International Court of Justice Declares Israeli Presence in Occupied Territories Unlawful

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered a significant ruling on Friday, declaring that Israel’s presence in the Palestinian territories it occupies is “unlawful.” The court called for an immediate halt to the construction of settlements, condemning Israel’s control over lands it has held since the Six-Day War 57 years ago.

In a non-binding advisory opinion, the 15-judge panel of the ICJ highlighted several Israeli policies that it deemed violations of international law. These policies include:

• Expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem
• Exploitation of natural resources
• Annexation of territories
• Implementation of discriminatory policies against Palestinians

The court asserted that Israel’s “abuse of its status as the occupying power” renders its presence in the occupied Palestinian territory illegal. It emphasized that this situation must be remedied “as rapidly as possible.” As detailed in the 83-page opinion read by court President Nawaf Salam, the ICJ mandated an immediate cessation of settlement construction, along with the dismantling of existing settlements.

Israel, which often perceives the United Nations and international judicial bodies as biased against it, did not send any legal representatives to the hearings. Nonetheless, it submitted written commentary arguing that the questions posed to the court were prejudiced and failed to adequately consider Israeli security concerns. Israeli officials have expressed that the court’s involvement might undermine the already stagnant peace process, which has been at a standstill for over a decade.

In response to the ruling, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reaffirmed that the West Bank and East Jerusalem are integral parts of the Jewish people’s historical “homeland.” He stated on social media, “The Jewish people are not conquerors in their own land – not in our eternal capital Jerusalem and not in the land of our ancestors in Judea and Samaria.” Netanyahu dismissed the court’s decision as a distortion of historical truths, asserting that the legality of Israeli settlements in these territories is beyond dispute.

Despite the court’s opinion, which was requested by the UN General Assembly following a Palestinian initiative, it is unlikely to shift Israel’s policies. However, the comprehensive nature of the ruling, particularly its assertion that Israel cannot claim sovereignty over the territories and is obstructing the Palestinians’ right to self-determination, may influence international perspectives on the issue.

This ruling emerges amidst Israel’s ongoing military campaign in Gaza, which was triggered by Hamas-led attacks in southern Israel. In a separate case, the ICJ is also deliberating on a South African claim that Israel’s actions in Gaza constitute genocide, a charge that Israel firmly denies.

Israel captured the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip during the 1967 Middle East war. The Palestinians aspire to create an independent state within these territories. However, Israel regards the West Bank as disputed land, contending that its future should be determined through negotiations. Israel has established settlements in the area to reinforce its claims and has annexed East Jerusalem in a move that lacks international recognition. While Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, it has enforced a blockade since Hamas assumed control in 2007. The global community generally views all three areas as occupied territories.

During hearings in February, then-Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad Malki accused Israel of practicing “apartheid” and urged the court to declare the occupation illegal, insisting that it must end unconditionally for a viable two-state solution to remain possible. The Palestinians presented their arguments alongside 49 other nations and three international organizations.

Erwin van Veen, a senior research fellow at the Clingendael think tank in The Hague, posited that if the ICJ finds Israel’s actions in the West Bank and East Jerusalem to be in violation of international law, it could “isolate Israel further internationally, at least from a legal perspective.” Such a ruling would undermine the justification for occupation and bolster movements advocating for boycotts, divestment, and sanctions against Israel. It might also inspire more nations, particularly in the Western world, to recognize the state of Palestine.

This is not the first time the ICJ has addressed Israeli policies. Two decades earlier, the court ruled that Israel’s construction of the West Bank separation barrier was “contrary to international law.” Israel boycotted those proceedings, claiming political motivations behind them. While Israel asserts that the barrier is a necessary security measure, Palestinians view it as a means of land appropriation, as it often encroaches into the West Bank.

According to Peace Now, an anti-settlement monitoring organization, Israel has constructed over 100 settlements in the West Bank, with the settler population surging by more than 15% over the last five years, totaling over 500,000 Israelis. In East Jerusalem, approximately 200,000 Israelis live in settlements that Israel designates as neighborhoods of its capital. Palestinians in the city face systemic discrimination that hampers their ability to build or expand their homes.

Globally, settlements are widely considered illegal and a significant obstacle to peace, as they are established on lands sought by Palestinians for their future state. Netanyahu’s hard-line government, heavily influenced by settlers and their political allies, has granted unprecedented authority over settlement policy to Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, a former settler leader. Smotrich has pushed for the construction of additional settlement homes and the legalization of outposts. Recently, authorities approved the appropriation of 12.7 square kilometers of land in the Jordan Valley, marking the largest single appropriation since the 1993 Oslo Accords.

The ICJ’s ruling could have profound implications for the international perception of Israel’s policies and the broader Middle East peace process.