ROLE FOR INTERNATIONAL LAW IN THE MIDDLE EAST PEACE

PROCES
BY:
ALLU, SAI SARAYU
2018007
7 SEMESTER
th

NAME OF THE PROGRAM: BA LLB (Hons.)

NAME OF THE FACULTY MEMBER: MR. VISHNU KUMAR
DATE OF SUBMISSION: 31 DECEMBER, 2021. 

DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,

NYAYAPRASTHA, SABBAVARAM, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA
PRADESH- 531035.

      

1
SYNOPSIS
INTRODUCTION

The Israeli–Palestinian peace process refers to the intermittent discussions held by various parties and
proposals put forward in an attempt to resolve the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict.  Since the 1970s,
there has been a parallel effort made to find terms upon which peace can be agreed to in both the Arab–
Israeli conflict and in the Palestinian–Israeli conflict. Some countries have signed peace treaties, such as
the Egypt–Israel (1979) and Jordan–Israel (1994) treaties, whereas some have not yet found a mutual
basis to do so.

Sometime in the mid-1970s the term peace process became widely used to describe the American-led
efforts to bring about a negotiated peace between Israel and its neighbors. The phrase stuck, and ever
since it has been synonymous with the gradual, step-by-step approach to resolving one of the world's most
difficult conflicts. In the years since 1967 the emphasis in Washington has shifted from the spelling out of
the ingredients of "peace" to the "process" of getting there. … The United States has provided both a
sense of direction and a mechanism. That, at its best, is what the peace process has been about. At worst,
it has been little more than a slogan used to mask the marking of time.
Since the 2003 road map for peace, the current outline for a Palestinian–Israeli peace agreement has been
a two-state solution; however a number of Israeli and US interpretations of this propose a series of non-
contiguous Palestinian enclaves.

RESEARCH QUESTION
WHAT DO PALESTINIAN THINK ABOUT PEACE PROCESS?
WHAT WAS THE OPINION OF ICJ?
WHETHER THERE ARE ANY RULES AND LAWS THAT RAE APPLICABLE?
WHETHER THERE IS ANY SOLUTION FOR ARAB-ISRAELI CONFLICTS?

OBJECTIVE OF RESEARCH PAPER

This Research paper gives an understanding about international law has played a major role in
the Middle East, International laws role in making peace in Middle east, the advisory of ICJ,
rules and development that are applied in binding the peace , and also the solution for Arab-
Israeli conflicts

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ‘
“Doctrinal research includes :-
1. Descriptive study
2. Explanatory study
3. Analytical study
4. Comparative study”

2
  ABSTRACT
Periodically, the continuing malaise in Israeli-Palestinian relations leads to demands for action
by the European Union to take a more active position and to help it find a permanent and just
solution to the conflict. The EU acknowledged in its 2003 Security Strategy that "Arab-Israeli
conflict resolution is a strategic priority for Europe." Twenty-seven economically established
and influential states that have agreed to have a shared foreign policy that aims, among other
things, to maintain respect for international law, human rights, democracy and the rule of law
have a strong interest in resolving a dispute in their procurement. Periodically, the continuing
malaise in Israeli-Palestinian relations leads to demands for action from the European Union to
take a more active role and to help it find a permanent and just solution to the conflict. The EU
acknowledged in its 2003 Security Strategy that "Arab-Israeli conflict resolution is a strategic
priority for Europe." Twenty-seven economically established and influential states that have
committed to a shared foreign policy that aims, among other things, to maintain respect for
international law, human rights, democracy and the rule of law have a strong interest in
resolving a dispute in their procurement.
In the Middle East, the lack of authority of international law is such that the area is a powder
keg with an extremely short fuse. The fact that the interests of the wealthy have outweighed
international law on balance during the history of the modern Middle East has been transformed
into a legacy of conflict, dispossession, and resentment. The law on the books can never be
isolated from the way it is actually enforced. In particular, this is true of international law,
which, due to its decentralized existence, lacks a framework of decision, implementation and
compliance of central law. In order for any justice system to prevail, the statute must be isolated
to the fullest degree possible from the dictates of power politics. Where the Middle East is
concerned, international law has failed to disassociate itself from those dictates of power, in
effect recreating the region as an underclass of the international legal community.

3
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. BODY OF THE PAPER

a. Introduction
b. Advisory opinion of ICJ
i. Applicability of rules and principles of international law: Binding nature
c. Role of International Law in Search for Peace in the Middle East
d. Developments and Effectivity of International Law 
i. Remarks on responsibility
a. Of lawyers
b. Of institutions of international law
c. Of litigation
d. Shape of legal discourse
e. Solution to Arab-Israeli Conflict
II. CONCLUSION
III. BIBLIOGRAPHY

K J H G F T Y U I O L K J H G F D V N JJ HH JJH JJ HH JJ HH II OO KK JJ HH GG FF DD
RR TT J J J H NN BN BN VB CV FG HJ HY N J U HU NM U JJU HU HU HU JY J I
NVHF WDNODJSNFVJ KJSV NVINVWRBG NOGKNVNR NVT URBJ RK V O VRUV NF
KGJNV BUBVRJF JRJB J F IOD VNRJIOTN HIG JRIOJIOJTR IJR JRJGTJRGFNHRNV
IHDIOHJNFGN TIJ IRJTHGKKFGNG GJGM GJG GJG GJG GJG KGGNIORJDSFM VKG
GKG GKG KG GKGKG GKG KG KG VK VOG VKG GKG GKG KG GK KG GKG KG
GKLG KTJGOLMB OLRGFM, VBLG MTOF FMNIGCMR CUIJNG IKJ ROIT KLJNORM
BR N GTFNGKHV GGG G G G G G G G G G H H HH HF F F F G F FF F F RR T T G G
G G G G GG G G H H H H T T T T T TT T T T T

RTYDFGHDE4RVGHDETYGF RRTYHGGGDFDGHFG EFGHGF

D F G G GH R T F CD G H B V VB T H H VK K J N M . [ L M J H B G V F G H H J K L
O I U Y R E D C R FV T G B Y H N U J M I K , L O I U Y T R R D V N , ; KJ B V C X D F

G H JK M N B

4
 INTRODUCTION
Throughout its modern history, international law has played a major role in the Middle East. As
early as 1947, a resolution was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly to split
Palestine into two separate states, one Arab and one Jewish, paving the way for the establishment
of the State of Israel. In the years and decades since, a substantial number of resolutions have
been followed by the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council. Resolution 194 of
the General Assembly of 1948, to quote just a few of them, laid down, among other things, a
number of principles on the refugee problem and specified that “compensation should be paid for
the property of [the refugees] choosing not to return [to their homes] and for loss of or damage to
property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the
Governments or authorities responsible.” Resolutions 242 and 338 of the Security Council of
1967 and 1973, respectively, called on all parties concerned to initiate talks with a view to
achieving a just, sustainable and lasting peace in the Middle East.
At the behest of the parties to the Middle East dispute, the United Nations has also sometimes
been able to conduct such tasks. As an example, both Israel and Lebanon stated to the Secretary-
General, following Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000, that the determination of the
withdrawal line was solely the responsibility of the United Nations and that they would honor the
line defined. The President of the Security Council subsequently released a statement on behalf
of the Council endorsing the conclusion that, in compliance with Security Council Resolution
425 of 1978, Israel withdrew its forces from Lebanon.
However, the United Nations has not been able to meet the demands of the parties on all
occasions. "A peace treaty between Egypt and Israel was concluded in 1979, in which both
parties agreed, inter alia, to a detailed regime restricting military forces and activities in the Sinai
and an adjacent strip in Israel. The treaty also stated that the parties would request "the United
Nations to provide forces and monitors to track the execution of their agreement. As the United
Nations was later unable to have such a peacekeeping force, outside of the United Nations, the
parties were left with no choice but to establish a peacekeeping organization. In this case,
international law has definitely served as a useful instrument for the parties, as it has helped them
to develop and enact a legal structure for an independent international body, the Multinational
Force and Observers, funded equally by its three fund-contributing States: Egypt, Israel and the
United States.
When Egypt and Israel were unable to reach an agreement some years later on the position of
fourteen pillars demarcating their international borders, they decided to refer the conflict to a
five-member tribunal by binding arbitration for resolution. However, the agreement of the parties
to arbitrate the boundary dispute relating to the Taba Beachfront was unique in that it also
included comprehensive conciliation arrangements by a chamber consisting of three of the five
arbitrators to take place while the arbitration was in process. When the Chamber reported that it
“regretted not having been able to propose to the Parties any recommendation for a settlement of

5
the dispute, despite their efforts to find a reasonable proposal which might be acceptable to both
Parties,” the dispute had to be resolved by arbitration.
The parties were able to use legal machinery in the Taba case to resolve their boundary dispute.
Is adjudication, however, sufficient for all questions, even the most divisive ones, which
inevitably have major political implications?
55 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 3 3 5 T G R EE E R G G R 4 4 4 T T T T T E E F G G T T R R R
ADVISORY OPINION OF ICJ
One of the most important contributions made by international law in the Middle East in recent
years is the advisory opinion issued last year by the International Court of Justice, at the request
of the General Assembly, on the legal implications of wall construction in the occupied
Palestinian region. In its view, the Court found Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem,
and the state associated with it, have been in conflict with international law. The Court further
expressed the view that the United Nations "should consider what further action is required to
bring to an end [this] illegal situation ... taking due account of the present Advisory Opinion."
The advisory opinion, however, are not binding on nature; indeed, this is their main feature. In
his speech last November to the Sixth Committee of the National Assembly, the President of the
International Court of Justice, Judge Shi, stated that "even the ... body [requesting an advisory
opinion] is not obliged to accept the conclusions of the Court." Judge Shi pointed out that "the
'judicial' approach to this non-binding procedure makes it possible for the Court to offer an
authoritative legal opinion, which nonetheless allows for flexibility in its implementation by the
participants." The practical importance of advisory opinions to the continuing attempts of the
parties to arrive at agreed solutions to their pending political problems is a concern that may be
addressed this morning. But even more generally, when the parties seek to deal with their
disagreements through agreements that allow them to maintain the greatest possible level of
influence over the process, to what degree can international law rules and standards still be
applicable to their discussions?
Applicability of rules and principles of international law: Binding nature
International law does not prescribe the definitive answers of parties to problems that are
inherently political in nature, according to the laws of jus cogens. However, it can supply the
cement for diplomatic settlements. Second, moves toward creating a comprehensive, just and
sustainable settlement in the Middle East have been taken every time there has been a
combination of political courage and legal creativity.
5555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555

6
ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW IN SEARCH FOR PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST
The first position is passive and subterranean, but primordial and essential at the same time. It is
a passive function in the sense that, irrespective of any intervention by the parties or by third
parties, it causes its results ipso jure; hence its subterranean or imperceptible character. However,
international law has a fundamental role to play as a source of the fundamental rules of social
interaction and of the constitutive rules of the international legal community, and as a guardian
and preserver of the fundamental rights and responsibilities arising from those rules.
Such laws, privileges and responsibilities are deemed to be so essential for the dignity of the
legal system as to be, by consent of the parties or third parties, non-waivable. They represent the
infrastructure that inherently underlies any legal relationship and cannot legally stand something
that is not founded on that basis.
The red lines cannot be bypassed because of the judicial determination of the basic legal
parameters of the situation by the highest court in the international legal system. These are, first
of all, the inadmissibility of the acquisition by invasion of land and the right of all the inhabitants
of the country to live in peace, which includes the right of self-determination of those who have
not yet exercised it, namely the Palestinian people. The territory is subject to international law
and, accordingly, to the Fourth Geneva Convention and to the customary law of war. This
occupied territory comprises every inch of territory which before the war was not under Israeli
civil jurisdiction and which came under its jurisdiction through military occupation as a
consequence of war. Every portion of it that remains, for as long as it remains, continues to be a
"occupied territory." under Israeli influence. A fundamental feature of this status is that any
alteration in this occupied territory, geographical or demographic composition, is illegal. Thus,
treaties are unconstitutional. It is very important to remember, on this issue, that the fifteen
judges of the International Court of Justice agreed. They found that the law of war applied, that
this was occupied territory, and that the settlements were illegal. Even Judge Buergenthal, who
voted against the entire decision (because his fundamental stance was that it could not be
delivered by the Court), agreed with the conclusions.
As a result, in the search for a solution, any arrangement that ignores one of these will not stand
firm. It would actually violate the law jus cogens of international law, laws that create
employment obligations that not only give all members of the international community a right or
a locus stand, but also give these members the responsibility to take action to uphold it.
What follows is a second, more visible, but less important part of international law in the pursuit
of peace in the Middle East. If America wants to do certain things, here's how they can go about
it, for example, through negotiations, reconciliation, mediation, etc. Provides States tools or
formulas that can be used but can also be changed. These are not the rules of jus cogens.
International law here plays the role of facilitator by placing certain procedures in the hands of
the parties, which is very common to mediate or go to court. Counseling ideas are very helpful in
clarifying certain legal aspects of a dispute. But there are many other options available as well.

7
International law does not provide a definitive solution to all problems. It leaves a limit to where
a solution must be reached by parties and where third parties can help bring organizations to such
a solution. But it should be within the red lines; red lines are a different story; it cannot be
negotiated or moved. In other words, the Roadmap and Quartet efforts are good and good, but
the result of the final negotiations of the conditions, if they happen and happen, can not be
deviated, that is, you have to fall within, the red mentioned above the lines.
In Israel and Egypt, the Jordan, and Palestine, international law did not participate. In the peace
treaties with Egypt and Jordan, international law fully played its primary role in enforcing the red
lines, which were 100 percent respected, in particular the prohibition against encroaching on any
part of the territory in which it was inhabited. The failure of Oslo's agreements could also be due,
at least in part, to their holding on to the problem of the end result and not placing it clearly in
red lines.
The positive role of international law includes building cooling and building confidence, we
must move from the goal of employment to a normal relationship. How can one ask those
brought to hard work to pretend they were not there? Even Sharon's plan to withdraw from Gaza
will keep Gaza completely controlled by Israeli forces. It will be fenced in all over the world, in
the air, at sea under siege, with a military cord between Egypt and Gaza, and a wall on the whole
side of Israel (but which has not raised controversy as it operates on the armistice line). In these
cases, according to international law, Gaza will remain a human settlement. But things can
change very quickly if the work is really over, and legal considerations are able to find all the
formulas that allow for progression and respond to the parties' concerns about security
guarantees, cooperation strategies, etc. (When examples in the two peace agreements are full); as
long as they cross the red line.
The propositions summarised
By definition, international law has a role to play; that it is a double role; that it is passive but
fundamental; that it is active but less essential. If we want to appeal to this second position, if the
political will of the parties remains, there are infinite possibilities. The problem does not vanish
if it doesn't, but the simple laws and their consequences do not disappear either. Owing to their
simple existence, they are not subject to a prescription. In such cases, it remains the duty of the
international community to step forward in order to maintain the basic principles of its legal
framework and to place pressure on the parties to move forward towards a solution consistent
with those principles.
555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555
DEVELOPMENTS AND EFFECTIVITY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
In the Middle East, this is a positive moment. We should be careful and tentative, to be sure, as
there are major barriers ahead. The new efforts will not take anything to disrupt and trigger a fall
back into the brutality of the past four-and-a-half years. But, it's a hopeful moment for all that.

8
In some small ways, it may even be a more hopeful moment than that optimistic point twelve
years ago when the Declaration of Principles was sealed with a handshake between Yitzhak
Rabin and Yassir Arafat. That was a moment of bold vision and hopes writ large that a different
dynamic of Israeli-Palestinian relations was possible. But, for all that it presaged, the boldness
was hampered by the absence of an express and clearly articulated goal-the Israeli polity could
not bring itself to vocalize the objective of a viable and independent Palestinian state in Gaza and
the West Bank. And for all that it presaged, the boldness was hampered by an unwillingness on
the part of the Palestinian polity to take real, active, and ongoin In some minor ways, it would be
a time of hope beyond that optimistic point twelve years ago when the Declaration of Principles
was closed with a handshake between Yitzhak Rabin and Yassir Arafat. That was a moment of
bold vision and written hope that a different strength of Israeli-Palestinian relations was possible.
However, in all of its priorities, courage was thwarted by the lack of a clear and definite purpose
- the Israeli police did not come to express the intentions of the independent Palestinian state in
Gaza and the West Bank. And in spite of all that was expected, courage was interrupted by the
reluctance of the Palestinian political process to take real, effective, and continuous action to
ensure an end to the violence. Things on both sides look more relaxed with the process instead of
the ending.
The situation is different today. Rabin is gone, though Israeli policy still looks normal. Arafat is
gone, and Palestinian respect is beginning to take a different form. Not long ago, Israeli
leadership has voiced its commitment to the Palestinian state, although there are still some
common questions about the motives and nature and depth of the long-term goal. The Palestinian
leadership has announced new powers to control the violence and has taken drastic measures to
do so, although there are still some common questions about the strength of this commitment and
whether it will be achieved. The new withdrawal process in Gaza, which began as an act of
solidarity, is increasingly taking the side of many international and negotiated sides and is
bringing about renewed, or vigilant, cooperation between the two sides and promises of foreign
aid. In addition, there is a shift to the north of Lebanon and Syria that is likely to result in
widespread Middle Eastern peace. Surprisingly, in recent weeks, we have seen the opening of a
crossroads in Golan Heights to allow Israeli-grown apples in the area to be sold in the Damascus
markets. It seems that there is new momentum in Amman and Cairo, and in the Arab League, in
search of a wider space. This painting, of course, is very beautiful, but the seeds of discovery are
there.
The law gives meaning to the controversy. It is to be found in the engine room to a greater or
lesser degree, either giving impetus to peace initiatives or holding back such initiatives as it
crystallizes the parties' position at the furthest ends of the debate.
So then, what role does law and do lawyers and the institutions of the law have to play in the
search for peace in the Middle East? 

9
It is easy to see the issue from the end of the process and say with one voice that the law is
everything because in law there is always a principle, and legally there is injustice and proper
housing on both sides; but in other words to respond with equal enthusiasm that, instead,
pragmatism is due to the fact that there are two competing issues that work equally well and pain
that needs to be recognized, and that is exactly the systematic pursuit that is barren and often
ideological in the absence of peace.
In my opinion, the position is even more complicated. Law is undoubtedly important on many
levels. The essentials of group claims are based on the law and cannot be simply dismissed. At
the end of the day, a permanent agreement that marks the end of the war will be reduced to
words and a legal instrument in which both parties can point to the agreed settlement and which
includes their hopes for a different future. In the normal course of a peaceful relationship, both
parties may in time seek to settle disputes by arbitrarily settling or settling disputes.
Most importantly, I think, at least in seeking a permanent agreement, that the law is often the
language of negotiation, provides the same framework and point of reference for all those who
are interested in the matter to which they can point, not just those in the room. It is a summary
that allows different ideas to be expressed and understood by the general public. Dennis Ross's
recent account of his time leading US policy in the Middle East highly honors the role and ability
of lawyers - especially Jon Schwartz from the State Department - in formulas that could prevent
divisions between the two parties in the most difficult of times.
We must not forget that the law and the beliefs of the law can be a good source of art. Peace
zones can be made, as is the case in the Israel-Jordan Agreement, to accept competitive and
equitable international land claims. Creative ideas of royalty and authority are probably where
the answer to the Jerusalem conundrum lies. Collaborative plans relating to scarce water
resources, Sacred Places, and many other things will eventually be considered to be resolved and
resolved in ways that are not legally binding.
But it is a mistake, in my opinion, to seek a solution to a legal dispute and to enforce the rules in
a systematic way. Each side sees the conflict differently and has its own follow-up lines and
errors and complaints claims. And I do not believe that it is possible to solve this problem by
issuing a third party judgment on the basis of the law in a way that can provide a secure basis for
lasting peace. For all the undoubted significance of these questions, in my view, it is absolutely
bold in the endless discussions about, for example, the importance of the absence of a clear line
in Resolution 242 (1967) 16 whether the Green Line was authorized by the Palestinian state. The
extent of the conflict in these and other issues is largely simply referring to the words on the
page. If you incorporate more than half a century of controversy, strict adherence to the rules and
principles of the law each side claims is a way to focus the opposing views of each side, not to
reach a settlement. That has not yet come to the forefront of the pressing question of who should
do the first thing - who should do it first and how far before the other party can be expected to
answer. Finally, both sides should live together on the basis of a living space that gives each one

10
what is most important to them and backs away from each other when they are not. Aside from
the difficulty of identifying what the law is, there are too many gaps in the law so that a complete
and permanent agreement is based on one view or another legal point of view. For example, if
you do not have a decent residence that offers adequate travel arrangements between Gaza and
the West Bank, Palestine would be a state of affairs that would not otherwise be possible. If there
is no residential area that provides shared distribution and water management, the seeds of a
long-standing growing dispute will be planted. No settlement allows Palestinians to sell their
work, goods and services in Israel and allow Jews to live and worship in Hebron, as they have
done without interruption for more than two thousand years, peace, no matter how limited and
well done, is unlikely to tolerate.
Therefore, calls to pragmatism within the framework of law. To be clear, this is not a momentary
suggestion that the state of peace should be strongly defined. Not at all. There should be a fair
peace that meets the essential needs of both parties. But the tool of living may lie in
pragmaticism within the framework of law, not solidarity.
Remarks on responsibility
Responsibility of lawyers 
Lawyers in this dispute have a special obligation. It is an obligation not only to represent their
client to the world at large and to advance a case, but also to represent the law to their clients; to
provide a frank and, if possible, persuasive review of the balance of law applicable to the issues
under consideration. And it is an obligation, in my opinion, to say things that, while unpleasant,
need to be heard, especially to outside lawyers, who are often best positioned, for reasons of
independence and perspective.
Institutions of international law whether judicial or deliberative 
These organizations have a special obligation to behave reasonably and with balance if there is to
be a change away from power and towards principle. We are entitled to expect balance and
courage in the pursuit of peace, especially in a conflict like this, which has conflicting narratives
rooted profoundly in history and in which there are rights and wrongs on both sides. Revisionist
background and a timidity to represent each side's valid interests do not advance the cause of a
just settlement under law.
On litigation
Litigation is not the response to conflicts whose resolution, if it is to be permanent, must reassure
all parties that they have an interest in the outcome. It is the very nature of litigation that the
parties are expected at either end of the continuum to state their positions in maximalist terms.
Invariably, litigation polarizes and entrenches the parties in their convictions. While it can help
to draw a line under a specific aspect of a larger conflict, it is not conducive to a wider settlement
momentum.

11
On the shape of the legal discourse
The Israeli-Palestinian debate, so far, has turned almost exclusively to the settlement law. This is
inevitable. But there are some basic shortcomings in this discourse. It depends on the awareness
that there is a resident and he is busy and throws the relationship between them separately of
responsibilities on the one hand and rights on the other. This is inaccurate and unprepared for the
emergence of a different, more equal, stronger force between the two parties where both are the
beneficiaries of the rights and both are subject to the functions.
We cannot yet, discard work discourse. However, as Israel withdraws from Gaza and regains
control of Jericho, Tulkarem, Kalkilya, and elsewhere, we can and should withdraw from this
discourse where possible in accordance with a different legal framework, the rule of law, the law
applicable to international relations. This will accomplish three things. It will begin to reflect on
the relationship between Israel and Palestine in terms of equality and state structure. It can place
on each side the burden of looking inward and balancing their conduct against the requirements
of the law, rather than focusing on the conduct and obligations of the other. Eventually, in many
areas (and this will increase as divisions divide), this will be the appropriate long-term analysis
framework, which will place Israeli and Palestinian responsibility on moral responsibility within
their authorities.
55555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555

SOLUTION TO ARAB-ISRAELI CONFLICT

There is an equal and lasting solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. There is no perfect justice, and
no justice at all. No one in life gets 100 percent and, in fact, whether it is for lawyers or
negotiators, the phrase that should be emphasized in part of all the discussion chambers in this
world is that the perfect one will never be allowed to be an enemy at all.
the only way to reach this equitable and lasting solution is to continue the long, painful, and
flawed negotiations. It is flawed because it is based on human weakness and weakness, because
it is based on the realities of domestic politics, and because it ultimately requires the most
difficult decisions the parties need to make, and then sell, protect and feed before their regional
constituencies.
If it strongly believes in the power of American unity, when used wisely and effectively, to play
a positive role in resolving this conflict by integrating, pressing, pressing, supporting, and
resolving issues, various roles. The United States plays this role because it makes sense for its
role, whatever the weaknesses and inequalities of American policy.
International law plays a role, but not as a major force in shaping motives, statistics, and
ultimately the parties' decisions on what conflicts exist. Existing conflicts can actually work
according to specific rules of political dynamics that can make it very difficult to apply a moral
standard that does not escape. Therefore, it is necessary to share a few ideas.

12
FIRST, the main decisions that led the Arabs and the Israelis to win agreements in only three
quarters of the negotiations they had reached - namely, the Israel-Egypt negotiations, the Israel-
Jordan negotiations, and the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations (despite the collapse of the Oslo) -
driven by basic factors, political needs, and needs: Can they sell these agreements at home? The
level of urgency in negotiations, which is very important in determining when it is successful and
when it fails; Which team, including the mediator, is the fastest? Do the views of the two parties'
time negotiating with the mediator agree? If not, agreements are often not made. Finally, the
notion of generating agreements is not based on balance or inequality but in balance of interests.
This is what makes successful negotiations come to an end. The Israel-Egypt negotiations were
successful because they actually showed a balance of interests. It lasts to this day, however
imperfect. The Israeli and Jordanian negotiations show a balance of interests. It survives to this
day. The Israeli-Palestinian dialogue has highlighted the balance of power, there has never been
a more accurate or sufficient balance of interests, and that more than any single factor is why we
have the situation we have today.
SECOND, these factors - not just any kind of internationally accepted code of conduct, code of
conduct, or a set of conferences or legal frameworks - form the basic trade that politicians end up
pleasing and reaping in order to form these agreements. I would say that this basic trade requires
greater flexibility, less transparency, and perhaps more expertise than the unstoppable level of
international law or precursor permitting, especially in the current war. The political
understanding formed by all three of these agreements follows the same model. Leaders who
negotiate privately, usually with a proxy, build basic trade away from lawyers and away from
international perspective to build the foundation needed to actually have a negotiation process
that led to an agreement. Confidentiality, the absence of transparency, has shown that it is very
important in all three conversations.
THIRD, one of the most common principles governing the international legal system of the
United Nations is the principle of UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.1 The extent to
which these resolutions reflect the contents of the UN Charter, adopts the legal process, and
accepted international law principles, I think "international law" has had a significant impact on
the two sets of negotiations that actually show the implementation of resolutions 242 and 338, as
well as the unfortunate ones, namely, Israel-Palestine and Israel-Syrian Negotiations.
FOURTH, where international law plays a role in helping groups compile, position, and come
up with appropriate procedures (e.g. third-party disputes, decisions, warrants) where the basic
trade of these disputes is ultimately done.
FIFTH, there may be other structural reasons why international law faces such constraints. 

13
Other structural reasons
1. One is that a weaker negotiating group, in this case the Palestinian and Arab states who
want everything that the Israelis have, i.e. territory, is likely to fall back on whatever
arms, resources, and tools they can call upon to represent, garner, and marshal allies in
their attempt to reinforce their case against the Israelis and to develop international
support. But the other side is going to strike back while the weaker party tries to use the
tool. As far as the Israelis are concerned, because of the baggage borne by the United
Nations to this day—even though relations have changed in a very positive way—they
seem to have rejected international law-based claims for that reason.
2. Two, that the U.S.-Israeli relationship defies the political laws of gravity governing most
of our relations with States in the international system. We have a special relationship
with the State of Israel. Administrations have been very reluctant to create international
courts of opinion which appear for any number of reasons to be beating up on the Israelis,
including their desire to protect their own sovereignty. We have in this respect shied
away from applying international law for this specific reason. We are not an honest
broker to this conflict, yet we can be an effective one. Because of our special relationship
with the State of Israel, we are not going to adopt a position in a negotiation that is
somehow equidistant between the respective positions of the parties. What we are trying
to do is to create a situation which reflects the balance of interests-which may or may not
reflect the correct balance-and that means producing agreements that are successful and
that endure. The issue of honesty is less important here as a principle than the issue of
effectiveness. If the agreements are brokered and endure in a way that is mutually
satisfactory to both sides, then we have succeeded.
3. Three, we cannot think of one instance in which international law or legal precedent
fundamentally affected the core decision of either party to a negotiation or of the
mediator. The following question thus needs to be posed. In a conflict that is existential
in character, generated by historical trauma and wounding, with sets of political
constraints on both sides, is it reasonable or realistic to look for any inviolable
international standard to generate the kinds of tools and instruments that the parties will
actually use to make core decisions to protect their mutual interests- It is an arguable
proposition. But based on twenty-plus years of watching and participating in these
negotiations, it seems to me that these calculations and conclusions are driven by an
internal logic that only the parties can appreciate and support, and ultimately the
international community may be able to help sustain it. It is that internal logic which
ultimately will dictate whether a comprehensive, permanent solution to this conflict can
be reached.
555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555
555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555

14
 CONCLUSION
It can be concluded that it does not need to be a naked tree under international law. The
international community's attempts to explain the content and consequences of international legal
laws, at least as they relate to the Palestinian-Israeli dispute, and to impose non-compliance costs
on the parties, will do a great deal to expand the impact of the law. Moreover, such efforts should
be complemented by a convincing dialogue on the fairness and feasibility of the resolution of the
contested issues within the legal system: while acknowledgement of legal rights should inform
the negotiating framework, it does not ignore the need to clarify the validity and fairness of the
rights invoked, nor should it foreclose the debate. In addition, this kind of persuasive effort
should not be restricted to talks between legal counsel at the bargaining table, and the formal
resumption of negotiations should not be anticipated. Indeed, if international law is to represent
the principles and ideals of the international community, if it is to overshadow the glare of
political confrontation, then broad dialogue on its substance, its demands, and its constraints
should be an essential part of attempts to create universal support for peace.
The law's ability to promote and direct negotiations depends on the negotiating parties'
understanding that legal laws either cast a shadow or provide a shade. Standards whose
compliance seems distant or whose fairness or ability to offer benefits is in doubt would have
little negotiating power. Indeed, international law was all too often viewed as a naked tree in the
sense of the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations. The United States' inability to limit the substantive
course of the peace talks or to allow Israel to be censured for non-compliance with international
law greatly shortened the perceived shadow of the law. At the same time, the shadow of the rule,
its "compliance pull" independent of the prospect of implementation, was diminished by a
number of factors: the propensity of Palestinian negotiators, particularly at the beginning of the
negotiations, to invoke legal norms as dictates requiring strict obedience, without undertaking to
persuade Israeli negotiators that the legal structure they referred to was sensitive, their impotence
in addressing many of the crises of the twentieth century.

J J H JK U H N UD N OEV EE RR R RR RIO ENFNNVF

HRIFJPEOJRHEFPOSKP[AWKSIRHFGRPOFKVSJNVM;SKEFLROIFDLFK;RSIOVFJK;AF
ERKDJHGORIUKFNSJKRVFNOPRJGEOD

15
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Articles/Blogs/Columns:
1. Henry Seigman, The Israel-Palestine Conflict in International law: Territorial Issues,
2009. 
2. Prof. Robbie Sabel, International Law and the Middle East Conflict. 2012.
3. Urfan Khaliq, The European Union, international law and the Middle East peace process,
2009. 
4. Tytti Erästö, The Lack of Disarmament in the Middle East: A Thorn in the Side of the
Npt, 2019.
5. John Quigley, The Oslo Accords: International Law and the Palestinian-Israeli Peace
Process, 2002. 
6. L C.J. Advisory Opinion on Construction of a Wall, 2004. 
7. Jose E. Alvarez, Hegemonic International Law Revisited, 2003. 
8. Aaron David Miller, Israel's Lawyer, 2005.

16
17