Iraq 2.0? How UN Security Council put Gaza under US occupation

Now, after Israel has failed to handle the situation in Gaza, the US is stepping in as Palestine's new de facto occupier. The UN Security Council Resolution on a stabilisation force in Gaza is materialising these prospects. As always, ambiguity and the language of business allow the US to obscure the reality of its role.

According to Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations, a “territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.” Gaza is now unwillingly placed under the authority of the US, which is making decisions about its future – the US is a hostile army.

The UN Security Council acts as the world's police. It does not apply international law impartially but designs a ‘rules-based order’ that reflects the equilibrium of interests among its members. For example, in 2003 the Security Council played a major role in normalising the blatantly illegal occupation of Iraq.

That occupation was not about rights; it was about US dominance and economic interests in the region. The wording of the resolution presumed Iraq was already destroyed and entrusted the US to guide its reconstruction. The US then used that piece of paper to legitimise its destruction of Iraq and design a failed state ripe for exploitation and political unrest.

Worst of all, international lawyers took this claim seriously, engaging in endless debates that shaped the careers of some prominent names. One of the most devastating effects of the occupation was the dismantling of Iraq's welfare economic system and its replacement with a neoliberal economic order.

The US effectively sold off Iraq's assets to foreign investors, leaving only crumbs for local ones.

Control

To begin with, this foreign control is coercively imposed on the Palestinian people. The casual tone of physical coercion by the US and Israel, threatening to “finish the job,” is a direct effect of the international community’s tolerance for bullying. Coercion invalidates any form of consent under any sane legal system. Meanwhile, political pressure by the US’s Arab allies lured in the Palestinian Authority (PA)’s consent despite its initial refusal.

It is important to recall in this context that the PA does not have any legitimate authority vis-à-vis Gaza except by the mandate of foreign recognition. Even if the PA had such authority, forgoing Palestinian self-determination, as it did in Oslo – is outside the remits of its mandate as implicitly affirmed by the International Court of Justice.

As in Iraq, the Palestinian population is excluded from decisions falsely made in the name of their protection. In this context, US decision-making about Gaza – even with the support of other states – lacks any sound legal foundation.

Furthermore, the plan imposes conditions that violate the Palestinian right to self-determination. The fulfilment of this right is premised on the dismantling of the occupation, the right of return, reparations, and resistance until the illegal occupation ends. These basic tenets are not subject to negotiation nor can they be forfeited.

Other customary rights, such as the duty of non-intervention, sovereignty over natural resources, and accountability for international crimes, are equally non-negotiable. In this regard, it is apt to recall that the International Law Commission has found that, in the event of a clash between superior norms—such as the right to self-determination—and a UN Security Council resolution, the superior norms ought to prevail.

Blood on their hands

The US is a hostile army. There are no grounds to believe in its good faith or competence. It was the primary supporter of the genocide; its complicity has crossed the threshold of direct participation in the gravest of all crimes.

The resolution establishes a ‘Board of Peace’ that is in charge of administering Gaza, bringing back flashbacks of Iraq’s US/UK-led coalition provisional authority created in UN Security Council Resolution 1483. While Russia initially rejected the establishment of this body and presented an alternative resolution, the US refused to change its position.

This body will oversee humanitarian aid and decide who is eligible for aid and who is not. It is unimaginable that the world would trust the architects behind the sadistic machinery of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) – whose name is now synonymous with the image of blood mixed with flour – to lead the "day after" plans.

Further, they seek to include the same contractors who led the GHF in future operations, offering military contractors $800-1000 a day with minimal training, throwing transparency, accountability and diligence out of the window.

The body will also oversee immigration policy, and as is already clear – it will facilitate a one-way path out of Gaza, in isolation of the right of return.

Meanwhile, in place of reparations, the UNSC resolution promises to flood Palestinians with debt from international financial institutions – the harm done by such debts has been deemed a crime against humanity in other similar contexts.

The US seeks to engage with Palestinians and Arabs to administer these bodies. It is apt to remember that all occupying powers co-opt elite members of the community to solidify and legitimise their control, as was the case in Iraq. The presence of Palestinian or Arab individuals in these bodies does not negate their foreign and imposed nature.

Its plan to disarm Hamas also lacks any valid legal basis under the doctrine of the use of force.

A military stabilisation force and a police force are also being established. To administer the stabilisation force, the US has established a Civil-Military Coordination Center. However, all states involved in discussions around the centre have violated their obligations towards the Palestinian people to varying degrees, these include: Germany, Canada, Cyprus, Australia, New Zealand, Denmark, Jordan, UAE, and France.

The centre will be administered by US and UK personnel and supported by a multinational force – Indonesia has promised to send 20,000 troops.

It is also clear that this force might cooperate with the rogue militia of Abu Shabab, whose members supported Israel’s genocide and profited from its weaponisation of aid. Its decision-making will be coordinated with Israeli forces, who, according to the International Court of Justice, are forbidden from exercising any form of control over Palestinian territories.

The Red Cross, which has been repeatedly criticised for a lack of neutrality in this context, is the only humanitarian foundation mentioned in this arrangement. Hesitance to participate in the force is already surfacing, while havoc and lack of cohesion in the planning are already clear.

Going forward, this plan promises catastrophe unless states not complicit in the genocide step in with good faith to safeguard the Palestinian right to self-determination.

As it stands, the future promises a heavily policed Gaza – where new surveillance equipment will be tested before being marketed to the world. And, it promises division among confused troops who will be faced with the dilemma of operating as an occupying force under the guise of ‘peace keeping’.

The plan also paves the way for Jared Kushner’s dreams of waterfront properties and caps the ceiling of Palestinian dreams at minimum-wage jobs and excessive debt. It promises another Abu Ghraib and covert settlements facilitated under the guise of a real estate market. It promises the wholesale sale of Gaza’s gas to multinational corporations in the name of development.

The future evokes flashbacks to the nightmares of Iraq. The only way to contest it is to call it by its name and reject it: the US occupation of Gaza.

We must keep calling for the fulfilment of international legal obligations: implementing arms and energy embargoes, imposing economic sanctions, and taking collective action to support a strong Global South coalition in support of Palestine.

Dr. Shahd Hammouri is an academic and international lawyer serving as a Lecturer in International Law and Legal Theory at the University of Kent. She also holds the roles of Non-Resident Fellow at Al-Haq and Senior Legal Advisor at Law for Palestine.

Follow Shahd on Instagram: @imaginary_Shahd  

Have questions or comments? Email us at: editorial-english@newarab.com

Opinions expressed in this article remain those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The New Arab, its editorial board or staff.