Published: 22 July 2024
Last updated: 22 July 2024
Fifty-seven years after Israel captured the West Bank during the Six Day War and embarked on its project of territorial expansion at Palestinian expense, international law appears to have finally caught up with it.
In a major symbolic setback, the International Court of Justice last Friday comprehensively delineated how Israel’s extended occupation of Palestinian territory was illegal and should be ended “as soon as possible”. Israeli rule had become annexation and was thus a violation of the UN charter’s prohibition on acquiring territory by force, the judges ruled.
But Palestinians in the West Bank do not view the advisory ruling as an immediate game-changer that of itself brings an end to land poaching, settlement activity or being pressured to leave parts of their homeland.
It could, however, have a longer-term effect toward dismantling occupation and achieving independence by further turning international opinion against Israeli goals and practices, observers told the Jewish Independent.
“The real issue is whether the world will do something or send the message that now the occupation has to come to an end,” Shawan Jabarin, head of the Ramallah-based Al-Haq human rights organisation told TJI.
It’s a question of the political will of third-party states and the UN.
Shawan Jabarin, head of human rights group Al-Haq
“It’s a question of the political will of third-party states and the UN,” he said. But that will still has to be developed, he indicated. Jabarin said he does not expect a surge of tangible international pressure on Israel in the immediate aftermath of the ruling. “I don’t think things will change dramatically at that level, but over time there will be change,” he said.
(In 2021 Israel declared Al-Haq, along with five other Palestinian NGOs, a terrorist organisation. Israeli and international human rights groups said this designation was unfounded. In 2022 nine EU countries said jointly that they were maintaining their ties with the groups because Israel had failed to prove its allegations.)
On the Israeli side, Aviv Bushinsky, a former adviser to Benjamin Netanyahu who is now a television political commentator, predicted the ICJ ruling would have zero impact on Israel. “It’s just another day since 1967. Nothing will happen from this decision,” he said.
Nothing will happen from this decision. Trump being elected will have much more effect than any court decision.
Aviv Bushinksy, Israeli TV political pundit
“Most Israelis think we are being mistreated by the court. Politically, it won’t make a change. Netanyahu can just say everyone is against us, there is bias, there is antisemitism and the [chief] judge (Nawaf Salam) is Lebanese.”
Far more important than the ICJ ruling is what happens on US election day, Bushinsky said, namely whether there will be a change in Washington’s hands-off approach to the issue or not. “Trump being elected will have much more effect than any court decision. He may say leave things as they are or hand it over to the Palestinian Authority. No one knows what to expect. He might force Israel to solve it.”
Caution about the impact of the ICJ ruling is warranted by past experience. Palestinians have seen countless UN resolutions condemning Israeli policies come and go with no impact. They recall that in 2004, the ICJ ruled that Israel’s separation barrier was illegal due to it being built in occupied territory and ordered Israel to take down the sections that seized parts of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Israel, calling the barrier an essential anti-terror step after suicide bombings, simply ignored the ruling.
“While we see the ruling as an important step and the decisions are amazing, now what we need is application and practical steps to stop Israeli crimes,” said youth leader Sami Hureini from at-Tuwani village in the south Hebron hills.
Palestinians in that area face settler violence that drove out herding communities after the start of the Gaza war. The government has supported settlers in implanting new settlement outposts in recent months.
“We want to see the settlers going away, demolition of the outposts and the taking away of all these criminals that are attacking every day,” Hureini told TJI, when asked what he wants to happen after the ICJ ruling. “We want the criminals to be held to justice.” Settler leaders counter that settlers very rarely engage in violence and that it is Palestinians who target Israelis in roadside shootings
They also say Palestinians are residing illegally in much of the West Bank and should therefore have their structures demolished. However, official statistics show they are almost never granted building permission. The ICJ determined that Israeli home demolitions violate international law and that the entire mechanism of Israeli rule systematically discriminates against Palestinians while advantaging settlers.
Whether the ruling translates into practical steps will likely hinge on the posture of the Palestinian Authority.
Diana Buttu, former legal adviser to Palestinian negotiators
Hureini said he fears the US may block efforts to sanction Israel for its West Bank policies but added he has some hope the Palestinians will get active foreign backing for the ruling this time because of the international sympathy and solidarity that Israel’s onslaught in Gaza and attacks in the West Bank have created.
Diana Buttu, a former legal adviser to Palestinian negotiators with Israel, told TJI that whether the ruling translates into practical steps against the occupation and settlements will likely hinge on the posture of the Palestinian Authority.
In 2004, she recalls, the PA did not push forward the ICJ ruling within the international community, deferring to US and other pressures and promises that it could achieve gains by instead aiming towards revived negotiations with Israel.
“They may be concerned how Israel will react,” she said. “They could be worried about repercussions such as Israel crushing the economy.”
Buttu added that she does not expect the ruling itself to restrain Israeli policy. If anything, the far-right coalition might further escalate settlement activity in a show of defiance, she suggested. “Israel all these years has essentially been told by the international community you can do what you want to do. Unless they’re shown a red light, they’ll keep going.”
Jabarin, the al-Haq director, said the ruling can be deployed in civil societies and by the publics in Western countries to pressure governments to recognise Palestinian statehood, apply sanctions on trade with Israel and divest from the country. “This can touch military, economic and security relations if there is a will,” he said.
He predicted this would happen gradually and said the US holds the key to any eventual enforcement of the ruling. “Any kilometre of change in the US will cause other countries to change by ten kilometres. Nothing will happen tomorrow but in the human conscience things are changing.
“I think when it comes to Palestinian rights, the indicators are going upwards. I see the changes in the US, the promise is there.”
“I can’t say that in a month or a year there will be changes but maybe in ten years this situation will change. It’s a matter of time.”
Meanwhile, Noam Arnon, a spokesman for hardline settlers in Hebron, said he fears that the ruling will prompt the US and other countries to place sanctions on more settlers deemed to be involved in violence. “We are worried they will take more steps and we want our government to protect us,” he told TJI.
The ICJ ruling is “antisemitic and contravening our historic rights,” he added.
RELATED STORIES
NEWS
Israel Fears ICJ Ruling Will Lead to ICC Arrest Warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant (Haaretz)
Although not directly connected to ICC's issuing of international criminal warrants, justices will not be able to ignore ICJ's advisory opinion that Israel is violating international law
As Israel's Leaders Seethe at 'Antisemitic' ICJ Decision, Palestinian President Says Justice Has Won (Haaretz)
Netanyahu: The Jewish people 'do not occupy their own land.
Ben-Gvir: Israel will dismantle Palestinian Authority if US imposes sanctions on ministers (Jerusalem Post)
The Biden administration holds Smotrich and Ben-Gvir responsible for undermining security in Judea and Samaria and leading the government's policies in these areas.
ANALYSIS
Why ICJ ruling against Israel’s settlement policies will be hard to ignore (Peter Beaumont, Guardian)
Judgment challenges allies such as UK and US, which for years soft-pedalled on occupation of Palestinian territories
Implementation of ICJ Ruling on Israeli Occupation Depends on the UN and US (Jack Khoury, Haaretz)
This ruling, while nonbinding, puts pressure on Israel and could change the reality, but Israel's allies and the international community need to take it seriously.
ICJ's Decision on the Occupation Goes Beyond Israel's Worst Fears (Alon Pinkas, Haaretz)
Israel's fundamental arguments about its long-term occupation of the West Bank and Gaza are undermined in the ICJ's advisory opinion, which essentially arms countries, institutions and corporations with justification to penalize Israel. Ignoring it shouldn't be an option.
ICJ opinion was Israel's worst-case scenario (Itamar Eichner, Ynet)
The court gives Palestinians all they were seeking, nullifying the Oslo Accords, making an Israeli-Palestinian agreement on ending the conflict, unnecessary; will Israel now punish the PA for starting the process?
AUSTRALIAN REACTION
Australia urges Israel to stop settler violence in Palestinian territory in wake of ICJ ruling (Guardian)
The foreign minister, Penny Wong, has urged Israel to take “concrete steps” to stop expanding settlements and crack down on extremist settler violence after the international court of justice’s (ICJ) ruling on Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian territory.
The process was politically driven by parties with no interest in ending the conflict or negotiating with Israel. The decision is deeply flawed on legal, historical and moral grounds, and its recommendations defy reality and would lead to more violence, not less.
ECAJ Statement on ICJ advisory opinion
Far from creating a pathway to peace, it is an incentive to further war and bloodshed. This is precisely what happened after Israel withdrew unilaterally from Gaza in 2005. For this reason, Palestinian statehood can only be sustained in the context of a negotiated peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, not through a diktat of the ICJ or any other external body.
Comments1
Wesley Parish23 July at 07:44 am
Israel’s leaders’ reactions are so predictable that if the Arab world truly wants to make an impression on Israel after this, they could start by parodying Netanyahu and the like. (Though Netanyahu’s like that other antisemite Donald Trump, in that he tends to be self-parodying.)
Anyone who’s read the 4th Geneva Convention would know that Israel, a state party to it, has been in breach of it since 1948; 1967 was merely the more visible part of it.