Let me start with a personal story. I first visited Palestine in May and June of 1981, just as I was graduating from law school in Canada. I stayed with friends of mine in Ramallah who had encouraged me to come to Palestine, and, during my five weeks in Palestine, I travelled extensively — all throughout the West Bank, through many of the refugee camps, through Jerusalem, through the Galilee, Haifa and Gaza. I met with Palestinian lawyers, including several who vividly described for me the challenges of representing political prisoners as they advocated for them in the Israeli military courts against impossible odds.
That trip in 1981 and my conversations with Palestinian lawyers like that made an immense impression on me, and inspired me to return to Palestine in 1989 and work for six months for the United Nations as a refugee affairs officer during the first Palestinian Intifada.¹ I lived in Bethlehem and spent long, exhilarating and anxious days and nights working in the refugee camps, with particularly intense memories of the camps in Balata, Dheisheh, Nur Shams and Qalandia. During this time, I witnessed death and destruction and Israeli cruelty, with young boys dying before my eyes in Nablus and Jenin, Tulkarim and Aida. I also experienced the immense warmth and kindness from the Palestinians that I lived among, and witnessed an enduring sense of Palestinian communal solidarity.
These trips to Palestine confirmed for me two things: first, that human rights for everyone and everywhere, and particularly in Palestine, was an important struggle worth fighting for, and second, I was going to immerse myself in the study of international law when I returned home, because that was already becoming an important arena in the struggle for Palestinian rights. These lessons have guided my work ever since as a practicing lawyer in Canada, as a law professor, and eventually as a UN international human rights specialist.

Where Are We Today: Three Important Trends

So let me turn to where we are today in the international arena with international law and Palestine. And in this short review, I want to mention three important trends.
First, the international movement for Palestinian rights has won some important legal victories over the past three years, which has not only reaffirmed how strongly international law is on the side of the Palestinians, but also how these legal victories can be translated into political victories, increasingly isolating Israel’s occupation and building support for recognizing Palestinian national rights.
Beginning with the International Court of Justice, we have witnessed three important victories for Palestine.
- In January 2024, the Court decided, in an interim ruling, that South Africa had made out a plausible case that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza;²
- In July 2024, the Court issued an advisory opinion that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory was illegal, and it had to end the occupation “as rapidly as possible.”³ Two months later, the UN General Assembly, by an overwhelming vote, welcomed the Court’s ruling and stated that Israel had to end its occupation by September 2025.⁴

- And in October 2025, the International Court of Justice issued another advisory opinion that Israel was absolutely required to respect the premises and activities of the United Nations and particularly the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, and it could not interfere with its mission.⁵

Turning to the International Criminal Court, it issued arrest warrants in November 2024 for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant (the first time ever against a so-called ally of Europe and the U.S.), alleging that they committed war crimes, including the crime of starvation, during Israel’s massive assault on Gaza.⁶
It is also important to note that numerous reports have been issued over the past 6 years by highly respected human rights organizations and bodies — including United Nations experts,⁷ and by Amnesty International⁸ and Human Rights Watch⁹ — concluding that Israel is practicing apartheid in Palestine, and that it has committed genocide in Gaza.
All of this has given lots of new wind in the sails of the global Palestinian solidarity movement, as they work to translate these legal victories into practical political advances. Look at the brand-new legislation in Ireland, which bans Israeli settlement goods.¹⁰ Look at the progressive Democrats in the United States who are winning elections by campaigning for Palestine and opposing continued American military support for Israel.¹¹ Look at the shift in American Jewish opinion towards Israel as it becomes more critical, with 39 percent saying that Israel has committed genocide and 61 percent concluding that it has engaged in war crimes.¹² And countries in Europe and elsewhere who have been longstanding friends of Israel are now recognizing the State of Palestine.¹³ The earth beneath the feet of Israel and its supporters is now shaking.

Many Challenges Ahead

My second point is that, while we are winning important legal and political victories for Palestine internationally, we have to remain sober about the many challenges still ahead. By far the biggest challenge is to address the shortcomings of our international political system, and particularly its lack of accountability. International law states clearly that: 

- the Geneva Conventions apply in full to the Israeli occupation of Palestine,¹⁴
- that the Israeli settlements are illegal¹⁵ and are international war crimes,¹⁶
- that Israel’s annexation of Jerusalem is illegal,¹⁷
- that the occupation itself is illegal and must end immediately,¹⁸ and
- that the Palestinians have an undisputed right to self-determination.¹⁹

Yet we all know that the Israeli occupation is deepening with every passing day,²⁰ and that Israel —with the active assistance of the United States — has openly and loudly defied these UN resolutions and these rulings from the international courts. We also know that Europe and North America are happy to speak about the importance of international law when it comes to Russia and Ukraine, but are mysteriously silent about international law when it comes to Israel and Palestine.

International law is not itself at fault. In the global arena, there is always going to be a struggle in the world between law in the service of power and law in the service of justice. Rather, it is the international political system where the fault lies, and particularly the abuse by the United States of its veto power at the United Nations Security Council, which has blocked decisive international accountability to end Israeli impunity and the occupation. Kofi Annan, the former Secretary General of the United Nations, wrote in his memoirs that the United States has used its veto power to protect the Israelis from international scrutiny, thereby paralyzing the United Nations from acting on one of the world’s central struggles.²¹

What Can Be Done

Which brings us to my third and final point: what does the future hold for legal defenders and what can be done to break this pattern of lack of Israeli accountability in the face of such clarity in international law? We have to translate our legal victories into political demands for full Israeli and American and European accountability. We know that we cannot expect Israel to suddenly take international law seriously, and we know that rupturing the political alliance between the Global North and Israel — which is the key to Israel’s impunity — is vitally important.
In my view, we as lawyers have to continue pushing for legal victories internationally and locally, since they are providing confidence to the growing global social movement in support of Palestine. Ordinary people respond well and are very willing to demonstrate and protest and organize when they know that something is illegal as well as unjust.
We also have to explain the limits of the law, and point to the political hypocrisy of those Western powers who are blocking the application of the international laws that they claim to support, particularly when it comes to Israel and Palestine. We have to help people link the legal struggles with the political struggles: that a legal victory at the International Court of Justice, or an important resolution adopted by the United Nations, should be part of their arguments to their own governments to finally get on the right side
of history when it comes to Palestine.

Hope and History Rhyme

To conclude, I guarantee that we in the West, we who live in these centres of power, we will continue to do all we can to ensure that our governments will be held responsible for the lack of support for the values and rulings of international law. Palestine must be free, and the law has much to contribute to the realization of justice, freedom and independence for the Palestinians.
May I leave you with this thought. Like you, the Irish have long known oppression and colonialism under the thumb of an avaricious foreign power. This subjugation over centuries gave rise to rebellion and sustained popular resistance. In the face of overwhelming odds, the Irish finally achieved freedom. One of Ireland’s greatest poets, Seamus Heaney, the winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1995, wrote a famous passage about this in his poem The Cure at Troy.²² Heaney was inspired by the
release from prison of one of the 20^th century’s great lawyers, Nelson Mandala. Heaney wrote:

History says, don’t hope
On this side of the grave.
But then, once in a lifetime
The longed-for tidal wave
Of justice can rise up,
And hope and history rhyme.

Inspired by justice, propelled by the examples of resistance, motivated by courage, reinforced by international solidarity, blessed with humility and anchored in international law, the Palestinians are surely making hope and history rhyme.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¹ M. Lynk, “Vignettes of Nablus” (1990), 20:1 Journal of Palestine Studies 101.

² Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v Israel), Order of 26 January 2024, ICJ Reports 2024, at para. 54: “In the Court’s view, the facts and circumstances mentioned above are sufficient to conclude that at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection are plausible. This is the case with respect to the right of the Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts identified in Article III…”
³ Legal Consequences Arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, Advisory Opinion of 19 July 2024, I.C.J. Reports 2024, at para. 267: “With regard to the Court’s finding that Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is illegal, the Court considers that such presence constitutes a wrongful act entailing its international responsibility. It is a wrongful act of a continuing character which has been brought about by Israel’s violations, through its policies and practices, of the prohibition on the acquisition of territory by force and the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people. Consequently, Israel has an obligation to bring an end to its presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as rapidly as possible.”
⁴ UNGA Resolution A/RES/ES-10/24 (18 September 2024): “Demands that Israel brings to an end without delay its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, which constitutes a wrongful act of a continuing character entailing its international responsibility, and do so no later than 12 months from the adoption of the present resolution;”

⁵ Obligations of Israel in Relation to the Presence and Activities of the United Nations, Other International Organizations and Third States in and in Relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion of 22 October 2025, I.C.J. Reports 2025, at para. 196: “The obligation to respect the inviolability of United Nations premises and the obligation not to interfere with United Nations property and assets must also be upheld in the context of armed conflict, as such inviolability and non-interference are essential to safeguarding the independent and effective performance of the functions of the Organization under all circumstances.”
⁶ Situation in the State of Palestine: ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I rejects the State of Israel’s challenges to jurisdiction and issues warrants of arrest for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, 21 November 2024, accessed at: Situation in the State of Palestine: ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I rejects the State of Israel’s challenges to jurisdiction and issues warrants of arrest for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant | International Criminal Court.
⁷ On apartheid: see the 12 August 2022 report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967 (A/HRC/49/87). On genocide: see the 14 August 2025 report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem and Israel (A/80/337.
⁸ On apartheid, see Amnesty International, Israel’s Apartheid Against Palestinians (1 February 2022). On genocide, see Amnesty International, ‘You Feel Like You are Subhuman’: Israel’s Genocide Against Palestinians in Gaza (5 December 2024).
⁹ On apartheid, see Human Rights Watch, A Threshold Crossed: Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution (27 April 2021). On genocide, see Human Rights Watch, Extermination and Acts of Genocide: Israel Deliberately Depriving Palestinians in Gaza of Water (19 December 2024).
¹⁰ Ireland, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, “Minister McEntee welcomes passing of Israeli Settlements Bill by Oireachtas” (15 July 2026).

¹¹ J. Medina & R. Epstein, “Victories by Pro-Palestinian Democrats Show the Party’s Shift on Israel”, New York Times, 24 June 2026.
¹² N. Bendavid, S. Clement & E. Guskin, “Many American Jews Sharply Critical of Israel on Gaza, Post Poll Finds”, Washington Post, 6 October 2025.
¹³ F. Hargreaves, “Belgium Considers Becoming Latest EU Country to Recognize Palestinian Statehood”, Middle East Eye, 7 July 2026.

¹⁴ Legal Consequences Arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, Advisory Opinion of 19 July 2024, I.C.J. Reports 2024, at para. 96: “Israel’s powers and duties in the Occupied Palestinian Territory [the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza] are governed by the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949…and by customary international law.”
¹⁵ UNSC Resolution 2334 (23 December 2016): “Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law…”
¹⁶ Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (last amended 2010), 2187 UNTS 90 (17 July 1998), Article 8(2)(b)(viii). The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Turk, stated in 2025, with specific reference to the Israeli settlements, that: “Pursuant to article 8 (2) (b) (viii) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the transfer by the occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory, amounts to a war crime.”
¹⁷ UNSC Resolution 476 (30 June 1980): “Reconfirms that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War…”
¹⁸ Legal Consequences Arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, Advisory Opinion of 19 July 2024, I.C.J. Reports 2024, at para. 267; UNGA Resolution A/RES/ES-10/24 (18 September 2024).
¹⁹ Legal Consequences Arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, Advisory Opinion of 19 July 2024, I.C.J. Reports 2024, at para. 257: “The Court considers that the existence of the Palestinian people’s right to selfdetermination cannot be subject to conditions on the part of the occupying Power, in view of its character as an inalienable right.”
²⁰ Chatham House, “Israel’s accelerating de facto annexation of the West Bank has dangerous implications” (17 April 2026), accessed at: Israel’s accelerating de facto annexation of the West Bank has dangerous implications | Chatham House – International Affairs Think Tank; International Crisis Group, “Sovereignty in All but Name: Israel’s Quickening Annexation of the West Bank” (9 October 2025), accessed at: Sovereignty in All but Name: Israel’s Quickening Annexation of the West Bank.

²¹ K. Annan, Interventions (Penguin, 2012), at 256.

²² S. Heaney, The Cure at Troy, A Version of Sophocles’ Philoctetes (Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1990).