In its historic July 19, 2024, advisory opinion on the legality of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories, the World Court (International Court of Justice) unequivocally set out the obligations of Israel, other states and the UN in its conclusions. The Court said that Israel has an obligation to end its occupation which it called: “an unlawful act of a continuing character, entailing Israel’s international responsibilities” brought about by Israeli practices and policies. It must end the occupation “as rapidly as possible”.
Significantly, the Court made clear that Gaza remains part of the occupied Palestinian territory, and has been since 1967, despite Israeli claims to the contrary when it removed its settlements from Gaza in 2004. The Court stated that the decisive criterion is the authority the occupying power holds over the particular territory, not the physical presence of the occupier inside the territory. This means that Palestinians in Gaza have the legal right to resist their occupation even if that means using force, and the Israelis do not have the right to use force against this occupied population.
It stated these as Israel’s obligations:
- Cease all new settlement activity (West Bank & East Jerusalem).
- Repeal all legislation and measures creating and maintaining the unlawful situation.
- Provide full reparations, be they restitution, compensation and/or satisfaction. This includes return of the “land and all assets” since 1967, including all “cultural assets” to the Palestinian people.
- Removal of all settlers.
- Dismantle the parts of the Wall that are in occupied territories.
- Return of Palestinians to their residences displaced during occupation. If they can’t return, compensation is required.
(ICJ Video of ruling @ 1 hr.6 min.)
The Court indicated that all states must cooperate with the UN to put the modalities (which will be created by the UN to realize Palestinian rights to self-determination) into effect. To this end, the Court stated that all member states are under obligation NOT to recognize the occupation as legal, NOT to render aid to Israel to maintain the occupation, and to distinguish between Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories.
What difference could this make for Canada?
Abiding by the ruling of the ICJ means that people can no longer be prosecuted or discriminated against for boycotting Israel. The BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement will not be targeted; it will be the law to oppose the occupation, exactly what BDS has been advocating since 2005. The “IHRA” (International Holocaust Remembrance Association) definition of anti- Semitism which has been promoted by our government will have to be shelved. The definition
is designed to prevent criticism of Israel. Under this ruling, condemning and refusing to aid Israel’s occupation in any way is a legal requirement. The 200+ Canadian charities that funnel money to Israel (which has a GDP per capita the same as ours by the way) to support its settlements in occupied territory and the Israeli army that enforces occupation, may well go the way of the Jewish National Fund and the Ne’eman Foundation of Canada, both of whom just had their charitable status revoked by the CRA, after years of public complaints about illegal misuse of our taxpayer money. (info@justpeaceadvocates.ca. 10 August, 2024)
The International Criminal Court will now have the backing it may feel it needs to issue the indictments of Netanyahu and Israel’s Defence Minister Yoav Gallant that the prosecutor has requested. And they may well issue more arrest warrants for senior Israeli government and military officials if Israel fails to comply with the ICJ ruling.
The World Court articulates a vision for a world that considers everyone equal. Their rulings have a moral aspect to them, which was set out by our predecessors in 1949. International human rights law and humanitarian law set out standards for global cooperation and understanding – not only the legal aspects – that we often don’t see recognized in Western courts. This opinion, like the ICJ’s 2004 ruling that Israel’s Separation Wall is illegal, will likely be ignored by Western media and politicians. That ruling was much narrower though, than the current one. It was about the Wall, not the occupation. It imposed no obligation on states other than Israel. Independent journalist Jonathan Cook, formerly with The Independent,
calls this ruling “earth-shattering” and then says, “Israel is a rogue state, according to the world’s highest court. For that reason, the judgment will be studiously ignored by the cabal of western states and their medias that for decades have so successfully run cover for Israel”. (Jonathan Cook, 23 July, 2024)
Ignoring a law doesn’t make it less valid. History will point to these moments of truth-telling, and see the ICJ as being a court of integrity, despite its shunning by US empire and its sub- contractors, who would prefer not to know of these inconvenient decisions. That’s the thing about our World Court and the rule of law and why our civilization established it in the first place. It’s not just there to do our bidding. It’s there to articulate basic principles of international law – how to organize our global society in times of conflict – and give guidance on human conduct in order to help us to survive in the only home we have – planet Earth. We would do well to pay attention.
