The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is set to hear arguments from 52 countries regarding Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. This comes just weeks after the ICJ issued directions to Tel Aviv in a separate case, accusing them of genocidal acts in the Gaza Strip. The case against Israel’s policies in the disputed territories will feature the largest number of parties in any ICJ case since its establishment in 1945.
Since 1967, Israeli authorities have unlawfully occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem, implementing a system that restricts the rights of Palestinians, hampers their freedom of movement, and seizes their ancestral lands. Additionally, Israel directly occupied Gaza until 2005 and has since imposed a blockade on the region, controlling the flow of essential resources. Meanwhile, Palestinian territories continue to face increased attacks, with hundreds of lives lost.
The ICJ stated that oral arguments in the case would last approximately a week, with all participating countries and international organizations expected to present their stances on Israel’s actions. Surprisingly, Tel Aviv has chosen not to present oral arguments and instead submitted a written statement. It is likely that a court ruling will be made in several months.
The case was initiated by a request from the UN General Assembly (UNGA) in December 2022, with the majority of members voting in favor of seeking the court’s opinion on the legal consequences of the ongoing Israeli occupation. Most countries and the UN still consider East Jerusalem as the future capital of a Palestinian state, deeming Israel’s occupation illegal under international law.
The UNGA, in a letter to the ICJ, asked for clarification on the impact of Israel’s violation of Palestinian self-determination rights, its prolonged occupation and settlement activities aimed at altering the demographic composition of Jerusalem, and related discriminatory legislation. The court will consider international humanitarian laws, the UN Charter, and various UN resolutions in its response.
Human Rights Watch has accused Israel of implementing apartheid and persecution policies in the occupied territories, which they consider crimes against humanity. This is not the first time the ICJ has addressed Israel’s illegal occupation, as it ruled in 2004 that the West Bank barrier wall was illegal and should be dismantled. However, Israel rejected the ruling and expanded the wall.
During the oral hearings, 52 countries, the majority of which supported the UN decision to approach the ICJ, will present their arguments. Notably, Canada voted against the decision, while Switzerland abstained. The State of Palestine will begin the hearings, followed by South Africa, Canada, the US, China, Russia, and the Maldives, among others. Additionally, the League of Arab States, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, and the African Union will present their cases.
It is important to note that this case is separate from another ICJ case filed by South Africa, alleging that Israel is committing genocide in its ongoing conflict with Gaza. In a preliminary ruling, the court ordered Israel to prevent and punish incitement to genocide and provide humanitarian aid by February 26. While this case is not directly linked to the current conflict, it addresses similar concerns regarding Israel’s treatment of Palestinian territories.
The ICJ, composed of 15 judges elected by the UNGA for nine-year terms, will carefully consider the arguments presented and publish a written opinion. The release date of the opinion remains uncertain, as the ICJ’s processes are meticulous and time-consuming. However, experts believe that the opinion could surface before the end of the year.
While the court’s opinion is not binding on the Security Council or Israel, it carries significant weight and could increase pressure on Israel and its ally, the United States, to comply with international law. The ICJ has ruled against Israel in the past, including the 2004 West Bank wall ruling and the recent provisional measures ruling, which many argue can only be adhered to by ending the conflict with Gaza. Ultimately, the ICJ’s opinion could have far-reaching implications for the Israeli government and its actions in the occupied territories.
