Last week’s ruling by the International Court of Justice against Israel is just the latest sign of the growing public pressure the country faces amid the ongoing war in Gaza.
But the case predates the war – the result of a 2022 request from the United Nations General Assembly for the court to issue an opinion on the continued occupation of Palestinian territory.
The ICJ took a firm stance against Israel in the opinion issued on Friday, calling the occupation illegal and declaring that the construction of settlements in the occupied West Bank and occupied East Jerusalem was illegal. He rejected any argument that Israel has sovereignty over the territories, despite its claims. The court president also said that Israel’s laws in the occupied territories were “tantamount to the crime of apartheid”.
The Palestinian Authority was delighted with the court’s opinion, with Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad Malki calling it “a watershed moment for Palestine.” As expected, Israel rejected the decision, calling it “false.”
But if it’s so important, what can be expected to come next?
The ICJ decision is an “advisory opinion” – it is not binding. As the initial request for an opinion was issued by the UN General Assembly, the issue will now return to the body, which “will decide how to proceed on the matter”, confirmed Farhan Haq, deputy spokesperson for the UN Secretary-General.
Resolutions passed by the General Assembly are not binding, but they still carry weight, coming from a body that represents all member states.
And although the General Assembly does not have the power to expel a UN member state without the approval of the UN Security Council, it does have the ability to suspend its rights and privileges, meaning that the state would not be able to participate in sessions of the General Assembly and other UN bodies.
This is notably what happened in 1974, when Member States voted to suspend apartheid membership in South Africa, despite the objections of the United States, the United Kingdom and France, helping to transform the apartheid regime into South Africa in a Pariah State, Despite Western Objections.
Palestine Act board member Hassan Ben Imran argues that – with the UN Security Council “compromised and paralyzed” as a result of US veto power – the General Assembly should take the lead.
“Israel has given us no reason to assume that it would respect [ICJ] decisions, in fact, its top leaders said so publicly,” said Ben Imran. “Therefore, the only way forward is political, economic and military sanctions through the UN General Assembly… Just like apartheid in South Africa, Israel should be suspended, or removed, from the UN, FIFA, the Olympic Games and from other forums. The UN General Assembly can initiate this line of action.”
Omar H Rahman, a member of the Middle East Council on Global Affairs, told Al Jazeera that the ICJ ruling “provides Palestinians and their supporters with a potentially powerful tool to mobilize the international community to put pressure on Israel”.
Israeli isolation
With Israel facing a separate genocide case brought by South Africa at the ICJ, and the request for arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant at the International Criminal Court, the Israelis face increasing legal problems.
Last week’s ICJ ruling on Israel’s presence in the occupied territories only increases the likelihood that Israel will lose in these cases as well.
Mai El-Sadany, executive director of the Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy, said the ICJ’s decision will have consequences.
“The highest court in the world clearly establishes the illegality of Israel’s occupation and its settlement policy and practices; describes the situation as racial segregation and apartheid; and highlights the obligation of other states not to aid or assist in maintaining Israel’s presence in the OPT [occupied Palestinian territories],” said El-Sadany. “In doing so, it exposes facts and conclusions that can then be used by diplomats in their negotiations, that can be used by States in their bilateral relations, that can be reported and used by journalists covering the issue, and that can be used by lawyers and advocates in additional litigation and civil society work.”
El-Sadany added that the ICJ’s confirmation that it considered Gaza to be part of the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel could have an impact on the separate case of genocide, as the occupying powers have “obligations and duties” towards the people living in the lands. that they occupy. Ben Imran argued that it “ended the legal debate over whether Israel, the occupying power, had the right to claim the right of self-defense against attacks emanating from territory it occupies.” With the ruling that the Palestinian territories are illegally occupied, Ben Imran believes that Israel can no longer use the claim of self-defense.
Annexation
Israel redoubled its stance, refusing to give up East Jerusalem and the West Bank.
“The Jewish people are not conquerors in their own land,” said Netanyahu, adding that the “legality of Israeli settlements in all territories of our homeland cannot be challenged.” Other far-right politicians have called for the annexation of the West Bank, and even before the ICJ ruling, the Israeli parliament overwhelmingly rejected the creation of a Palestinian state.
There have long been fears that Israel could eventually move forward and annex the occupied West Bank, as it did with occupied East Jerusalem and the occupied Golan Heights.
This last action was recognized by the former – and possibly future – US president, Donald Trump, and it may be that the Israeli government is now betting on a new Trump administration that will give it cover to annex the West Bank, intensify the destruction of Gaza and ignore international pressure to give Palestinians their rights.
Rahman does not believe the ICJ ruling makes annexation of the West Bank more likely, but sees it as a continuation of “decades of intentional policy by Israel to establish the conditions on the ground for annexation.”
“While the ICJ ruling should make them think twice about whether the international community will accept [annexation]the consequences in terms of the establishment of the apartheid regime were always the same,” he said.
Israel’s fortress mentality and its attempts to discredit the ICJ and other critical international bodies mean that it is likely to continue on its current path, at least in the short term.
It previously ignored a 2004 ICJ ruling that the separation wall it built – much of it on Palestinian land – is illegal.
This raises questions about whether the ICJ and international human rights law have any power when it comes to Israel and Palestine, although Ben Imran points out that this is a problem with countries that do not implement the law and behave as if they are above her.
As more countries choose to support the rule of law when it comes to the occupation, this pressure could eventually reach a point where Israel and its supporters give in.
“Even some of Israel’s closest allies, including the US, acknowledged parts of the advisory opinion, particularly on the illegality of the settlement policy,” El-Sadany said. “The majority of countries around the world agree with the ICJ advisory opinion. It will take collective, coordinated action and a long-term, multifaceted strategy by the majority to maintain the momentum produced by the case to make material change on the ground, but the potential for such change exists.”
This story originally appeared on Aljazeera.com read the full story
