Dr. Azeredo and the International Law of Convenience

In the corridors of diplomacy and in the Portuguese media, there's an idea that's repeated like a mantra: recognition of a Palestinian state is a moral and legal imperative. The magic trick that will solve everything.

In a televised debate I attended, Dr. Azeredo Lopes concluded the conversation on the recognition of the State of Palestine with a doctoral dissertation on the 1933 Montevideo Convention. He did so with the stern air of someone who carries the truth in his coat pocket, and since he was the last to speak, there was no contradiction. Which was very helpful. Patience. Here it goes now, because truth does not withstand the absence of confrontation. And convoluted arguments, especially when wrapped in nuances and lexicons that most people don't understand, always have that whiff of something else.

Dr. Azeredo Lopes specializes in International Law (IL), which, in a country where academic status often replaces thought, means he can say whatever he wants and be applauded as if he were reciting Psalms. Salvador Sobral said the same thing, referring to another type of emanation.

That is why Montevideo can be invoked with impunity to justify the recognition of a state that does not exist.

When a respected jurist like Dr. Azeredo Lopes slams the Montevideo card on the table as if it were the ace of trumps, few dare contradict him. His speech sounds technical, impartial, and credible. But, as we well know, tone is often the best argument for those speaking with supposed authority, to the applause of the converted.

It is precisely this authority and this applause that urgently needs to be questioned. Because what is at stake is not a technical debate about state recognition. It is, above all, an attempt to isolate, vilify, and punish Israel. And to achieve this, anything goes. Including torturing legal norms, ignoring historical facts, and launching moral insinuations wrapped in pseudo-legal lexicon.

The Montevideo Convention, a mere regional agreement, lists four formal criteria for the existence of a State: permanent population, defined territory, effective government, and capacity for international relations.

Palestine does not fully meet these requirements. It is divided between two rival governments, one a jihadist terrorist organization, the other a party that perpetually holds power, also without elections, and which does not even control the part of the territory where it is established. All of this, it must be said, is not Israel's fault or divine will, but rather the lack of will and inability of the Palestinian leadership itself.

This "Palestine" has no defined borders, because it never existed. And its international recognition, however broad, does not create sovereignty ex nihilo .

Invoking Montevideo without acknowledging these realities is both legal liturgy and academic sleight of hand. It also seemed to me that Dr. Azeredo considered the recognition of the "State of Palestine" to be more than a political act, implying that it is almost a legal automatism. Now, the Convention does not oblige anyone to recognize anyone. Recognition is always political. Period. If it were automatic, Taiwan and Kosovo would be in the UN. And Western Sahara would be independent. But since the world operates on vetoes and vested interests, a state only exists where there is sufficient power to enforce it.

Genocide?

Halfway through his speech, Dr. Azeredo Lopes did what so many others do when they want to appear impartial but can't contain the urge to please the virtuous crowd: he threw the word "genocide" into the air. Without directly accusing. With that nonchalant tone of someone who insinuates enough for the spectator to do the dirty work. " As long as Israel doesn't commit genocide ," he said, like someone leaving a lit match in the middle of a dry forest. And he continued, calmly. Nothing more is needed. The word lingers. And with it, the idea that Israel may, perhaps, be committing one of the most serious crimes in contemporary legal and moral lexicon. Without a single piece of evidence, without a single piece of data. Just the word. Planted like poison. And left to ferment.

Now, the definition of genocide is contained in a 1948 Convention. It is clear and rigorous: it requires the deliberate intent to exterminate, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group. It's not enough that civilians die. It's not enough that there is suffering. There must be a plan. An order. A will to exterminate.

Dr. Azeredo knows there is no genocide. No intention. No state policy. No military directive. Nothing, other than the heated statements of two ministers, typical of many wars. He doesn't even care that the ICJ itself, in 2024, explicitly stated that it did not conclude there was genocide. Dr. Azeredo knows. That's why he merely insinuates. And that's enough.

What's happening in Gaza is a war. Dirty, difficult, and prolonged. But legitimate, according to Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. Not with the Palestinians. With Hamas, a terrorist organization that murders, rapes, kidnaps, blackmails, and tortures. It uses schools to hide and launch missiles, and hospitals to shoot and escape into tunnels.

Inevitably, civilians die. As they do in all urban wars waged against groups that hide among civilians and disguise themselves. They die because Hamas uses them as human shields. Because it exploits and even manufactures corpses to manipulate public perceptions in the West, with the asinine collaboration of the media.

Israel does what no other state at war does: it warns before attacking. It drops leaflets. It sends messages. It makes phone calls. It creates humanitarian corridors. It feeds a declared enemy.

Genocide isn't even an accusation: it's an access code. A way to show the world that you're on the "trend" side. Even if the content is false. Even if legality is ignored. Even if truth is sacrificed.

The word "genocide" is losing its value, and the blame lies with those who use it like throwing paint at a wall, hoping it will tarnish their rightful reputation. And we already have too much of that, even in decibels.

Beyond the foam of the days

In analyzing the conflict, Dr. Azeredo treated history as a nuisance. It was cut out, pushed under the table, and replaced with indignation.

Let's start with the Oslo Accords. They still exist, though moribund. They were never denounced. They were signed by Israel and the PLO, created the Palestinian Authority (PA), and divided the West Bank into three zones. All legal Israeli settlements are within the area under Israeli control. Dr. Azeredo knows this and is also aware of the small detail that Israel recognized the PLO, accepted a phased negotiation process, withdrew from densely populated areas, and paved the way for a Palestinian state. And that Yasser Arafat ruined everything by rejecting a proposal made in 2000, under the auspices of Bill Clinton. He rejected it without negotiating. He rejected it without any compensation. He rejected it, exchanging it for intifadas , which killed hundreds of Israeli civilians. That's where the walls come from, by the way.

In the convenient narrative, settlements are the greatest obstacle to peace. In reality, they are not. The Israeli presence in Area C not only does not violate the agreements in force, but actually follows from them. The very logic of the Agreements provides that their final status be negotiated, never imposed.

In 2000 (Camp David) and in 2008 (Olmert plan), Israel proposed withdrawing from 91% to 97% of the West Bank, including dismantling settlements, with territorial compensation. By 2008, Gaza was already 100% Hamas-controlled. The PA refused.

Moreover, most of the settlements are in areas that Israel will always retain, under all two-state plans, with equivalent territorial exchanges for the Palestinians.

The problem was never geography. It was always politics. Pointing to settlements is an easy way to blame Israel without discussing Hamas or the culture of martyrdom, a useful moral diversion for those who want to appear "balanced" and signal virtue.

In practice, settlements serve as an excuse to avoid what Palestinians have refused since 1947: sharing their land with a Jewish state.

Therefore, the settlements are not the problem. The problem is political. It's ideological. It's existential. The problem is that there's one side that wants peace, and another that wants victory. And until that changes, there will be no peace. Because what's at stake is not where the Jews live. It's the fact that they live there and don't want to leave.

Is the territory “occupied” or “disputed”?

At one point, Dr. Azeredo mentioned that Israel has "an agenda to annex the West Bank." He's heard it said. No proof is needed. The truth is, Israel has never formally annexed the West Bank, and it's been 60 years. It doesn't do so because it would be legally problematic, trigger a diplomatic crisis with Western allies, and force the incorporation of over two million Palestinians into its citizenship. That would be the end of the Jewish and democratic model.

Israel administers the region, not out of expansionism, but because it knows that the alternative is a security vacuum, institutional chaos and, inevitably, Hamas.

Remember: The West Bank was not Palestinian territory in 1967. Nor has it ever been. Before 1948, it was part of the British Mandate of Palestine. It was intended to house a Jewish national homeland, according to the Balfour Declaration and League of Nations resolutions. It became Arab territory occupied by Jordan, which, in fact, annexed it. The term "Palestinian people" didn't even appear in the UN vocabulary until 1974. Israel occupied the territory in an act of defense against a war of aggression. It didn't annex it, nor did Jordan want it back.

In light of the relevant International Law, which excludes the non-binding resolutions of Chapter VI of the UN, it is not legally established that territories taken in a defensive conflict cannot be retained or negotiated. Russia still controls the Sakhalin Islands (formerly Japan) and Kaliningrad (formerly Germany). And no one demands that it return them.

Therefore, the land can be seen as “disputed” and the dispute is only unresolved because the Palestinian leadership has refused, for decades, any agreement that involves recognizing Israel as a Jewish state.

Israel has already offered historic concessions. It has already accepted partitions. It has already withdrawn from Gaza. It has already ceded areas in the West Bank. It has already recognized the PLO. It has already negotiated with those who wanted to destroy it. It has already done more than any other country would do in its place. But it refuses to disappear.

The international left and the “anti-Zionist” herd demand of Israel what they would never demand of anyone else: that it give up security in exchange for empty promises, that it risk its existence for the sake of rhetoric, and that it accept the absurd idea that it is an occupier in a land where it was attacked.

And when all else fails, "genocide," "famine," and "disproportionate force" are invoked. Because it's easier to repeat slogans than to open maps and books. And easier to appear virtuous than to be intellectually honest.

Invocation of the opinion of the International Court of Justice

At another point, Dr. Azeredo Lopes solemnly invoked the ICJ ruling on the Israeli "occupation." The ruling demands Israel's complete withdrawal from the territories. Not a single footnote about land swaps. No mention of the Oslo Accords. No reference to the common international practice that territories conquered in defensive wars can be held or traded.

There was silence. After all, who dares to contradict a court based in The Hague and wearing beautiful robes? Well, some judges from the ICJ itself acknowledged the fragility of the decision. They spoke of overstepping its mandate, blatant bias, and an attempt to transform the court into a political arena. Of course, that doesn't stop anyone from citing it as if it were the new Tablet of Law.

But it's worth starting with the obvious: the opinion is not binding. It's advisory. An opinion. And it was requested by a majority of states hostile to Israel. The ICJ failed to listen to Israel, ignored the Oslo Accords, ignored UN Resolution 242 (which provides for negotiations and exchanges, not unilateral withdrawal), and ignored the origins of the conflict. But it read the UN reports, drafted and voted on by shady figures, and the PA. The adversarial system was dispensed with. Anyone who read the judges' dissenting opinions knows what's there: serious reservations about the court's jurisdiction, the lack of procedural legitimacy, the biased sources, and the fragility of the alleged "illegality" of the occupation.

Several judges stated, in no uncertain terms, that the issue was essentially political, not legal; that Israel did not consent to the proceedings; that it is unclear whether the West Bank is "Palestinian" under the International Law; and that the principle of uti possidetis juris may even favor Israel, not the PLO, since the territory belonged to a country other than Palestine. By the way, the 1967 borders are the 1949 armistice lines; they are not even "legitimate borders."

In short, the ICJ's opinion is what results when an international court becomes a diplomatic platform for states that do not recognize Israel, much less Palestinian terrorism. It mixes moralism with geopolitical ignorance, demands without contextualizing, and writes an alternative history tailored to those who control the bodies where good and bad are voted on. The ICJ's opinion is legally weak and politically instrumentalized. And the fact that it is brandished by respected scholars as a relevant argument tells us everything we need to know about the seriousness of the rhetoric against Israel.

But no matter how much they cite the opinion, no matter how many resolutions are piled up, there is one fact that cannot be mystified:

Israel continues to exist and refuses to commit suicide to please the Al Jazeera editorial team, Palestinian activists, and the UN Department of Emotional Deliberations.

What matters is to punish Israel

In the end, what remains of Dr. Azeredo's speech is a moral climax: the admission that recognition of the Palestinian state may not solve anything, but “will have consequences for Israel.”

That's the real objective. It's not peace. It's not coexistence. It's punishment. Punishing Israel with legal opinions, moral condemnations, and symbolic resolutions. Punishing it, even knowing that there is no peace possible with Hamas, no political unity among Palestinians, no security without negotiated agreements in the West Bank. Punishing Israel for defending itself. For existing. For not accepting with resignation the future that many want to reserve for it.

And this is the true driving force behind so many opinions, even if seemingly shrouded in academicism, about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It's not about peace, but about hostility toward Israel, the Jew of the international system.

We are not, therefore, faced with a legal argument. We are faced with an old resentment, recycled with the veneer of academia and the condescension of those who simply want to appear virtuous in prime time.

Israel is imperfect, like any human endeavor. But it lives in a difficult neighborhood, surrounded by neighbors who don't discuss borders, but their very existence. In a serious world, this context would be enough to moderate discourse and avoid harsh judgments.

In a serious world, serious academics wouldn't use ID as a political weapon. In a serious world, recognizing a state would require more than ideological empathy and a willingness to punish Jews.

Unfortunately, there are those who live in a world of Manichean fiction. Where evil wears Israeli uniforms and good carries Palestinian flags. Where justice is confused with hatred and revenge. Where the law serves not to resolve conflicts, but to assuage the resentment of those who have lost touch with reality. Where legal analyses are exercises in aligning with the dominant moral pornography. And where subtle but clear attempts to delegitimize Israel without saying so openly.