On February 23, the United Nations (UN) convened a meeting to address Israel’s armament, considering its use of Western weaponry in its systematic war against Palestine, which contravenes international humanitarian law. This meeting came in response to a group of UN experts demanding an immediate embargo on weapons being supplied to Israel.
This have prompted Israel to level accusations against the UN, alleging bias, cooperation with Hamas, and disregard for Israel’s interests and its right to defend itself, according to statements made by Israel’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Israel Katz. The trajectory of Israel’s armament dossier within the framework of the UN can be elucidated through the following key points:
I. UN Underpinnings Regarding Armament Activities
When it comes to its engagement with armament operations, the United Nations functions in accordance with the Arms Trade Treaty. The ATT is an agreement among member states of the UN that aims to regulate the international trade of conventional weapons, ranging from small arms to battle tanks, combat aircraft, and warships. It was negotiated during a global conference held under the auspices of the UN on July 27, 2012, in New York and came into effect in December 2014, following the signatures of 130 countries, which included Palestine and Lebanon. The primary goal of the ATT is to prevent and eliminate the illegal trade of conventional weapons and implement measures to prevent the risk of transferred arms being diverted and consider mitigation measures, as outlined in Article 11 of it.
In light of this, on February 21, in Geneva, the Tenth Conference of States Parties to the ATT (CSP10) was convened to deliberate on the transfer of arms to Israel. As per the official website of the ATT, the three-day gathering aimed at bringing to light for the first time the matter of non-compliance with Article 3 (3) of the ATT, which stipulates that “State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1) or of items covered under Article 3 or Article 4, if it has knowledge at the time of authorization that the arms or items would be used in the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians protected as such, or other war crimes as defined by international agreements to which it is a Party.”
With this context, on February 23, a group of UN experts presented the Israeli side with a memorandum concerning the trajectory of armament. The memorandum contained a cautionary statement from experts advising against the provision of weapons or ammunition to Israel for use in Gaza. It emphasized the necessity for all countries to adhere to international humanitarian law in the midst of armed conflicts, as required by customary international law and the 1949 Geneva Conventions. Therefore, countries should abstain from transferring any weapons, ammunition, or components that they are aware will be used in violation of international law, based on factual evidence or previous behavior. It was stressed that EU Member States must also comply with EU Arms Export Control Law and that state parties to the ATT have extra obligations under the treaty to prevent arms exports.
Therefore, the imposition of an arms embargo on Israel was reinforced in light of the in light of the January 2024 ruling by the International Court of Justice, which determined that there was a significant likelihood of genocide in Gaza and ongoing severe harm to civilians since that time. Notably, states parties to the 1948 Genocide Convention are required to use all reasonably available means to prevent genocide in another state.
II. The Israeli and Palestinian Perspectives on Armament
1. The Israeli Vision: The vision presented in the Israeli working paper, submitted by the Permanent Mission of Israel to the UN on February 21, seeks to justify Israel’s involvement in acts of genocide and connect its weapon acquisition efforts with the activities of non-state actors and terrorist organizations in the Middle East, which, according to Tel Aviv, has significant implications for international security, contributing to the escalation of armed violence, including gender-based violence.
Furthermore, the paper demonstrated that conventional weapons are being illicitly traded and dispersed at previously unheard-of levels throughout the Middle East. One notable example of this, according to the paper, is the transfer of weapons to the Hamas organization, which came to light after the events of October 7, 2023, when a sizable cache of conventional weapons was discovered in Hamas hands. The Israeli paper claims that these weapons were illegally transferred to Hamas and were used in the attack against the Israelis.
Relatedly, the Israeli working paper claimed evidence of gender-based violence perpetrated by Hamas, encompassing accounts of mutilation of dead bodies in ways that are gender-based. The paper made reference to Article 7 of the ATT, which underscores the criticality for countries to consider, in making their export assessment, the possibility that conventional weapons or ATT-covered items may be utilized to perpetrate or enable severe acts of gender-based violence by terrorist organizations.
2. The Palestinian Vision: The Palestinian note verbale, submitted on February 23 by the Permanent Observer Mission to the UN, addressed the transfer, export, and politicization of the transit of weapons, aircraft, military items (including components or spare parts), and dual-use items to Israel within the past four months.
The note also revealed that Israel continue to systematically employ weapons to perpetrate acts of genocide in Gaza, with an escalation of military operations and explicit threats to conduct a ground military intervention in Rafah.
Within this framework, the note denounced certain member states’ facilitation of arms transit processes and their noncompliance with ATT provisions, including the Common Article 1 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, Articles 6 and 7 of the ATT, as well as the draft articles of the International Law Commission on the responsibility of states and the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The note underscored the significance of initiating dialogue with transit or exporting countries, such as Norway, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, France, the Czech Republic, Canada, Australia, Japan, and the United States, in addition to potential transit countries including Cyprus, Greece, and Belgium, in order to ascertain their position.
Perhaps this development in Israel’s armament necessitates a halt to all transfers of military equipment, aid, components, and ammunition to Israel in order to prevent it from violating international and humanitarian law.
These countries must refuse to have their ports and airports used for the transfer of weapons to Israel, and they must not enter into any agreements pertaining to military cooperation, including those pertaining to intelligence and training.
III. UN Action on Armament Issues
The UN has undergone a significant change in its approach to the Israel’s armament. This was evident in the UN meeting on February 23, which took place after Israel failed to comply with the provisions of the ATT. This event is regarded as a precedent within the UN since after the entry into force of the ATT in 2014. The commencement of the negotiations and the UN experts’ response underscore the gravity and intensification of the situation due to the rise in military aid and the politicization of arms transfers to Israel, thereby implicating several treaty parties in transgressions of international law.
The action has prompted the foreign ministers of Italy and Spain to declare that their countries will no longer sell weapons to Israel. Furthermore, earlier on February 12, a Dutch appeal court issued a ruling ordering the Netherlands government to cease exporting components for F-35 fighter aircraft to Israel. This ruling is based on the Netherlands’ legal obligations under the ATT and EU law.
Relatedly, the UN statement brought attention to proof of Israel’s widespread use of unguided “dumb bombs,” intentional, disproportionate, and indiscriminate attacks, the neglect to alert civilians of impending attacks, and denunciations of Israeli military leaders and troops.
The situation calls for a firm response by countries to restrict the occurrence of crimes committed by Zionist forces and gangs, which violate international humanitarian law. The EU has recently discouraged the export of weapons to Israel, and this aligns with the suspension of arms transfers by Belgium, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, and the Japanese company Itochu.
Moreover, the situation necessitates that the United States, on the one hand, cease its provision of air and sea weaponry support to Zionist forces and refrain from dealing with Israel as a US state “outside US territory”, and on the other hand, reevaluate the magnitude of the US forces’ losses in the Middle East region since October 7, particularly in light of engagements and airstrikes with the Houthis in the Red Sea. In addition, American arms corporations that assist in the production and dissemination of weapons to Zionist forces bear individual responsibility as perceived by the United Nations and in accordance with the principles of international humanitarian law
.In short, although the international community has observed progress and coordination when it comes to armament issues, it continues to confront numerous armed conflicts in various parts of the globe, particularly non-international armed conflicts characterized by severe crimes against humanity. One notable example is the massacre endured by Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip. An examination of the political landscape reveals that the First World War illustrated the League of Nations’ inability to accomplish its primary objective of safeguarding international peace and security through the implementation of collective security mechanisms outlined in the League of Nations Charter during armed conflicts. This failure ultimately led to the formation of the UN in 1945. However, legal and political issues continue to surround the UN involvement in internationalizing non-international armed conflicts and its efforts to resolve them, especially considering its inconsistent handling of international peace and security issues in general and its role in internationalizing non-international armed conflicts specifically, as major global powers, particularly the United States, have harnessed the UN to advance their own national interests, disregarding the interests of the international community. This pattern of conduct has been observed in the realm of international affairs, resulting in a loss of trust in the credibility of the UN.
