On Friday, July 19, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion in a case concerning “Israel’s practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem.” The opinion is, as expected, unfavorable to Israel and will have far-reaching implications for international support for the country.
The main conclusion: Israel is guilty of an illegal occupation that must be ended immediately. The occupation and annexation of East Jerusalem should also be stopped, and the so-called settlements – Israeli towns and villages in the West Bank – should be evacuated. And according to the Court, the Palestinian population is being denied self-determination and is being discriminated against. According to the ICJ, Israel must withdraw from the occupied territories as soon as possible and compensate those who have suffered.
‘This is a historic ruling,’ says Edwin van ‘t Pad, an employee at The Rights Forum, a human rights organization that stands up for the Palestinians. ‘The clarity with which the Court pronounces itself is unprecedented. The Court rules that Israel is guilty of apartheid and that the occupation must be ended immediately. Human rights organizations have been calling for this for years.’
ISRAEL ITSELF IS NOT COOPERATING
The case had been ongoing for almost two years. In December 2022, the United Nations General Assembly requested the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to issue an advisory opinion on the “Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.
No fewer than 52 countries submitted their views. Israel itself did not cooperate in the substantive handling of the case. According to the Palestinians, the country illegally occupies the West Bank and East Jerusalem. That is not entirely correct, says Freek Vergeer, a lawyer and policy officer at the information centre and lobby organisation CIDI (Centre for Information and Documentation Israel) and a specialist in international law.
‘East Jerusalem was officially annexed in 1980, after it was captured in the Six Day War of 1967. The partial occupation of the West Bank stems from the Oslo Accords of 1993 and 1995 and, according to Israel, is not illegal, because there is still no peace agreement. In this way, Israel is invoking the agreements from the Oslo Accords. Negotiations should work towards a definitive solution. That has not yet happened, but the agreements from the Oslo Accords still stand.’
ISRAEL NEVER WITHDREW
The Oslo Accords divided the West Bank into three zones. Zone A (18 percent of the territory) is under the Palestinian Authority (PA). In Zone B (22 percent), the PA is the administrative legislature, but is jointly responsible with Israel for security. In by far the largest zone, C (60 percent), Israel exercises authority.
The intention was for Israel to withdraw further and further from the West Bank, and for the PA to also gain control over Area C. This did not happen, partly because of Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians during the Second Intifada (2000-2005), and because Israeli settlers continued to build towns and villages in the West Bank. These settlements – of which new ones are still being added, supported by the current Israeli government – are highly controversial internationally.
FAR-REACHING CONSEQUENCES
The Israeli parliament, the Knesset, voted against the establishment of a Palestinian state by a large majority on Thursday, July 18. ‘This reflects the ever-decreasing support for a two-state solution in Israeli society,’ says Freek Vergeer of CIDI. ‘In Israel, October 7 is still fresh in the memory. Agreeing to a solution now would mean rewarding terror, is the sentiment in Israel.’
The Knesset may be against it, but the judges of the ICJ fully agree with the Palestinian reading. Vergeer thinks that the ICJ advice will have major consequences for international support for Israel. According to him, there has been a legal offensive against Israel for some time now, which weakens the international position of the country. ‘The genocide case is also still ongoing, as is the case against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.’
Vergeer thinks that the Palestinians are cleverly using a legal trick, at a time when Israel is already under heavy international pressure. ‘For the ICJ to make a binding ruling, both countries, Israel and the Palestinian Authority, have to agree to the case. But Israel is not cooperating. So the Palestinians, via a roundabout route, have only asked for advice, knowing that Israel’s opponents will attach just as much weight to that as they would to a binding ruling.’
‘This will cause a new escalation in the international debate,’ Vergeer thinks. ‘Although the advice is not a binding statement, opponents of Israel will see it and present it that way.’ Vergeer also expects that countries will be obliged to exert pressure against Israel and the occupation. ‘In this way, Israel will become increasingly isolated.’
‘The traditional allies can no longer protect Israel,’ says Edwin van ‘t Pad of The Rights Forum. ‘No one can deny that Israel is guilty of violations of international law. Not even the Netherlands. The government must get to work on this.’
