights, dignity, and self-determination that form the bedrock of international
justice. The denial of statehood perpetuates a fundamental inequality wherein
Palestinians live under Israeli control yet lack the rights of Israeli
citizens, creating what Secretary-General Guterres has termed "a one-State
reality where Palestinians are denied equal rights, and forced to live under
perpetual occupation and inequality". This reality constitutes a clear violation of the foundational
principle of sovereign equality—the concept that all states enjoy equal rights
and equal standing in the international community regardless of size, wealth,
or power. The persistent denial of Palestinian statehood thus represents not merely a
political failure but a fundamental breach of the basic normative architecture
of the international system itself.
Beyond its symbolic significance, statehood provides essential
practical tools for protecting Palestinian rights and interests within the
international legal order. Recognition enables Palestine to "open embassies
with full diplomatic status, engage in trade agreements, gain support at
international forums, and approach the International Criminal Court". These capacities are not merely
procedural—they represent crucial mechanisms for agency and self-defense in a
system where Palestinians have historically been denied both. Conversely, as
scholars Sonia Boulos and Xavier Abu Eid note, recognition without explicit
reference to the 1967 borders risks creating "the false impression that
the international community has met its obligation to bring an end to an
illegal situation, while Israel's colonization project continues aggressively
on the ground". Therefore, meaningful statehood must include clear territorial
definition based on
pre-1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as Palestine's capital, in line with UN
resolutions and international law.
The establishment of a Palestinian state also serves critical Israeli
and regional interests by creating the necessary conditions for lasting security and
stability. As Secretary-General
Guterres emphasized, "Israel's legitimate security concerns must be addressed.
And so must the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people". The current approach, which prioritizes
Israeli security while ignoring Palestinian rights, has proven
self-defeating—the denial of Palestinian self-determination fuels the very
resentment and extremism that undermines Israeli security. By contrast, a
sovereign Palestinian state would provide a legitimate national framework for
governance and security cooperation, marginalizing extremist elements that
thrive under conditions of occupation and hopelessness. The Carnegie Endowment
notes that international recognition of Palestine "diminishes the ability
of Middle Eastern advocates of zero-sum or exclusively military solutions—the
Islamic Republic of Iran and its nonstate allies—to claim that they are the
sole actors siding with the Palestinian right to self-determination".
Thus, Palestinian statehood represents not a concession to Israel but a strategic necessity for breaking the cycle of violence and
creating sustainable regional security.
6 A Comprehensive Framework for Justice:
Integrating Statehood, Accountability, and Institutional Reform
A just resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict requires a
comprehensive approach that integrates Palestinian statehood with legal
accountability and institutional reform, recognizing these elements as mutually
reinforcing rather than separate initiatives. This integrated framework
addresses the conflict's root causes rather than merely managing its symptoms,
acknowledging that peace without justice is inherently unstable and temporary. The foundation of
this approach must be immediate, unconditional recognition of the State of
Palestine based on the 1967 borders by all UN member states, particularly those
Western powers that have thus far hesitated. This recognition cannot be merely
symbolic—it must include concrete measures to operationalize sovereignty,
including support for Palestinian Authority reforms, economic development
initiatives, and security arrangements that protect both Palestinian
sovereignty and Israeli security. This process should culminate in full UN
membership for Palestine, which the United States must allow rather than
continue vetoing in isolation from the international community.
Legal accountability must proceed simultaneously with political
recognition, as these processes reinforce rather than contradict each other.
All ICC member states must fulfill their legal obligations to execute the
arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant, applying the same standards to
Israeli leaders as they would to leaders from any other country accused of
international crimes. This consistent application of international law is essential to
countering charges of selective justice and upholding the principle that no
state is above fundamental humanitarian norms. Additionally, the international
community should support the investigation of other Israeli officials
potentially responsible for international crimes, including far-right ministers
Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, for whom ICC prosecutors were reportedly
preparing arrest warrants for their involvement in illegal settlements. These
legal processes must be complemented by arms embargoes and sanctions targeting
individuals and entities involved in serious violations, creating meaningful
consequences for actions that violate peremptory norms.
Fundamental reform of UN mechanisms, particularly the Security Council veto power, constitutes the third essential pillar of this comprehensive approach. The current system, where a single permanent member can repeatedly block action in the face of mass atrocities, represents a structural injustice that enables and encourages violations of international law. While comprehensive Security Council reform remains challenging, immediate steps could include a voluntary agreement among permanent members not to use the veto in cases of mass atrocities, or expanded use of the "Uniting for Peace" procedure that allows the General Assembly to act when the Security Council is paralyzed. Additionally, states should strengthen support for international judicial institutions like the ICC and ICJ, resisting political pressure against their independent functioning. As the Carnegie Endowment notes, recognition of Palestine signals that "the political sanctities that shielded Israel for decades in the West are beginning to erode". This erosion of impunity must be accelerated through systematic institutional reform that prioritizes the consistent application of international law over political considerations.
Table: Integrated Framework for a Just Peace
|
Component |
Key Elements |
Implementing Mechanisms |
|
Palestinian Statehood |
- Recognition based on 1967
borders |
- Bilateral recognition |
|
Legal Accountability |
- Execution of ICC arrest warrants |
- National judicial cooperation |
|
UN Reform |
- Restraint in veto use |
- Political agreements on veto
restraint |
7 Conclusion: Justice as the Only Viable
Alternative
The international community stands at a historical crossroads
where continuing the failed approach of the past represents not merely
stagnation but active complicity in injustice. The current
paradigm—characterized by unconditional impunity for Israeli violations, repeated U.S.
vetoes shielding these violations from consequences, and the perpetual deferral
of Palestinian sovereignty—has produced only escalating violence, deepening
hatred, and systematic human rights violations. As UN Secretary-General Guterres
posed the essential question to those blocking progress: "What is the
alternative? A one-State reality where Palestinians are denied equal rights,
and forced to live under perpetual occupation and inequality?" The answer from the international
community must be a resounding rejection of this unjust reality and the embrace
of a new approach based on the inseparable principles of statehood, accountability, and
institutional integrity.
The comprehensive framework outlined here—integrating
Palestinian statehood, legal accountability for international crimes, and
reform of UN mechanisms—represents not merely one option among many but the
only viable path consistent with fundamental principles of justice and
international law. As scholars Boulos and Abu Eid argue, "Recognizing the
State of Palestine is first and foremost an act of historical justice, and a
reaffirmation of the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to
self-determination".
Similarly, legal accountability for Israeli leaders constitutes not vengeance
but the necessary enforcement of peremptory norms that form the foundation of the
international legal order. And reform of the Security Council veto represents
not an administrative adjustment but a restoration of the UN's fundamental
mission to "maintain international peace and security" rather than
enable its violation. Together, these elements create a mutually reinforcing
framework that addresses the conflict's root causes rather than merely managing
its symptoms.
The
time for half-measures and empty rhetoric has passed. As the Carnegie Endowment
notes, recent recognitions of Palestinian statehood "open a
diplomatic window of hope and lay the foundation for a new balance in the
international arena" but
must be followed by "practical measures" and "meaningful
action". Similarly, the ICC arrest warrants create an unprecedented
opportunity to end the culture of impunity that has long enabled serious violations, but only if
states fulfill their legal obligations to enforce them. The international
community must now choose whether to continue enabling injustice or to embrace
the only alternative that offers hope for a just and lasting peace: the
immediate recognition of Palestinian statehood, the consistent application of
international law to all parties without exception, and the fundamental reform
of institutions that have shielded violations from consequences. There is no other
alternative consistent with justice, equality, and the basic dignity of both Palestinians
and Israelis.
The Triad of Inescapable Justice
"History will judge this era not by the
violence of the oppressed, nor by the power of the oppressor, but by the
international community's choice at the precipice: to perpetuate a bankrupt
paradigm of impunity, or to erect a new architecture of peace upon the
inseparable triad of justice—the unconditional sovereignty of Palestine, the
inviolable accountability of its occupiers before law, and the fundamental
reform of institutions that have shielded atrocity. For peace is not the
absence of conflict, but the presence of justice; it cannot be built upon the
foundation of a denied statehood, a shielded crime, or a vetoed
conscience."
Whalid
Safodien
The Feather
Pen
