_______________

OPINION

By Ahmed Hadji

In a landmark ruling, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has declared Israel’s ongoing presence in the occupied Palestinian territory unlawful, urging its cessation “as rapidly as possible”.

The advisory opinion, though non-binding, was issued by the 15-judge panel and read by ICJ President Nawaf Salam in The Hague on Friday, July 18, 2024. The judges highlighted several policies that violate international law, including the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, exploitation of natural resources, annexation, permanent control over lands and discriminatory policies against Palestinians.

These actions, according to the court, infringe on international laws prohibiting the acquisition of territory by force and obstruct Palestinians’ right to self-determination.

The ICJ’s detailed 80-page opinion, summarised by Salam, stressed that Israel holds no right to sovereignty over the occupied territories and emphasised that the international community must refrain from supporting Israel’s actions in these regions. “Israel’s abuse of its status as the occupying power renders its presence in the occupied Palestinian territory unlawful,” Salam stated, calling for an immediate halt to settlement construction and the dismantling of existing settlements.

The advisory opinion marks a critical response to a 2022 request from the United Nations General Assembly seeking clarity on the legality of Israel’s actions in the Palestinian territories. The ICJ, known as the World Court, serves as the highest UN body for resolving disputes between states.

Israel seized the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem during the 1967 Six-Day War. These areas are considered by Palestinians as essential for the establishment of a future state. Over the decades, Israel has constructed and expanded settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, although it withdrew from Gaza in 2005. The United Nations and the vast majority of the international community view these territories as occupied by Israel.

However, Israel’s compliance with the ICJ’s advisory opinions has historically been unlikely. Past rulings have often been disregarded, with Israel continuing its policies despite international condemnation. This pattern suggests that the recent ruling may also face significant challenges in terms of implementation.

The toll of the ongoing conflict on the Palestinian population has been devastating. Since the beginning of Israel’s war on Gaza, at least 38,983 Palestinians have been killed and 89,727 wounded.

In contrast, the death toll in Israel from attacks on October 7 is estimated at 1,139 with dozens still being held captive in Gaza. These figures highlight the disproportionate impact on Palestinians, who continue to suffer from high casualty rates, displacement and restricted access to basic resources.

Riyad Maliki, the Palestinian foreign minister, hailed the ruling as a “watershed moment for Palestine, for justice and for international law”. Addressing reporters in The Hague, Maliki emphasised the court’s fulfilment of its legal and moral responsibilities. He called on all nations to adhere to their obligations by ceasing any form of support for Israel’s occupation. “No aid, no assistance, no complicity, no money, no arms, no trade, no nothing — no actions of any kind to support Israel’s illegal occupation,” he asserted.

Riyad Mansour, the Palestinian ambassador to the UN, hailed the ruling as a “significant step” towards ending the occupation and realising Palestinian rights, including self-determination and the right of return. Mansour plans to analyse the opinion thoroughly and collaborate with global allies to draft a strong UN General Assembly resolution.

“We will produce a masterpiece of a resolution,” he vowed. Although the ICJ’s advisory ruling lacks binding enforcement, it holds significant moral and political weight, potentially influencing future policies on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Despite Israel’s historical reluctance to comply with similar rulings, the decision reinforces calls for an end to the occupation and adherence to international law.

The writer is a foreign affairs analyst, an adjunct senior fellow with the Center for Policy and Strategic Studies (CPSS) Africa and Provost at the Lincoln Institute for Diplomacy and International Relations, Kampala, Uganda