Protestors gather In Washington DC after Russia invaded Ukraine. Photo: Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
International law strives to provide stability and order in relationships between states. It is a framework for upholding universal human rights, as established by treaties such as the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, as well as holding states accountable for acts such as genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. It also advocates the notion of self-determination for people and supports decolonisation efforts.
Following the events of 7 October 2023, Israel’s destruction of houses, schools and hospitals in Gaza has led to 1.7 million Gazans being internally displaced. The UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees believes that removing the rubble will take up to 15 years.
Israel’s continuous disregard for international law guidelines predates 7 October. This highlights how the selective urgency of resolving global crises, particularly the Israel-Palestine conflict, raises concerns about the major elements that drive international responses.
Constructivists emphasise the significance of culture, ideas, institutions and social norms in determining identity and behaviour. In this case, the identities of Palestinians and Israelis are rooted in history and religion. For instance, the Israelis’ narrative is based on biblical claims and the Holocaust, emphasising their fight for survival and self-defence. The Palestinian narrative emphasises displacement, historical grievances and injustices caused by the Israeli occupation, forming their identity around resistance, self-determination and the right to return.
Another aspect is that the norms integrated in the international community can be attributed to the constitutive approach to statehood, which also concurs with global attitudes towards responding to certain issues. This leads to the idea of statehood within Palestine, which reflects the lack of urgency they have faced since 1948, because of conforming to a declaratory form of statehood and not a constitutive.
The Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States declares that the legitimacy of statehood is through a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and the capacity to enter relations with other states.
Statehood is characterised by sovereignty. Therefore, a state can be recognised as a legal body even if its borders are disputed, as long as it continuously controls the land. As a result, the State of Palestine announced in 1988 has not been deemed legitimate because Palestinian organisations controlled none of the lands they claimed.
Many Israeli journalists such as Eitay Mack have dismissed the situation in Palestine as a genocide case study. Through this, the occupation has left Palestinian society in a chronic condition of social, economic and political underdevelopment since 1948.
In international law, recognising a state under the constitutive theory asserts that the act of recognition by other states constitutes a new state and gives it legal identity, not the procedure by which the entity attained independence. This stance emphasises the importance of international recognition in granting statehood and legitimacy, suggesting that a state’s legal status is based on its acceptance by the global community.
Applying the constitutive theory to Palestine contends that other nations and international organisations require recognition for Palestinian statehood. Despite the Palestine Liberation Organisation’s 1988 proclamation of statehood and recognition by new countries since 7 October, the lack of universal recognition, particularly from the US and many Western countries, complicates its position under this theory, so too, the manner of response to their surmised genocide.
The selective urgency of international responses to the Palestinian and Ukrainian crises indicates a huge discrepancy that undermines Palestinians’ right to return and claim statehood.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine prompted quick, universal outrage. The European Union, US and many other countries expeditiously placed severe economic sanctions on Russia while providing significant military help to Ukraine and rallying in international forums to defend Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. This response demonstrates a strong commitment to maintaining international law and the concept of state sovereignty.
In contrast, Palestinian statehood and the right to return have not received the same level of urgency and international support. Despite multiple UN resolutions upholding Palestinian rights and criticising Israeli acts, the implementation has been inconsistent. The political interests of the US veto power have frequently blocked it. This gap highlights a problematic double standard in the international community’s approach to justice and human rights.
The dehumanisation of Palestinians brings forth the question of whether international law serves universal interest. Settler colonialism encompasses not only the removal of indigenous peoples from their territories, but also the erasing of their histories and knowledge. At the Berlin Conference, European powers divided Africa and Zionists followed suit in Palestine by exploiting colonial ideologies and biblical grounds to marginalise indigenous Palestinians, eliminating them from public discourse and forcibly removing them from their homeland.
Israeli textbooks frequently depict Palestine as a hopeless, empty land before the arrival of Jewish immigrants. They minimise or dismiss the 1948 Nakba and its enduring consequences, portraying Palestinians as foreign dangers rather than people whose homes, lands and resources are being seized and destroyed.
These textbooks also obliterate Palestinian history and culture, implying that the region was uninhabited and ready to be reclaimed by Jews. They portray Palestinians as primitive, futile and untrustworthy or, even worse, as violent aggressors. In contrast, they portray Jews as fighting a just and humane battle against an Arab enemy that refuses to recognise Jewish legitimacy and rights in Israel.
With the erasure of Palestinian history, it has become evident that the Israeli perspective has been prominently represented and perceived as more credible. The media, government authorities and society in general frequently dehumanise Palestinians by depicting them as metaphors and limiting their identity to a monolithic image of violence or conflict. Israel’s ambassador to Berlin Ron Prosor stated that “The Western world must stand with Israel as it fights the bloodthirsty animals of Hamas.”
The description of Hamas militants as “bloodthirsty animals” is incredibly dehumanising, as it implies that they lack humanity and civilised behaviour. This dehumanisation affects all Palestinians, revealing systemic bias and discrimination. These representations exacerbate systemic disparities, impede peace efforts and marginalise Palestinians.
The selective urgency in international law frequently reflects how civil society views Palestinians. When Palestinians are dehumanised, their suffering is typically minimised or ignored, resulting in an inadequate international response and intervention. This selective approach jeopardises human rights by allowing injustices to persist without adequate global attention.
It also demonstrates disparities in how various groups are valued and managed and it is evident in the comparison between Palestine and Ukraine, implying that political ideologies and interests, rather than universal human rights principles, shape the administration of international law.
Mutende Namfukwe is a graduate of the Department of Politics and International Relations at the University of Johannesburg.