Prof. Saul Takahashi:”“Algeria has a key role to play in the building of a more just international order”

Mohsen Abdelmoumen: Given the apparent failure of the UN Security Council to implement its own resolutions in Gaza, what organizational changes within the UN do you believe are possible to restore the credibility of international law?

Prof. Saul Takahashi: First and foremost, the Security Council needs to be abolished. It is a fundamentally undemocratic body, designed to preserve the dominance of the imperial powers of the time. Decisions on peace and security, including the use of force to enforce international law, should be taken in a democratic way, at the General Assembly, or perhaps a new body that would not have Permanent Members with veto rights.

Another important need is secure funding. The UN relies heavily on “voluntary contributions”, i.e. the charity of wealthy, “donor” countries. That gives those countries – overwhelmingly the wealthy Western ones – immense power over what the UN can do. That has to change: voluntary contributions should be prohibited, with an increase in mandatory assessments.  

On a more fundamental level, the inaction of UN member states in the face of a live-streamed genocide shows we can no longer trust governments to make the right decisions. If it had been up to the people of the world, not their governments, Israel would have been held accountable long ago. We have to move beyond a system based solely on governmental representation; the voices of global citizenry need to be reflected in international policy making. That means representation not by professionalized NGOs, who by and large rely on the same donors as the UN and are usually in concert with Western agendas, but through grass roots associations, labour unions, and other such organizations. There should be a UN Citizens Assembly with formal voting rights, equal to (or perhaps even replacing) the General Assembly.

I should say I am pessimistic about the UN. It has lost so much credibility that the only way it could make a comeback would be with the above reforms – and that is not a realistic prospect right now, since they would only be adopted if all of the Security Council Permanent Members voted in favour for them. It might even be better in the long term to let the UN collapse; starting afresh may be the only way to create a new, more just international order

How has the nature of the human rights violations reported by the UN changed between your term in office (2009–2014) and the current humanitarian crisis?

The Israelis have definitely got more brazen, and defiant in their attitude. When I was in Palestine, from 2009 to 2014, the Israelis generally made at least a half-hearted effort to provide legal justifications for their actions: “the mosque was used for storing weapons”, like that. The explanations were always dubious, but the point is they at least recognized the need to justify their actions. Now, they don’t even bother. Truly, they seem drunk on sadism, savagery, and brute power.

And that is the responsibility of the US and of the West in general, as they are the ones that have for decades ensured impunity for Israeli crimes. Israel has no reason to think that it will be held accountable in any way, as it never has been. That is what has to stop, if we are to ensure that international law as a whole does not end up in the dustbin of history.

You have advocated for the idea of expelling Israel from the UN General Assembly. What would be the concrete legal and diplomatic implications of such a move for Gaza?

The diplomatic implications for Israel would be huge. Detractors of efforts to hold Israel accountable for its international crimes like to suggest that boycotts or sanctions wouldn’t change anything on the ground, but that (probably intentionally) misses the point: this isn’t about direct, immediate impact, but about questioning the legitimacy of Israel and its actions. Treating Israel like the rogue state it is would eventually lead to a tidal wave of measures: arms embargoes, cancelled trade agreements, exclusion from international sporting events, to name just a few. Think of North Korea: what country wants to be seen doing business with them? That is where things are headed with Israel.

South Africa was excluded from the UN in 1974, and that was a significant step towards international boycotts and the ultimate dismantling of apartheid. The US, the UK, and France fought against South Africa’s exclusion, as did the UN bureaucracy; and many Western countries supported the apartheid regime until the end. It was the countries of the Global South – together with the South African freedom fighters themselves, of course – that brought down South African apartheid. It will be the same with Israel.

You have pointed out that certain peace plans for Gaza could reinforce the occupation. What specific aspects of these agreements violate the fundamental principles of international law or the rulings of the International Court of Justice (ICJ)?

17 November 2025 will surely be a day that lives in infamy, as on that day the Security Council endorsed Trump’s plan for Gaza, and the control of Gaza by the so-called Board of Peace. Trump’s plan is violative of international law on multiple levels: first and foremost, it completely sidelines the inalienable right of Palestinian self-determination and reduces Palestinian statehood to a mere “aspiration”, to be discussed, maybe, at some point in the future, only if the PA meets vague benchmarks. The plan also has no notion of ensuring accountability for genocide and other atrocities committed by Israel; rather, Israel is treated as a legitimate security partner, whose interests take precedent over Palestinian rights.

Through multiple statements by Trump and his cronies, it is clear that the objective of the plan is the exploitation of Palestinian resources for the benefit of Trump, his family, and other oligarchs. Perhaps the only (relatively) positive news about all of this is that, because the entire scheme is so overtly immoral and offensive, and because the people in charge of advancing it are so incompetent and ignorant, not much has happened. However, Gaza remains in limbo: Israeli atrocities, including the illegal restriction of humanitarian aid, continue on a daily basis. The genocide has, therefore, never stopped.

On a more fundamental level, it is important to recall that the countries of the UN have never truly respected Palestinian rights: the 1947 Partition Resolution, the Oslo Framework, and the judgments of the ICJ are all based on the “two state” framework, which rewards Zionist settler colonialism and demands that Palestinian self-determination be limited to just 22 percent of Palestinian land. All of Palestine must be decolonized, not just the 67 territories (Gaza and the West Bank).

Professor Takahashi, Algeria waged a major war of liberation against settler colonialism. How can this Algerian historical model inspire or shed light on the Palestinian people’s resistance and quest for self-determination today? 

The Algerian war of liberation is of course an inspiration for Palestine, and for all freedom loving peoples. Whenever I have a Vietnamese student in my class in Japan, I always tell the class about their long struggle for national independence. I have not yet had the opportunity to have an Algerian student, but I hope that someday I will.

It is important to stress that colonized people have the right under international law to use force to fulfill their right of self-determination. Resistance, including violent resistance, against apartheid and colonization is not terrorism, insurrection, or any other of those pejorative terms that Western imperial powers like to use: it is a perfectly legitimate means of obtaining independence.

During its terms on the UN Security Council, Algeria has consistently spoken out on behalf of the oppressed (Palestine, Western Sahara). How do you assess its ability to challenge the double standards of Western powers? 

Algeria is an influential country, and it is vital that it continues to speak out against Western hypocrisy. I believe Algeria has a key role to play in mobilizing the Ummah – not just Muslim governments, but also the global Muslim populace – in the building of a new, more just international order.

The era of Western hegemony is truly over. The main trigger for that is, of course, the double standards exposed since October 2023, and the resulting loss of legitimacy. However, on a broader level, the West has long since been taken over by a savage market fundamentalism that usurps wealth from the poor and rewards the rich and powerful. The worship of money and material things; the glorification of violence, nudity, and instant gratification; the sheer lack of any moral underpinning has led to a

societal breakdown throughout Western countries.

Within this context, the Ummah has a global responsibility to advance an order based on truth and justice. What exactly this new order will look like, and how we can get there, are big questions that require discussion. However, it needs to be done.

As a former UN official in occupied Palestine, you documented violations on the ground. What major difference do you see between the human reality you witnessed there and the way Western governments and their media frame this conflict?

I actually went to Palestine in 2009 with a clean slate. I had little detailed knowledge of Palestine, and had a vague impression (created by the Western media of course) of Israel as being a liberal democracy in a tough neighbourhood. It took only a couple of days to realise that everything I had been spoon-fed about Palestine was a vicious lie, and that Israel was an apartheid state bent on the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people. It’s very clear once you go there and see the situation with your own eyes.

Of course, social media has changed the landscape dramatically, and in a good way. Non-stop video clips of Israeli atrocities are now viewed in real time by millions worldwide, and public knowledge of – and revulsion at – Israeli crimes is becoming universal. That is why the Zionist lobby and its allies in the tech world are so intent on excluding pro-Palestinian content from social media; but that is a losing strategy.

Japan is home to numerous U.S. military bases. In your opinion, does Japan’s current foreign policy reflect genuine sovereignty, or is Japan acting as a vassal state serving as a buffer against U.S. imperialism in the face of China’s rise?

Japan is very much a vassal state, and would be a good case study for Fanon’s “colonization of the mind”. For decades, the Japanese elite – political, economic, media – have committed themselves hook, line, and sinker to the US military alliance. Fealty to the US has become an ends upon itself. Any politician or commentator who dares suggest there might be another way is quickly marginalized by the ruling class, who are petrified of upsetting their American puppet masters in any way.

The dominant narrative is that the US bases in Japan exist “to protect us”. The fallacy of that narrative has become more and more obvious in recent years, especially with the illegal war on Iran and with Trump showing the inherent unreliability of the US as a partner. Hopefully this will lead to a fundamental rethink of Japanese security policy. I’m not holding my breath, though.

You claim that the war in Gaza has revealed that freedom of expression in the West is a “myth.” How do you view the criminalization or censorship of pro-Palestine solidarity movements in European and American universities and public spaces? 

Western governments have always looked upon the Zionist project as a way to further their imperialist domination in the Middle East: to keep the Arab savages in line, as they would put it. The Zionist lobby in Western countries is closely tied with the military-industrial complex, making it additionally central to right wing actors. In addition, there is always the racist element: Western states are deeply Islamophobic, and have been using Muslims and Arabs as a multi-purpose boogeyman to further repressive agendas. We musn’t forget that this isn’t new: all US anti-terrorist laws, for example, can be traced to the oppression of pro-Palestinian voices in the country.

However, it’s important to recognize that slavish obedience to Zionist goals is mainly at the level of the political and financial elite. The people of the West are no longer fooled by the lies, and are resisting Zionist domination of government policy and of the public discourse. That’s why the Zionists are responding with such violence; they see that they are losing the battle. However, the writing is on the wall; Western support for Israel has already started to crater, and sooner or later the ruling class will have to change their tune.

In your work on the decolonization of law (notably the edited volume *Emancipating International Law*), you discuss how historical Japan and other non-Western powers have used international law as a weapon. How can the Global South today subvert these legal tools of colonial origin without legitimizing their original asymmetrical structure?

There is no question international law has a long history of facilitating Western imperialism; it remains the case to this day. Law is created by the rich and powerful to protect their interests, and that is no different in the international arena. At the same time, though, once they are created, laws and systems can acquire a different momentum, and political dynamics can pull them in a direction the initial framers hadn’t intended. Laws (or at least legal interpretations) are not static; they are battlespaces where political actors can bring about change.

The right to self-determination is a good example of this. When the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was being drafted in 1948, over half of the world remained under Western colonial rule, and the Western powers and their allies dominated the UN even through sheer numbers. It is no surprise that calls to include self-determination in the Declaration were simply shrugged off. However, after former colonies regained independence and became UN member states, they demanded that self-determination be recognized as a fundamental right. They outvoted the West, and ensured self-determination was included in the two core human rights treaties adopted in 1966.

The above having been said, as a general rule, law is not revolutionary; it can only bring about only incremental change. Truly bringing about a new order is not something that can be done through legal arguments or court judgements; it requires political action. The Global South should, I believe, continue to use international law, but as a strategic tool toward a greater goal.

Interview conducted by Mohsen Abdelmoumen

Saul Takahashi is Professor of Human Rights and Peace Studies at Osaka Jogakuin University, in Osaka, Japan. As an international human rights and humanitarian lawyer, his main research interests include human rights in Palestine, third world approaches to international law, and Islamophobia in Europe. Takahashi started his career working with refugees in Amnesty International in Japan and then in London, after which he moved to the UN. He served as Deputy Head of Office of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in Occupied Palestine from March 2009 to May 2014, during which time he traveled throughout both the West Bank and Gaza, monitoring the documentation of human rights violations and coordinating support to the Government of the State of Palestine and Palestinian civil society organizations. He holds an LLM in international human rights law from the University of Essex, and also serves as Senior Non-resident Fellow at the Hashim Sani Centre for Palestine Studies, University Malaya.

Prof. Takahashi is the author of several books in English and in Japanese, including Civil and Political Rights in Japan: a Tribute to Sir Nigel Rodley (Routledge, ed.); Human Rights and Drug Control: the False Dichotomy (Hart Publishing); and The Palestinian People Continue to Suffer: Why the UN Can’t Solve the Problem (Japanese, Gendai Jinbun-sha). He is currently working on a book on different forms of sumud in Palestine.

Published in French in Algeriepatriotique and in La Nouvelle République