International Law Backs the Crossing's Arab Identity

by Dr. Abdul-Sattar Kassem

A number of people describing themselves as experts in international law appear on television screens justifying the necessity of implementing the agreement with Israel regarding the Rafah crossing, calling for the crossing’s conditions to return to what they were before Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip, and, subsequently, of the crossing. They consider the side agreements with the occupation part of an international legitimacy that must be upheld.

I am not among those who believe in international legitimacy — I believe it is power that makes law, and that international law reflects the interest of the powerful. Even so, international law stipulates the following:

International law does not permit seizing the land of others by force — a statement that heads UN Security Council Resolution 242. International law permits resistance in order to end occupation.

Israel is an occupying state, and it must, under international law, end its occupation of the land it occupied in 1967, must return the Palestinian refugees under UN General Assembly Resolution 194, and must return to Palestinians the land designated for them under UN General Assembly Resolution 181.

Agreements with an occupying state have no basis in international law, and whatever is built on a false premise is itself false. Concluding an agreement with an occupying state, made by the people living under that occupation, is built on a false premise, and is therefore certainly void. The Rafah crossing agreement is not lawful under international law, because it entrenches the very occupation international law calls to end. Under the law, all states, including Egypt and the other Arab states, must refrain from taking part in an agreement with an occupying power whose occupation international law deems illegitimate and which must be worked to end.

The problem with those who claim the Rafah agreement’s legitimacy, and Egypt’s responsibility for implementing the agreements, is that they want to please the holders of power — America and Israel above all. America and Israel try to evade UN resolutions and international law in service of their own interests, by holding conferences according to their own whims. Bush, on his recent visit to the Arab region, affirmed that the United Nations does not constitute a point of reference regarding the Palestinian cause.

There are no provisions in international law placing bilateral agreements above international law itself. Bilateral agreements that contradict or violate international law are not considered part of international law, and are void. The Palestinian Authority’s agreement with an occupying state regarding the continuation of the occupation, in one form or another, contradicts international law, which does not permit the occupation of another’s land by force.

Source: Translated from the original Arabic, “القانون الدولي مع عروبة المعبر” by Dr. Abdul-Sattar Kassem.