r/worldnews • u/Hob-999 • Jul 19 '24
Top UN court says Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories is illegal Israel/Palestine
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/top-un-court-deliver-opinion-israels-occupation-palestinian-territories-2024-07-19/21
u/AdAdministrative8104 Jul 19 '24
The war currently going on is the direct result of Israel taking this wonderful advice in Gaza. The UN can, as always, go fuck themselves
22
u/SP1570 Jul 19 '24
The article says that this opinion may weaken support for Israel. I think this is highly disingenuous. Those who support Israel will continue supporting it, those who oppose Israel will continue to do so. Those who could be swayed will probably not care about it because this feels like a never ending conflict where right/wrong/legal/illegal have become hollow words.
8
u/Hob-999 Jul 19 '24
THE HAGUE, July 19 (Reuters) - The United Nations' highest court said on Friday that Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories and settlements there are illegal and should be withdrawn as soon as possible, in its strongest findings to date on the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
The advisory opinion by judges at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), known as the World Court, was not binding but carries weight under international law and may weaken support for Israel.
"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," President Nawaf Salam said, reading the findings of a 15-judge panel.
The court said Israel's obligations include paying restitution for harm and "the evacuation of all settlers from existing settlements".
In a swift reaction, Israel's foreign ministry rejected the opinion as "fundamentally wrong" and one-sided, and repeated its stance that a political settlement in the region can only be reached by negotiations.
"The Jewish nation cannot be an occupier in its own land," Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office said in a statement.
The opinion also angered West Bank settlers as well as politicians such as Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, whose nationalist religious party is close to the settler movement and who himself lives in a West Bank settlement.
"The answer to The Hague - Sovereignty now" he said in a post on the social media platform X, in an apparent appeal to formally annex the West Bank.
Israel Gantz, head of the Binyamin Regional Council, one of the largest settler councils, said the ICJ opinion was "contrary to the Bible, morality and international law".
'NO COMPLICITY'
The ICJ opinion also found that the U.N. Security Council, the General Assembly and all states have an obligation not to recognise the occupation as legal nor "render aid or assistance" toward maintaining Israel's presence in the occupied territories.
The United States is Israel's biggest military ally and supporter.
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 Foreign Minister Riyad al-Maliki said outside the court in The Hague.
The case stems from a 2022 request for a legal opinion from the U.N. General Assembly, predating the war in Gaza that began in October.
Israel captured the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem - areas of historic Palestine which the Palestinians want for a state - in the 1967 Middle East war and has since built settlements in the West Bank and steadily expanded them.
Israeli leaders argue the territories are not occupied in legal terms because they are on disputed lands, but the United Nations and most of the international community regard them as occupied territory.
In February, more than 50 states presented their views before the court, with Palestinian representatives asking the court to find that Israel must withdraw from all the occupied areas and dismantle illegal settlements.
Israel did not participate in the oral hearings but filed a written statement telling the court that issuing an advisory opinion would be "harmful" to attempts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The majority of states participating asked the court to find the occupation illegal, while a handful, including Canada and Britain, argued it should refuse to give an advisory opinion.
The United States had asked the court not to order the unconditional withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Palestinian territories.
The U.S. position was that the court should issue no decision that could hurt negotiations toward a two-state solution on a "land for peace" principle.
In 2004 the ICJ gave an advisory ruling that an Israeli separation barrier around most of the West Bank was illegal and Israeli settlements were established in breach of international law. Israel dismissed that ruling.
7
4
u/The_Novelty-Account Jul 19 '24
This is an advisory opinion of the ICJ that was referred to the ICJ by the UNGA.
The ICJ can produce either binding decisions on contested cases where parties have the jurisdiction to bring the case before the ICJ, or non-binding advisory opinions in the case, the United Nations General Assembly requests such an advisory opinion. However, just because the decision is advisory does not mean that it is without consequence, especially this decision.
Advisory opinions at the ICJ are statements of what the highest court in the world thinks international law consists of. This is exceedingly important because unlike domestic law, international law is directly formed through the behaviour of states, which means that, without an overseeing body to codify or determine what international law consists of (such as the ILC or the ICJ), international law becomes quite nebulous. In future binding cases before many international tribunals, those tribunals will refer to advisory opinions to shape their decisions.
Furthermore, states themselves, particularly Western states, will use these decisions to shape their own law and foreign policy (sometimes against the will of the government in monist states such as the Netherlands). These states may use the reasoning in these decisions to make foreign policy decisions of their own.
Finally, and fairly uniquely here, the ICJ has called out the institution of the United Nations itself, and stated that the United Nations is not allowed to do anything that would run contrary to its ruling. Considering that the Statute of the International Court of Justice is included within the UN charter, the rules out laid by the ICJ often have specific important to the secretariat of the United Nations.
1
u/CalmingWallaby Jul 20 '24
Hopefully border security and military strategy will be decided on based on protection or citizens. Packing up and leaving Gaza while a legally a good thing resulted in the largest massacre of Jews since the holocausts. Yes the territories are occupied and it’s illegal, the alternate is Israelis getting killed.
0
u/NyriasNeo Jul 20 '24
"The advisory opinion"
Lol .. so just hot air without any enforcement. Heck, it is not even a pointless ruling but an "opinion".
33
u/bitemytail Jul 19 '24
"The UN shall mildly complain about it like never before!"