The International Court of Justice, the body that rules on whether or not a state is committing war crimes, just released a groundbreaking advisory opinion saying Israel’s settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem violate international law. The advisory opinion is not binding, but carries “authority and legal weight,” according to the New York Times.
Judge Nawaf Salam, reading out the Court’s opinion, said that Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem constitutes “de facto annexation,” and that it infringes on the rights of the Palestinian people for self-determination. Therefore, Salam said, Israel should fully end their occupation of those territories outside its 1967 borders, provide reparations to Palestinians harmed by occupation, cease the construction of new settlements, and dismantle settlements that currently exist.
Of the 15-member court, 11 members agreed on every provision of the opinion. Several members of the court also argued what most human rights organizations have said for decades: that Israel’s policies in the West Bank constitute “racial segregation or apartheid.”
The United Nations General Assembly had requested the opinion on the legal consequences of Israel’s occupation in Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem in January 2023, prior to the October 7th Hamas attack on Israel and Israel’s military incursion into Gaza. This opinion is separate from the ongoing deliberations over South Africa’s case regarding genocide in Gaza.
In the opinion, the ICJ focused entirely on the West Bank and East Jerusalem and excluded “conduct by Israel in the Gaza Strip” since October 7th, 2023. Still, the court noted that Israel’s 2005 withdrawal from Gaza “has not entirely released it of its obligations under the law of occupation” to those living in the strip.
In the West Bank the court stated that Israel is in violation of several articles of the Geneva Conventions, due to their seizure of Palestinian land; maintenance of separate settler infrastructure such as roads and water systems which Palestinians are forbidden to use; and diversion of territory’s natural resources towards settlers which “constitute annexation.”
This annexation, the court added, is bolstered by Israel’s system of incentives encouraging its citizens to live in the occupied territories. This includes subsidies for new housing construction, and education benefits for Israeli students living in settlements over the Green Line, the border separating Israel from the territories it captured in the 1967 Six-Day War.
“Israel must cease all settlement activity,” the opinion concluded, “repeal all legislation or measures creating or maintaining the unlawful situation” and repeal “all measures aimed at modifying the demographic composition of any parts of the territory.”
The court also said Israel must help settlers living in the West Bank find somewhere else to go, and quickly, calling for the “evacuation of all settlers from the settlements,” so that Israel might “bring an end to its presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as rapidly as possible.” Then, Palestinian land and property might be returned. In cases where restitution is “materially impossible,” the Court told Israel to provide compensation to all persons who “suffered any form of material damage as a result of Israel’s wrongful acts under the occupation.”
Within Israel, this opinion isn’t likely to sway much. On July 18th, the day before the court issued its opinion, Israel’s legislature voted overwhelmingly against the possibility of establishing a Palestinian state. And Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has already derided the ICJ’s opinion as a “decision of lies.” But Israel is not the only country whose obligations are laid out under the ruling.
The court also spoke to the obligations of other states and international bodies towards Israel and Palestine: All states, they said, are obligated not to recognize Israel’s ongoing presence in the West Bank as legal and “not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by Israel’s illegal presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.”
That means US tax breaks for nonprofits funding West Bank settler organizations could be in violation of this clause. (The US makes a habit of ignoring ICC and ICJ rulings, and has recently threatened to sanction the court for going against its interests.) In February, US State Department representatives told the ICJ that they should not rule in support of an Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories—which is exactly what the ICJ just did.