In a conclusive and unambiguous decision, the International Court of Justice declared in a non-binding ruling Friday that Israel’s 56-year long rule in “the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967” is “illegal,” and that it is obligated to bring its presence in that territory to an end “as rapidly as possible.”
In its decision, the ICJ said it determined Israel’s policy of settlement in the West Bank violates international law, and that Israel had effectively annexed large parts of the West Bank — along with East Jerusalem, which was formally annexed in1980 — due to some of the apparently permanent aspects of Israeli rule there.
The legal consequences of its findings, the court ruled, were that Israel must end its control of these areas, cease new settlement activity, “repeal all legislation and measures creating or maintaining the unlawful situation” — including those which it said “discriminate against the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory” — and provide reparations for any damage caused by its “wrongful acts.”
In addition, the court said that all UN member states are obligated not to recognize changes to the status of the territory, and that all states are obligated not to aid or assist Israel’s rule of the territories, and ensure that any impediment “to the exercise of the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination is brought to an end.”
The court also said that despite the complete civilian and military withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005, Israel has “remained capable of exercising, and continued to exercise, certain key elements of authority” there. It added “this is even more so” since the Hamas-led October 7 attack that started the ongoing Gaza war.
The ICJ’s decision is an advisory opinion and has no direct legal consequences on Israel or other UN member states, but it could be another blow to the Jewish state’s international standing and add political pressure over its devastating nine-month-old war against Palestinian terror group Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Israel did not take part in the hearings, instead submitting a written contribution that described the questions the court had been asked as “prejudicial” and “tendentious.” READ MORE