Palestinian Rights: Israel Versus the World

In July 19, 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a historic legal advisory opinion: “The sustained abuse by Israel of its position as an occupying Power … violates fundamental principles of international law and renders Israel’s presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory unlawful. This illegality relates to the entirety of the Palestinian territory occupied by Israel in 1967.”

Consequently, the ICJ made certain demands that Israel must implement to mitigate the consequences and implications of this situation. Although the court’s advisory opinion is not legally binding, it came at a time when international institutions are playing an active role concerning the Palestinian issue, especially since the outbreak of the war in Gaza.

This coincides with growing international and UN interest in the West Bank, which is witnessing increased Israeli escalation in security and settlement activities. Accordingly, the ICJ’s advisory opinion raises questions about the political future of the West Bank and what opportunities it offers versus the challenges it faces.

The Significance of the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion

The ICJ’s response was provided as an advisory opinion in answer to a question posed by the United Nations General Assembly in December 2022:

“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 from its adoption of related discriminatory legislation and measures? How do the policies and practices of Israel … affect the legal status of the occupation, and what are the legal consequences that arise for all States and the United Nations from this status?”

Consequently, ICJ President Nawaf Salam announced the court’s jurisdiction to issue the advisory opinion. The decision was supported by a majority of the 15-member panel of judges, with a vote tally of 11–14 on all counts. Based on this, the court found the following.

1- The continuation of Israel’s presence in the occupied Palestinian territories is illegal.

2- Israel is obligated to end its illegal presence in the occupied Palestinian territories as soon as possible.

3- Israel is obligated to immediately halt all new settlement activities and evacuate settlers from the occupied Palestinian territories.

4- Israel is obligated to compensate for the damages incurred by all affected individuals and entities in the occupied Palestinian territories.

5- All UN member states are obligated not to recognize the legitimacy of the situation arising from Israel’s illegal presence in the occupied Palestinian territories and to not provide aid or assistance in maintaining it.

6- International organizations, including the United Nations, are obligated not to recognize the legitimacy of the situation arising from Israel’s illegal presence in the occupied Palestinian territories.

7- The United Nations, especially the General Assembly, which requested the advisory opinion, should consider specific measures and additional actions necessary to mitigate Israel’s illegal presence in the occupied Palestinian territories.

The decision is theoretically binding on Israel. However, the court does not possess the tools to enforce its ruling if Israel chooses to ignore it, except by referring the decision to the UN Security Council. Therefore, the decision is not expected to have a significant impact on Israeli policies and actions in the West Bank. (The ICJ had ruled in July 2004 that the barrier wall Israel was building around the West Bank was illegal, yet this ruling had no consequences: Israel completed its construction).

However, the importance of the ruling lies in its timing. International interest in the Palestinian issue is growing, particularly in opposition to Israeli actions in the West Bank. This is especially significant following the announcement by UN Secretary-General António Guterres that he will refer the opinion to the UN General Assembly to decide how to proceed. Additionally, there are possibilities that the ruling could lead to a subsequent series of lawsuits or additional ICJ advisory opinions, given the increasing international legal actions surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Specifically, South Africa filed a case in December 2023 against Israel for violating the UN’s 1948 Genocide Convention, which Israel signed, and Nicaragua filed a case against Germany in early March of this year for providing financial and military aid to Israel and ending its funding for the UN’s Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA).

Furthermore, the International Criminal Court is considering a case in which its prosecutor requested arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes. 

The growing international and UN interest in the West Bank

The repercussions of the war in Gaza have influenced the positions of countries, organizations, and international institutions regarding Israeli policies and actions in the West Bank and their stance against the establishment of a Palestinian state. This is reflected in the escalation of punitive measures by the United States and European countries against Israel for its policies in the West Bank. In March 2024, U.S. President Joe Biden issued an "unprecedented" executive order granting the U.S. Department of State new authorities to impose sanctions on Israeli officials responsible for undermining security in the West Bank.

 On July 20, the European Union imposed sanctions on settlers and Israeli entities (organizations, settlement outposts, and farms) linked to committing acts of violence against Palestinians in the West Bank. On the same day, a report by the Israeli site "Walla" indicated that the White House is considering imposing sanctions on ministers Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich due to their responsibility for the deteriorating security situation in the West Bank and the intensification of settlement policies.

International demands for adopting a "two-state solution" have also grown. As a result, in May 2024, Spain, Ireland, and Norway recognized the State of Palestine as part of a joint European move. This was followed by recognition from Slovenia and Armenia, and announcements from other countries, such as Australia and Malta, expressing their intention to do so in the future. These movements are likely to escalate, especially with the new British government indicating its desire to recognize the state of Palestine amidst its increasing rhetoric calling for an end to the war in Gaza and suggesting it may withdraw the previous government’s objection to the International Criminal Court issuing an arrest warrant for Netanyahu. Additionally, the La France Insoumise party has pledged to recognize the state of Palestine following the left’s rise in the French parliamentary elections.

Political and Party Responses in Israel

With growing international and UN calls for achieving a two-state solution and maintaining the status quo in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, Israel has accelerated its efforts to undermine these demands. Israeli officials have adamantly opposed the ICJ’s advisory opinion, with Netanyahu insisting that “the legality of Israeli settlements in our homeland cannot be questioned.” Meanwhile, Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich have called for the immediate imposition of sovereignty over the West Bank.

In reality, since the war began, Israel has escalated its efforts to undermine both the two-state solution and the establishment of a Palestinian state. On July 17, the day before the ICJ’s advisory opinion, the Knesset voted overwhelmingly, 68–9, on a resolution rejecting the establishment of a Palestinian state. Five days later, on July 22, the Knesset passed three bills: by a vote of 58–9, to close UNRWA, the UN agency for Palestinian refugees; by a 50–10 vote, to designate it as a “terrorist organization”; and, by a 63–9 vote, to strip its employees of the legal immunities and privileges offered to all UN staff in Israel.

These steps are a continuation of a series of previous decisions. In February, the Knesset approved, 68–9, the government’s decision to reject unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state. In May, Gallant, calling it a “historic move,” announced the return of three settlements in the northern West Bank that had been dismantled and evacuated in 2005.

Additionally, during May and June, the Israeli government approved the largest land confiscations in the West Bank since the Oslo Accords. On May 22, it announced the confiscation of 1,976 acres of land in the Jordan Valley to establish hundreds of settlements. On June 3, the Associated Press reported that Israel had approved the confiscation of 4.9 square miles of land in the Jordan Valley. On July 3, the Israeli planning council approved the construction of approximately 6,000 new settlement units in strategic areas of the West Bank.

The Next Palestinian Landscape

The ICJ’s advisory opinion comes at a time when the Palestinian issue and the two-state solution are at a crossroads, particularly with the events of the war in Gaza and the uncertainty of what comes next. This is coupled with international and UN condemnation of Israeli policies and military actions on the ground.

The advisory opinion, issued by the highest legal institution in the world, can be leveraged not only to unify efforts to achieve Palestinian gains but to also support the official Palestinian position in its international diplomatic agenda. This is particularly relevant given the international, UN, and American willingness to reform the Palestinian Authority and enhance its role in the upcoming phase.

The Palestinian arena is expected to respond and adapt to this role. In March, Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammad Mustafa formed a new government in response to U.S. pressure to reform the authority and enable it to manage the Gaza Strip after the war. Rounds of dialogue between Palestinian factions have been increasing. In February, factions held talks in Moscow, and on July 23 they agreed on the “2024 Beijing Declaration,” which stipulates forming a temporary national unity government and then holding general elections.

However, the Palestinian arena faces deep challenges, including the ongoing political division between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Israel has attempted to entrench this division by refusing to allow the Palestinian Authority (PA) to govern Gaza. Therefore, the upcoming Palestinian steps are contingent on the battlefield’s outcome at the end of the war and the extent to which there is agreement on integrating the active factions into the structure of the PA and their consensus on a unified approach and discourse.