Thread by @EpshtainItay

Grateful that @UN_HRC expert on occupied #Palestinian territory, Dr. @FranceskAlbs raised the question of self defense claimed by an occupying power, #Israel. My own thoughts follow:

Self defense is understood as the inherent right of a State to use of force in response to an armed attack on it. It is one of the exceptions to the prohibition against use of force under article 2(4) of the @UN Charter and customary international law.

#Israeli claims of measures in self- defense, are disconcerting. There is no controversy about the prohibition breached by deliberate or indiscriminate attacks against civilians in Israel, but that does not absolve it from observing distinction, proportionality, and precaution.

The @CIJ_ICJ in the Wall opinion noted that while the UN Charter recognizes the existence of a right of self-defense in the case of armed attack by one State against another, Israel does not claim that the attacks against it are imputable to a foreign State.

The @CIJ_ICJ also noted that Israel exercises control in the #oPt, and the threat which it regards originates within, and not outside, that territory. The situation is thus different from that contemplated by Security Council resolutions 1368 and 1373.

Therefore Israel could not, in any event, invoke those resolutions in support of its claim to be exercising a right of self-defense. Consequently, the Court concluded that Article 51 of the Charter has no relevance in the case of the Wall.

Likewise, statements that give the impression that Israeli self-defense somehow precludes wrongfulness of indiscriminate and disproportionate Israeli attacks could not be accepted.

Any claims for derogation made by Israel on the basis of the necessity to safeguard an essential interest against a grave and imminent peril should be dismissed.

Ultimately - as the Court suggested in 2004, "the fact remains that Israel has to face numerous indiscriminate and deadly acts of violence against its civilian population. It has the right, and indeed the duty, to respond in order to protect the life of its citizens (...)

The measures taken are bound nonetheless to remain in conformity with applicable international law."

Claiming self-defense is not a benign political statement, but has far-reaching legal consequences that may undermine IHL compliance and put civilians at aggravated risk. When Israel claims that the Law of Armed Conflict somehow does not apply in full to its actions.

Israel must abide by IHL, with no exceptions, and that the argument of self-defense is entirely irrelevant to the lawful conduct of hostilities or to the lawful administration of occupied territory, including law enforcement operations when and where it is subdued.