International Court of Justice Finds Israeli Occupation of Palestinian Territory, East Jerusalem ‘Unlawful’

July 20—In a scathing rejection of Israel’s policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) and East Jerusalem, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an Advisory Opinion on July 19. It directs Israel to “bring an end to its unlawful presence” in the territories, to “cease immediately all new settlement activities, and evacuate all settlers from” the territories. Furthermore, the ICJ Opinion holds “all states,” “international organizations” and the UN “under obligation” to “not recognize as legal” the “unlawful presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,” and thereby must not “render aid or assistance” to the ongoing Israeli occupation.

This case arose from a December 2022, UN General Assembly resolution which sought that the ICJ give an advisory opinion on the “legal consequences” arising from then “ongoing violation by Israel of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination” due to the “prolonged occupation, settlement and annexation” of Palestinian territories since 1967. Later, the Arab League, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, and the African Union joined the request. At the outset of delivering today’s opinion, ICJ President Nawaf Salam noted that the Court’s findings are not related to events in the aftermath of October 7, 2023, but rather many of the findings date back to the 1967 start of the occupation.

In an extraordinary detailed opinion the Court examined 11 areas of concern regarding “Israel’s policies and practices” in the Occupied Palestinian Territory: 1) settlement policy; 2) transfer of settlers; 3) exploitation of natural resources; 4) extension of Israeli law to the West Bank and Jerusalem; 5) forced displacement of Palestinian population; 6) violence against Palestinians; 7) Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem; 8) annexation of OPT; 9) discriminatory legislation and measures; 10) residence permit discrimination; and 11) impact on Palestinians’ right to self-determination.

The high court pointed, throughout its opinion, that Israel’s “prolonged occupation” of the OPT is in violation of international human rights law which delineates certain obligations of the “occupying power” e.g. a “duty to administer the territory for benefit of the local population.” Under lawful occupation, an occupying power “cannot transfer title of sovereignty” to itself. Yet, in the case of settlements policies carried out by Israel, exactly such transfers have occurred.

As to “natural resources” an occupying power has an obligation to “safeguard” the capital of these resources, and moreover to “ensure adequate supply of foodstuffs for the local population, including water.” But “evidence” shows that “Israel exploits natural resources … for benefit of its own population.” Such actions by Israel are in violation of “its obligations under international law.”

The 83-page opinion has many more examples of Israel’s disregard and/or violation of international law. Having found that Israel’s continued occupation is “unlawful,” a few of the most forceful conclusions in voting the Opinion according to the summary are vote #4) Israel is “under obligation to bring to an end its unlawful presence in OPT as rapidly as possible”; #5) “under obligation to cease immediately all new settlement activities, and to evacuate all settlers…”; and #6) has the obligation to make reparation for the damage caused to all the natural or legal persons concerned in the Occupied Palestinian Territory."

As to the international communities’ obligations vis-à-vis the OPT, these points are most crucial: #7) all states must “not recognize as legal” the “unlawful presence of” Israel in the OPT and “not render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by” such continued occupation; and #9) the UN, “especially the General Assembly … and the Security Council, should consider the precise modalities … required to bring to an end … the unlawful presence of” Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

The ruling, which undercuts Israel's longstanding arguments that have justified the occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem , carries no weight—in other words it does not compel the Israelis to do anything. For implementation,  the ruling would have to be acted upon by the UN Security Council, where​ sources have said that the U.S. would veto any call for Israel to leave the occupied territories or an effort, by force if necessary, to make them do this.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu lashed out at what he called the ICJ's "lies" saying "the Jewish people do not occupy their own land." Far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said the ruling was "antisemitic" and added that the time for annexation of the West Bank  is now; Ben-Gvir and similar lunatics have create a movement to support increased illegal settlement and eventual annexation; the U.S. government has condemned such actions. Israel's Foreign Ministry rejected the ruling, which it called "blatantly one-sided."

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas welcomed the court's decision, calling it a "victory for justice," adding "The Palestinian presidency urges the international community to demand that Israel, as an occupying power, end the occupation and withdraw unconditionally."

Meanwhile, several sources have wondered what has happened with the prosecutor's request for indictments by the International Criminal Court, which is not affiliated with the ICJ, for indictments of Netanyahu and his co-evil twin Hamas leader Y. Sinwar, and others for crimes against humanity. One source reported that the U.S. had through "sand in the gears of the court to delay and indictment of Bibi