Key states now have a duty to act on Israel’s occupation

Another pinch yourself moment. Palestinians and those who support their rights have despaired of international institutions watering down the legal rights to which they are entitled. Last week, however, the International Court of Justice did not blink. It delivered.
The shock was not in the legal advice. Nobody should be shocked at its contents, more the courage to stand up to huge pressure. This could be one of the most profound opinions the court has ever delivered. It did so with near unanimity.
The court, the top judicial body in the world, was issuing a legal opinion following a December 2022 request by the UN General Assembly. It is not binding but its authoritative legal status should become the benchmark for all states to assess the legal consequences of Israel’s 57-year-old occupation.
The key findings were as follows: Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Territories is unlawful. It must end the occupation and is under an obligation to bring to an end its unlawful presence as rapidly as possible. Israel is under an obligation to immediately cease all new settlement activities and to evacuate all settlers. The court also determined that Israeli policies and practices amounted to annexation of large parts of the Occupied Territories. Israel also has the obligation to provide full reparation for the damage caused to “all natural or legal persons concerned.”
The International Court of Justice also advised international bodies and third-party states that they were “under an obligation not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation.”
Occupations are meant to be temporary. As the court stated, there can be no transfer of title of sovereignty to the occupying power. It found that Israel had, given its settlement and other policies, “acted contrary to the prohibition of the use of force in international relations.” These policies also constituted an “obstruction to the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination.”
Looking at the discriminatory measures on land, housing, planning, demolitions and freedom of movement, the court stated that it “considers that Israel’s legislation and measures constitute a breach of Article 3 of (the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination).” This article holds that “states parties particularly condemn racial segregation and apartheid and undertake to prevent, prohibit and eradicate all practices of this nature in territories under their jurisdiction.”

This could be one of the most profound opinions the court has ever delivered. It did so with near unanimity.

Chris Doyle

The wording is mildly ambiguous, as the opinion does not explicitly state that the situation amounts to apartheid, but it does say that Israel is in breach of an article where there are two options. Here, the court was probably trying to achieve consensus.
This means the International Court of Justice can be added to the extensive list of legal bodies and human rights groups that consider Israel to be imposing systematic discrimination, perhaps a system of apartheid, in the Occupied Territories. It did not examine the situation within Israel itself.
The official Israeli reaction (spoiler alert: Israel rejected the opinion) was laughingly predictable. Its leaders’ contempt for international law is matched by their contempt for international bodies and human rights organizations.
Palestinians are rightly asking whether this will make any difference, with most believing it will not. Yet, the clarity of this opinion hardens the legal position. No serious legal body or lawyer can now seriously claim that Israel’s occupation is legal. The legal debate should be over, but the politics is way behind.
Third-party states have a duty to act. As the court determined, states must not “render aid or assistance” toward Israel maintaining its presence in the Occupied Territories. This should, for starters, lead to a full ban on any trade with settlements. The UN should facilitate an assessment of the compensation Israel must pay.
The omens are not great. The US, UK and Canada had argued that the court should not issue an opinion; given the result, it is clear why. The US claimed to respect the court but said the opinion “will complicate efforts to resolve the conflict,” as opposed to the illegal actions of its ally. The freshly installed UK government merely stated it was reviewing the opinion. The EU issued perhaps the most supportive statement: “It is our moral duty to reaffirm our unwavering commitment to all ICJ decisions in a consistent manner, irrespective of the subject in question.” Will it act on this fine principle?
One wonders if America or any European states will insist that Israel end its occupation or pay reparations.
To give meaning to this opinion, key states have to change their language and policy. Will any of them implement a ban on settlement trade? That is the logical conclusion of this opinion, and it would be long overdue. It is time for all European countries to recognize the state of Palestine on the 1967 borders and demand that the occupation of that state be terminated.

• Chris Doyle is director of the Council for Arab-British Understanding in London. X: @Doylech