The U.N.’s top court on July 19 said Israel’s decades-long occupation of Palestinian territory was “illegal” and needed to end as soon as possible.
The advisory opinion of The Hague-based International Court of Justice is not binding, but it comes amid mounting concern over Israel’s war against Hamas sparked by the group’s brutal October 7 attacks.
Related Stories
“The court has found that Israel’s continued presence in the Palestinian Territories is illegal,” ICJ presiding judge Nawaf Salam said, adding: “Israel must end the occupation as rapidly as possible.”
The ICJ added that Israel was “under an obligation to cease immediately all new settlement activities and to evacuate all settlers” from occupied land.
Israel’s policies and practices including the building of new settlements and Israel’s continued maintainance of a wall between the territories “amount to annexation of large parts” of the occupied territory, it said.
Netanyahu slams ruling as a ‘decision of lies’
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the court had made a “decision of lies”.
“The Jewish people are not occupiers in their own land — not in our eternal capital Jerusalem, nor in our ancestral heritage of Judea and Samaria (the occupied West Bank),” Mr. Netanyahu said in a statement.
“No decision of lies in The Hague will distort this historical truth, and similarly, the legality of Israeli settlements in all parts of our homeland cannot be disputed.”
A separate, high-profile case that South Africa has brought before the court alleges that Israel has committed genocidal acts during its Gaza offensive.
‘Extreme danger’
The U.N’s General Assembly asked the ICJ in late 2022 to give an “advisory opinion” on the “legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem”.
The ICJ held a week-long session in February to hear submissions from countries following the request — supported by most countries within the Assembly.
During the hearings, most speakers called on Israel to end its 57-year occupation. They warned a prolonged occupation posed an “extreme danger” to stability in the Middle East and beyond.
But the United States said Israel should not be legally obliged to withdraw without taking its “very real security needs” into account.
Israel did not take part in the oral hearings.
Instead, it submitted a written contribution in which it described the questions the court had been asked as “prejudicial” and “tendentious”.
‘Ongoing violation’
The General Assembly asked the ICJ to consider two questions.
Firstly, the court should examine the legal consequences of what the U.N. called “the ongoing violation by Israel of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination”.
This relates to the “prolonged occupation, settlement and annexation of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967” and “measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem”.
In June 1967, Israel crushed some of its Arab neighbours in a six-day war, seizing the West Bank including east Jerusalem from Jordan, the Golan Heights from Syria, and the Gaza Strip and Sinai Peninsula from Egypt.
Israel then began to settle the 70,000 sq. km of seized Arab territory.
The U.N. later declared the occupation of Palestinian territory illegal, and Cairo regained Sinai under its 1979 peace deal with Israel.
Non-binding opinion
The ICJ was also asked to look into the consequences of what it described as Israel’s “adoption of related discriminatory legislation and measures”.
Secondly, the ICJ was asked to advise on how Israel’s actions “affect the legal status of the occupation” and what are the consequences for the U.N. and other countries.
The ICJ rules in disputes between states. Normally, its judgements are binding but it has few means to enforce them.
In this case however, the opinion is non-binding, although most advisory opinions are in fact acted upon.
The ICJ has previously issued advisory opinions on the legality of Kosovo’s 2008 declaration of independence from Serbia and apartheid South Africa’s occupation of Namibia.
It also handed down an opinion in 2004 declaring that parts of the wall erected by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory were illegal and should be torn down.
Israel has not complied with the ICJ ruling, and has resisted calls to route the barrier along the Green Line, the 1949 Armistice Line established after the end of fighting that accompanied Israel’s establishment a year earlier.
