Why the world must stand behind ICJ decision on Israeli occupation

A protester holds a sign saying ‘No to the occupation’ as Israeli forces arrest Palestinians & solidarity activists demonstrating against Israel’s illegal settlement and expulsion policies in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood of East Jerusalem, 22 September 2023

“… the ICJ found that Israel was responsible for

blocking the Palestinian right to self-determination,

wrongfully annexing Palestinian territory by force,
violating the Fourth Geneva Convention through
its large-scale settlement project, and
relying upon discriminatory policies and practices
to administer the occupied territories."

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) overwhelmingly decided last week that Israel is no longer legally entitled to act as the occupying power in Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem, noting that its further presence in these territories is unlawful.

The decision took the form of an “advisory opinion” in response to two “legal questions” put to the ICJ by the United Nations General Assembly in 2022.

Israel declined to participate in the court proceedings except by way of a written statement objecting to the whole process as improper, arguing that Israel’s consent was needed before its governmental conduct could be legally evaluated by the ICJ, even in a process labelled as “advisory”.

Does being an “advisory opinion” rather than a formal judgment in a “contentious” case make a decisive difference in the political weight or legal authoritativeness of the outcome in this comprehensive legal scrutiny of Israel’s prolonged occupation of the Palestinian territories?

An important question is raised by the formal, obligatory format of the ongoing South African ICJ case alleging Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.

From Israel’s point of view, these two cases are not very different, beyond the ICJ focusing on the alleged legal wrongdoing associated with 57 years of prolonged occupation in one instance, and in the other, South Africa seeking the court’s support to end the Gaza genocide that started last October.

In both instances, Israel has denounced the ICJ for reaching legal conclusions that it says compromise its security and right to defend itself. With such reasoning, Israel gives every sign of ignoring the ICJ as it works to “finish the job” in Gaza while continuing the policies and practices associated with its approach to occupation since 1967.

‘No one will stop us‘

Israel’s language of rejection is clear, with the prime minister’s office noting in a statement: “Israel does not recognize the legitimacy of the discussion at the International Court of Justice in The Hague regarding the ‘legality of the occupation’ – a move designed to harm Israel’s right to defend itself against existential threats.” Or in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s cruder language, “no one will stop us”.

On a superficial level, this near-convergence of outcomes seems to neglect the intended distinction between what is “advisory” (and hence non-binding) and what is “obligatory” and binding.

More ….