It seems that the international judicial system is waging a fierce legal battle against the Israeli occupation authorities, not the other way around. The continuation of Israeli attacks on Arab lands and the continuation of violations and transgressions violate the rules of international law on the one hand, and put the decisions issued by international legal organizations to the test, and make their credibility controversial.
57 years ago, Israel occupied Arab lands and began changing their demographics through illegal settlements that – along with other factors – stood as an obstacle to any political settlement of the Palestinian issue that would end with the establishment of a Palestinian state.
The Israeli occupation authorities have been continuing their aggression on the Gaza Strip since October 7, with factors intertwined leading to more complexity that makes the international legal structure face a real challenge in enforcing its rules or obligating Israel to abide by its decisions and stop the aggression or impose suitable punishments.
In the midst of this legal battle, the International Court of Justice issued its advisory opinion on July 19, 2024, on the judicial implications of Israeli practices and their impact on the occupied territories, which stated that the presence of the Israeli occupation in the Palestinian territories is illegal, and that Israel must stop the occupation and end its illegal presence in the occupied Palestinian territories as soon as possible.
On 11 November 2022, the Fourth Committee of the United Nations General Assembly, the Special Committee on Political and Decolonization, adopted a draft resolution submitted by the State of Palestine requesting a legal advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on “What are the legal consequences arising from the ongoing violation by Israel of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, from its prolonged occupation, settlement and annexation of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and what are the legal consequences that arise for all States and the United Nations from this status?”
The advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice comes as a step towards ending the occupation of the Palestinian territories, especially since this advisory opinion on the legality of the occupation was not surprising, because the court’s reference is the rules of international law, which stipulate in this regard that Israel, as an occupying power, has obligations, but it has violated all those obligations as an occupying power and has acted as if it were a sovereign power, even though it is a temporary occupation and not a sovereign state at all, and that sovereignty belongs to the Palestinian people.
Although this advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice is not directly binding, it is based on the rules of international law, which are binding on all states in their relations with Israel and participation in violations, which can be invested in case the United Nations General Assembly ratifies the advisory opinion, through detailed decisions for the advisory opinion, in addition to detailing the practical steps required from international organizations, members of the United Nations, the Security Council, and others.
The essential point addressed by the advisory opinion is the illegitimacy of everything the occupation does to prevent the Palestinian people from exercising their right to self-determination, which is a fundamental and fixed right and a fundamental pillar for the Palestinian people in establishing their independent state.
This advisory opinion received widespread Arab reactions, especially from Egypt, which welcomed the important elements included in the advisory opinion that affirm the Palestinian right and recognize the inadmissibility of seizing the territory under occupation by force, and that Israel must end this illegal occupation as soon as possible, immediately cease any new settlement activity, evacuate all settlements from the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and compensate for the material and moral damages resulting from its illegal policies and practices. While the Palestinians welcomed the decision, which was described as historic, calling on Israel to abide by it as a victory for justice and representing an irrefutable legal fact that has legal consequences.
In contrast, Israeli officials criticized the decision of the International Court of Justice, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, “The Jewish people are not conquerors in their own land – not in our eternal capital Jerusalem and not in the land of our ancestors in Judea and Samaria, No false decision in The Hague will distort this historical truth and likewise the legality of Israeli settlement in all the territories of our homeland cannot be contested”. In addition, Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said, “The decision of the International Court of Justice in The Hague proves for the thousandth time that this is a clearly political and anti-Semitic organization. We will not take moral lessons from them; the time for governance and sovereignty has come.”
Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich commented on the opinion of the International Court of Justice in a post on the “X” platform, saying, “The response to the ICJ’s decision is to impose sovereignty (over the West Bank) now”. Besides, Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid said, “The opinion of court in The Hague is disconnected and one-sided. It is tainted with anti-Semitism and lacks understanding of the reality on the ground. It only serves Islamic terrorism and the campaign against Israel.”
Moreover, Deputy Spokesman for the Secretary-General Farhan Haq said that Secretary-General Antonio Guterres would immediately transmit the advisory opinion issued by the International Court of Justice to the 193-member UN General Assembly, and “it is up to the General Assembly to decide how to proceed with the matter.”
While the legal battles continue to restore Palestinian rights and prove Israel’s crimes extending over nearly sixty years of land occupation, aggression, violations and settlement, the Israeli challenge continues through provocative statements and ongoing aggression. “We are fighting against human animals and will act accordingly,” with this blatantly racist statement, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Galant described the people of Gaza and its resistance, trying to dehumanize more than two and a half million civilians in the Strip, to justify the crimes and violations that have been and are being committed against them.
In this aggression, the violations are unprecedented, with nearly forty thousand martyrs, most of them children and women, and nearly 90 thousand wounded – until writing these lines – in addition to the destruction of thousands of residential buildings, infrastructure and civilian facilities of all kinds, including the recent massacre of the Al-Ahli Baptist Hospital, Al-Nasiriyah and Al-Mawasi.
In this context, the question remains: Where is international humanitarian law? In addition, to what extent has it been applied? It has become clear that Israel has committed, according to several reports and testimonies, flagrant violations of a wide range of international agreements, treaties and laws related to the rules of armed conflict, in light of the disregard of most countries of the international community, which have recently resorted to justifying and defending these violations, in contrast to the timid voices of international organizations that described the occupation’s actions as war crimes and a violation of international law, demanding its prosecution, which are voices that seem to be calling for a dormant law.
Through this issue, we seek to address the legal dimensions of this Israeli aggression since October 7 until now through three central issues: “Crimes of the Israeli occupation in light of international conventions”; “Does Israel abide by the decision of the International Court of Justice?”; and “The International Criminal Court and Israel between theory and practice.”
- First: The issue concluded with identifying the agreements and protocols that constitute the general framework of international humanitarian law, their legal validity, and the extent to which these rules and principles apply to the current Israeli aggression in the Gaza Strip and its humanitarian consequences, pointing to the different stances among the various countries of the civilized world regarding the current conflict. It also concluded with the necessity of reaching a just and permanent solution to the Palestinian issue in all its aspects.
- Second: The issue concluded with identifying the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, the sources of its jurisdiction, and its competence to consider and adjudicate the current conflict in the Gaza Strip. It also discussed the court’s decision issued on January 26, 2024, the extent of its binding nature, and its comparison with various types of decisions, such as final judgments or precautionary or preventive measures, and some aspects of legal disputes. It also discussed ways to implement such decisions in cases where countries against which such preventive measures were issued abstain.
- Third: The issue concluded with defining the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, the sources of its judicial authority, and addressing the differences between it and the International Court of Justice, in addition to its tasks and the powers granted to it in accordance with international law. It also determined the extent to which its decisions are binding according to the circumstances, and the problems and obstacles to implementation. The issue also noted the relationship between the court and the Security Council, with the aim of reaching the extent to which it is possible to issue the arrest warrant requested by the court’s public prosecutor against the Israeli prime minister, his defense minister, and three Hamas leaders, reviewing the history of the court since 2014 in addressing cases related to Israeli violations in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.