This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
JERUSALEM – In a move which surprised precisely nobody, the International Court of Justice in the Hague delivered a non-binding ruling Friday claiming Israel's rule in "the occupied Palestinian territory since 1967" is "illegal," and it is obligated to bring its "unlawful presence" in that territory to an end "as rapidly as possible."
As if Israel did not already have enough on its collective mind with a full-blown nine-month-long war with Hamas, as well as daily drone, rocket, and missile strikes from Iranian proxies in Lebanon and Yemen, even the country's political rulers viewed the likelihood of this opinion with a significant degree of trepidation.
Although the opinion is not binding, there are fears it could hold sway with the International Criminal Court, which is thought to be close to issuing arrest warrants for both Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and its Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, as well as further erode Israel's standing – as well as support for it – in other international bodies and arenas.
Israel did not take part in the hearings, instead submitting a written contribution describing the questions the court had been asked as "prejudicial" and "tendentious."
The ICJ's Lebanese President Nawaf Salam – who has a long-recorded history of bias against Israel – delivered the opinion, in which he said, "Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the regime associated with them, have been established and are being maintained in violation of international law."
The court further said Israel's obligations include paying restitution for harm and "the evacuation of all settlers from existing settlements."
The case stems from a 2022 request for a legal opinion from the U.N. General Assembly, predating the war in Gaza. The ICJ clarified its definition of "occupied Palestinian territory" including Gaza, Judea and Samaria, and east Jerusalem.
However, the majority of the opinions did not relate to Gaza – and did not include judgment on Israel's actions in the coastal enclave since the onset of the war – although the court rejected Israel's claims that because it had unilaterally withdrawn from the area in July 2005, it should no longer be deemed responsible. The ICJ explained Israel still retained some elements of control over Gaza, particularly about land, air, and sea access.
The court also ruled Israel had contravened both Articles 3 and 4 of the Geneva Convention. The former deals with the International Convention on the Elimination of Forms of Racial Discrimination, otherwise known as CERD, which prohibits racial segregation and apartheid.
The ICJ opinion argued Israel's "transfer of settlers in the West Bank [sic] and east Jerusalem, as well as Israel's maintenance of their presence, is contrary to the sixth paragraph of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention."
There might be jeopardy attached to this finding and could form the basis of ICC war crimes charges against Israel in the future. It could also be used to implement sanctions against individual Israelis or Israeli entities and companies, which could make doing business highly problematic.
The Palestinian Foreign Ministry called the opinion "historic" and urged states to adhere to it.
"No aid. No assistance. No complicity. No money, no arms, no trade … no actions of any kind to support Israel's illegal occupation," Palestinian envoy Riyad al-Maliki said outside the court in The Hague, according to Reuters.
Predictably, Israel's response was both rapid and dismissive.
"The Jewish people are not occupiers in their land, including in our eternal capital Jerusalem nor Judea and Samaria, our historical homeland," said Netanyahu.
"No absurd opinion in The Hague can deny this historical truth or the legal right of Israelis to live in their communities in our ancestral home."
Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich – whose political base is strongly based on those who have settled Judea and Samaria posted a pithy two-word rejoinder to The Hague court's decision: "Sovereignty Now."
National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, who, like Smotrich, draws much support from those living in Judea and Samaria posted a verse from Chapter 23 of the Book of Numbers: "He will dwell as a people alone and will not be counted among the nations."
Israel Ganz, Mayor of the Binyamin Regional Council located in Judea and Samaria echoed Smotrich's reply:
"The Hague Tribunal's decision encourages us to apply Israeli sovereignty."
"This is a decision contrary to justice and morality. And it is designed to bring Hamas terrorists closer to the beds of our children and women in the center of the country.
"The prime minister must quickly promote a government decision that will apply sovereignty over the territories of Judea and Samaria.
"We are back after 2,000 years, and no one will get us out of here again!"
Pastor John Hagee of Christians United for Israel came out strongly against the opinion saying, "The Children of Israel are indigenous to the Holy Land … Neither the UN nor the ICJ has the authority to make pronouncements about Judea and Samaria."
Legal rejoinders also came thick and fast, and there was even one dissenting opinion from among the ICJ's judges.
The ICJ's Ugandan Vice President Judge Julia Sebutinde wrote a 36-page dismantling of the opinion, arguing "Court should have declined to give its Advisory Opinion in the present case." Principally she said, " The Advisory Opinion omits the historical backdrop crucial to understanding the multifaceted Israeli-Palestinian dispute and is tantamount to a one-sided 'forensic audit' of Israel's compliance with international law."
International human rights lawyer and CEO of the International Legal Forum, Arsen Ostrovsky, called the opinion "absurd" noting Israel was already considered guilty before a decision had even been delivered. "The decision will first and foremost reward Hamas for their actions, and it is another baseless and politically motivated decision."
UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI) legal director Natasha Hausdorff, a British attorney, who along with Douglas Murray humiliated both Mehdi Hasan and Haaretz's Gideon Levy at the June Munk Debate on the notion "Anti-Zionism is antisemitism," also rejected the ICJ's findings, as well as the process that led to its decision.
"This opinion has emanated from a … politicized court," she told Times Radio. "It has been waging a campaign against Israel, which unfortunately is based on false information."
She also highlighted facts on the ground, which were not adequately taken into consideration, such as some 93% of the population of east Jerusalem wishing to remain under Israeli rule of law rather than the Palestinian Authority.
