UN Top Court Says Israeli Occupation of Palestinian Territories is Illegal 

The UN’s top court said Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories is against international law, in a landmark opinion.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) said Israel should stop settlement activity in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem and end its “illegal” occupation of those areas and the Gaza Strip as soon as possible.

In response, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the court had made a “decision of lies”.

The court’s advisory opinion is not legally binding but still carries significant political weight. It marks the first time the ICJ has delivered a position on the legality of the 57-year occupation.

The ICJ, based at The Hague in the Netherlands, has been examining the issue since the beginning of last year, at the request of the UN General Assembly.

The court was specifically asked to give its view on Israel’s policies and practices towards the Palestinians, and on the legal status of the occupation.

Delivering the court’s findings, ICJ President Nawaf Salam said it had found that “Israel’s… continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is illegal.”

“The State of Israel is under the obligation to bring an end to its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as rapidly as possible,” he said.

He said Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005 did not bring Israel’s occupation of that area to an end because it still exercises effective control over it.

The court also said Israel should evacuate all of its settlers from the West Bank and East Jerusalem and pay reparations to Palestinians for damages caused by the occupation.

Israel has built about 160 settlements housing some 700,000 Jews in the West Bank and East Jerusalem since 1967. The court said the settlements were illegal. Israel has consistently disputed that they are against international law.

The ICJ said Israel’s “policies and practices amount to annexation of large parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territory”, which it said was against international law, adding that Israel was “not entitled to sovereignty” over any part of the occupied territories.

Israel claims sovereignty over the whole of Jerusalem, the eastern half of which it captured in the 1967 Middle East war. It considers the city its indivisible capital – something which is not accepted by the vast majority of the international community.

Among its other far-reaching conclusions, the court said Israeli restrictions on Palestinians in the occupied territories constituted “systemic discrimination based on, inter alia, race, religion or ethnic origin”. It also said Israel had illegally exploited the Palestinians’ natural resources and violated their right to self-determination.

The court also advised states to avoid any actions, including providing aid or assistance, that would maintain the current situation.

Israel’s prime minister swiftly issued a blunt statement rejecting what the court had determined.

“The Jewish people are not occupiers in their own land – not in our eternal capital Jerusalem, nor in our ancestral heritage of Judea and Samaria” (the West Bank), Mr Netanyahu said in a statement.

“No decision of lies in The Hague will distort this historical truth, and similarly, the legality of Israeli settlements in all parts of our homeland cannot be disputed.”

But the court’s findings were welcomed by the Palestinians.

Hussein Al Sheikh, the secretary general of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), the Palestinians’ main umbrella group, called it “a historic victory for the rights of the Palestinian people and their right to self-determination. And the collapse and defeat of the Judaization project through confiscation, settlement, displacement, and racist practices against a people under occupation.

“The international community must respect the opinion of international justice and force Israel to end its occupation of the Palestinian territories,” he said.

The court’s findings will now go to the UN General Assembly, which will decide how to respond, including the option of adopting a resolution. That would be significant and could constitute a catalyst for negotiations and set the legal parameters for a future negotiated settlement.

This case is separate from another active case brought to the ICJ by South Africa accusing Israel of committing genocide against the Palestinians in the war in Gaza.

By BBC News