The United Nations’ top court on Friday said Israel is illegally occupying the Palestinian regions it has controlled since 1967 and must end its presence in them — a landmark statement that boosts momentum for a change in Israeli policy.
The court found that Israel is committing major violations of international law, including “de facto annexation” of occupied land and breaking the global prohibition against racial discrimination and apartheid. It concluded that Israel should take steps like evacuating settlers and making reparations to affected Palestinians. It also emphasised Palestinians’ right to self-determination, and said other countries are obliged to cease support for Israel’s occupation and to help end the policy “as rapidly as possible.”
The advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice covers Israeli practices in the occupied West Bank, in East Jerusalem (which Israel claims as its own territory) and in the Gaza Strip.
The opinion from the panel of 15 judges from around the world, selected by the UN General Assembly, is non-binding and has no immediate consequences.
The ICJ previously issued an opinion in 2004 saying Israel’s construction of a “separation wall” in the West Bank was illegal, yet the wall is still standing 20 years later.
Still, the assessment from the court will likely increase pressure on Israel and its allies, including the US, for progress in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Opponents of the status quo ― in which little movement is occurring toward a settlement, while America and other Western states provide Israel with military and diplomatic support regardless of its treatment of Palestinians ― now have a new basis to say these conditions are illegitimate.
Meanwhile, the ICJ has found that various ongoing Israeli practices, from demolishing Palestinian homes to imposing “a regime of comprehensive restriction” on Palestinian movement, hinder the chances of Palestinian statehood ― which could bolster the argument that the longer the current situation persists, the less likely peace becomes.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu boosted that impression in a reaction to the ICJ opinion that rejected any idea of reconsidering the occupation.
“The Jewish people are not occupiers in our own land, neither in our eternal capital Jerusalem nor in the land of our ancestors in Judea and Samaria,” he argued, using a religiously tinged term for the West Bank that is popular among far-right Israelis. “No fraudulent decision from The Hague can distort this historical truth.”
Israel declined to participate in the ICJ’s proceedings around the advisory opinion, though more than 50 other nations did present their views.
“The United Nations’ top court said that other countries are obliged to cease support for Israel’s occupation.”
On Thursday, Israel’s parliament voted against the eventual establishment of a Palestinian state, backing a resolution that called the prospect “an existential danger to the State of Israel.”
Many members of Israel’s security establishment and supporters of the country abroad argue the opposite: that reaching an agreement is the only way to lower tensions and respect Israel’s stated identity as a Jewish and democratic state.
Experts in international law described Friday’s opinion as more significant and far-reaching than what they had expected from the court.
The court affirmed Palestinian rights in the regions they see as the heart of the future state that they and most countries believe is key to peace.
It also took on Israel’s claim that it no longer has international responsibilities as an “occupying power” in Gaza, despite almost fully controlling access to the territory.
The Friday opinion directly challenged that claim, arguing: “The court is of the view that Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip has not entirely released it of its obligations under the law of occupation.”
In another striking move, the court pushed back on an argument from the US that it should not consider Israel’s treatment of Palestinians for fear of jeopardising potential negotiations between the two sides, calling that idea a “matter of conjecture.”
The court did not consider Israel’s actions in its current military operation in Gaza because it crafted its opinion based on a request submitted by the UN General Assembly in December 2022, before that offensive began.
The court’s consideration of the Israeli occupation is separate from the case it is considering between South Africa and Israel, in which the former argues the latter may be committing genocide against Palestinians through its ongoing offensive in the Gaza Strip. The court has said there is a “plausible” risk of genocide, and issued three orders requiring Israel to change its conduct to do more to shield civilians. Those orders, known as provisional measures, are meant to be binding, but Israel has largely maintained the policies the court criticised, such as limits on the provision of aid to Gaza.
The Friday opinion is also distinct from the action that another body, the International Criminal Court, is considering in relation to Israel-Palestine. The ICC’s top prosecutor is seeking arrest warrants against Israel’s prime minister and defence minister and three leaders of the Palestinian militant faction Hamas for alleged war crimes during the October 7 attack and Israel’s military response in Gaza since.
