Arab’s Abstinence at ICJ; ‘We Live in a Glasshouse’

The outbreak of a war against Gazan people in 1990s would have definitely led to an Arab solidarity against a Jewish force. The war would be the fifth in a series of conflicts between Arab nations that started in 1948 and culminated in 1967 six-day conflict that was named the third Arab-Israeli war. The Arab world, nevertheless, has other priorities in 2020s, serving national interests rather than religious or racial benefits. Gaza war broke out on October 7, 2023 amid an imminent normalization of ties between Saudi Arabia and Israel that could resolve the Arab animosity with the Jewish state. An Arab passivity towards the genocidal acts in Gaza is no longer an astonishment as standing as a sideliner serves them better in twenty-first century.

The South African lawsuit against Israel, whereby the African country charged Tel Aviv with planning to carry out genocide against the Palestinian people in Gaza, recently started court hearings before the International Court of Justice. The proceeding has sparked discussion among Arab governments as to the reason they did not support Pretoria in the legal process as well as the reason behind their failure to bring a similar case against Israel and in support for their Arab brothers before the International Criminal Court or the International Court of Justice.

All nations may be the target of a case brought by any one of the UN members, according the ICJ’s statute. Arab states could have lent hand to South Africa in its lawsuit, or at the very least launched a separate complaint against Tel Aviv in the International Court of Justice. In the case files, South Africa acknowledges that, as a signatory to the treaty aimed at avoiding genocide, it has a “duty” to uphold the “Genocide Convention”. There are 19 Arab nations signatories to the Genocide Convention who could have used their standing to bring proceedings against Israel before the International Court of Justice. Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Lebanon are among the most influential powers in the list whose name could have a similar or better resonance in attracting the worldwide attention to the condition in Gaza following the October 7 attacks by Hamas against people in Israel.

There are several Arab governments that may argue that they have a “reasonable” basis for not taking such an offensive action. Some may argue that because their economies are tiny, they are unable to handle the fallout. Some others may contend that they are unable to sue Tel Aviv since they do not recognize Israel as a legal or official state. The Tunisian president, one in the passives’ list, states that he was against an act to make “normalization” with Israel illegal due to its potential detrimental impacts to the country’s strategic and economic agenda.

Economic considerations or excuses, by the way, comprises part of the truth behind the passivity of Arab nations in face of Israel’s violence against Palestinian people. Nations like Saudi Arabia have more clout and a bigger economy and have legitimate grounds to challenge Israel before the ICJ. The initial rationale for Saudi Arabia’s stance might be their concern over possible US repercussions. The majority of Arab governments think they are unable to oppose US policy against Israel. Saudi Arabia has been discussing an agreement to normalize ties with Israel in return for a exclusive US defense and nuclear alliance.

Egypt’s recent political and diplomatic activism shows a clear tendency to strengthen relations with Israel. Egyptian president believes that Israel, along with influential Arab nations of the region, was instrumental in persuading the White House to remain silent on the coup he spearheaded a decade earlier. Both Riyadh and Cairo have avoided clashes with the Washington on issues pertaining to Israel finding the American main ally in the Middle East a decisive factor reshaping the dynamics of their ties with the United States. Both nations have ignored Washington on other important, but less integral issues such as OPEC+ policies and relations with American foes in the East bloc.

The Arab states’ reluctance to support South Africa’s legal action can also be explained by the horrendous human rights backgrounds of the majority of Arab nations. Israel could file a similar lawsuit against these countries challenging them on issues they were expected to be present in court hearings as the accuser not the accused. Living in the glasshouse of local dictatorships, these states prefer not to throw stones at on another; a fact that has been indispensable in containing the escalations in the Middle East. It is possible to accuse Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the majority of Arab nations of perpetrating various human rights breaches.

Egypt’s tainted judiciary has hundreds of politicians and activists behind bars on false accusations. Egypt has also killed, arrested, and forcibly relocated Sinai residents after destroying numerous dwellings based on claims regarding terrorism and security issues. Saudi Arabia has been tightening the grips on critics, progressives, and social and environmental activists. Thousands were detained without due process and condemned to death for nothing more than activity on social media. Additionally, the Kingdom is alleged to have committed grave war crimes in its long-years’ war against Yemen. Flagrant abuses of international humanitarian conventions are impeding forces thwarting any willingness in Arab states to bring lawsuits before the International Court of Justice or International Criminal Court.

Far from the rationales behind the Arabs’ passivity on Gaza, there is totally an unwillingness to genuinely back the people of Gaza. Despite their repeated remarks against Israel’s attack on Gaza, Arab nations took no actual measures to comply with their discourse. After the Israeli assault in Gaza unexpectedly lasted for almost a month, Riyadh and the Arab League resolved in holding a conference in Saudi Arabia to address the matter. The meeting called for a lift on the embargo and siege. However, the Arab states never had an actual move to realize the commitment. Rather than defying Israeli orders, Egypt blocked the movement of wounded people outside of Gaza conditioning it to Israel’s authorization of their identities.

Egypt defends its stance by claiming that any failure to cooperate with Israel would lead to the latter’s bombardment of the checkpoints and humanitarian cargos. Ironic enough, a lawyer representing Israel before the International Court of Justice said that Cairo is in charge of the Rafah border and should take the responsibility for blocking relief supplies from reaching Gaza. Arab States are no longer brothers who support one another in face of a threat. For most Arab authorities, Hamas is a destructive force which should be eliminated in Gaza war, whatever it means for the fate and future of the people in Gaza who have endured long months of terror, forced displacement, and violence.