International Court of Justice Declares Israeli Settlements in Palestinian Territories Illegal

The International Court of Justice (ICJ), recognized as the highest judicial authority of the United Nations, has delivered a significant advisory opinion stating that Israel‘s settlement policies in Palestinian territories are in violation of international law.

This ruling, made public on July 19, 2024, asserts that Israel’s practices in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem contravene its obligations under international law. Although this opinion is not legally enforceable, it could wield considerable influence on global diplomatic stances and potentially pave the way for sanctions against Israel.

The ICJ underscored that Israel’s actions breach the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination and labeled the prolonged occupation as illegal. The court further urged Israel to expedite the withdrawal of its military and civilian presence from the territories under dispute.

Reactions to the ICJ’s findings have been mixed, particularly among Palestinians. Many expressed skepticism, citing a long history of similar declarations that failed to prompt tangible changes on the ground. Osama Ashour, currently residing in Khan Younis, stated that while he has heard legal opinions addressing the situation since 1948, he has yet to witness actions that effectively enforce these recommendations.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly denounced the ICJ’s advisory opinion, deeming it ‘absurd.’ He asserted that the court could not infringe upon the ‘legal rights’ of Jews to reside in their ancestral homeland, particularly referring to Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria.

The advisory opinion addressed the legality of Israel’s ongoing occupation of lands that Palestinians seek for their future state. While the findings do not carry binding legal weight, experts suggest they could influence international perspectives and spur nations to amend their policies regarding Israel.

Philippe Sands, a legal representative for the Palestinian cause, emphasized that the ruling is unequivocal—Israel’s occupation is deemed illegal and must cease, with the necessity for restitution and reparations clearly stated.

Recent reports by Human Rights Watch highlighted the violent escalations in the West Bank, revealing that Israeli forces have killed numerous individuals since the outbreak of conflict on October 7. The organization noted the displacement of entire Palestinian communities allegedly facilitated by Israeli authorities.

Sands further suggested that Netanyahu’s dismissal of the ICJ’s findings suggests a departure from adhering to international law, raising concerns about Israel’s behavior on the global stage. He addressed the challenge for Israel’s allies in supporting a nation that exhibits such disregard for established legal principles.

Despite the skepticism on the Palestinian side, some voices expressed cautious optimism that the ICJ’s opinion might influence shifts in global policies regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict. For example, Rex Brynen, who leads the Middle East Studies program at McGill University, stated that while the advisory opinion is not legally binding, it clarifies how international law interprets the occupation and could encourage countries to align their positions accordingly.

Earlier Canadian government positions under Stephen Harper characterized Israeli settlements as illegal, a stance shifted during Justin Trudeau‘s administration, which opposed Israel at United Nations votes. Brynen posited that Canada faces a complex situation moving forward, especially regarding its claims of endorsing a rules-based international system.

The ICJ’s ruling has the potential to further strain Israel’s position and serve as a catalyst for increased recognition of a Palestinian state by various nations. Following the announcement, Hamas commended the advisory opinion, calling for an expedited response from the United Nations and Security Council to enforce compliance with the court’s directive.

This advisory opinion arrives amidst the ongoing complexities of the Israel-Hamas conflict, which is now approaching its tenth month. This escalation followed the violent outbreak on October 7, during which approximately 1,200 individuals were killed and 250 taken hostage by Hamas. Israel’s subsequent military responses have reportedly led to significant casualties, particularly in Gaza.

As global eyes remain fixed on the Middle East, the implications of the ICJ’s advisory ruling will continue to unfold, generating discussions on international law, the nature of occupation, and the avenues through which Palestinians may exercise their right to self-determination.