De facto annexation

In 1950, when the ink had barely dried on the papers that made Israel a full member of the International Court of Justice, perhaps no Israeli leader imagined the weight this signature would carry decades later. The Declaration Israel signed was clear: adherence to a legal system striving for peace and equity among peoples. 

Considering that the International Court of Justice is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, we commit to submit any disputes that may arise between us and other States to its judgment by the United Nations Charter.”

These words were beautiful and hopeful, marking when the future seemed like an open field of possibilities. The signatory representing Israel was Abba Eban, Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations. Eban, known for his eloquence and skill in international negotiations, signed the UN Charter on behalf of Israel, symbolizing our commitment to the principles established by the UN, including acceptance of the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.

However predictable, however strong the “Yeah, but there’s nothing new here,” however nonbinding, the International Court of Justice’s ruling on Israel’s occupation or administration in the West Bank and East Jerusalem is an unpleasant and dangerous statement. It probably eclipsed Israel’s worst-case-scenario fears by demanding that Israel end the occupation as quickly as possible, an occupation the court deems illegal. When the judges come to this conclusion and demand that Israel pay reparations to the Palestinians, we can defy, ignore, ridicule, and sanctimoniously attack the opinion all we want. But this vindicates many countries – foes, friends, detractors, and supporters alike.

The court said the occupation had become permanent and turned into an annexation. Our entire presence in the West Bank is illegal, the court opined.

Benjamin Netanyahu’s extremist, messianic right-wing government can (and will) dismiss this as an irrelevant ruling by a court without jurisdiction. It will say that the court expressed nothing more than anti-Zionism that crossed the fine line into antisemitism. That won’t change the fact that a broad consensus exists worldwide. The court’s ruling wasn’t helped by the Knesset’s vote this week “against a Palestinian state,” as if this were currently on the table and required urgent action.

The court said the occupation is de facto annexation, answering the core question it was asked to address. It added that the occupation consists of “systematic discrimination, segregation and” – here comes the dreaded a-word – “apartheid.”

Regarding the settlements, the court echoed and armed broad world opinion. It said the settlements are “illegal and in breach of international law.” Despite the unilateral withdrawal in 2005, Israel remains “an occupying force in the Gaza Strip.”

 The court issued its ruling as a legal opinion upon referral from the United Nations. As such, the decision isn’t legally binding, and even if the General Assembly refers it to the Security Council for enforcement, it’s reasonable to expect an American veto.

 Still, the decision carries substantial political consequences, especially against the backdrop of the war in Gaza and crucial world opinion about our prosecution of the war. The opinion further undermines our basic arguments about the nature of our relationship with the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

 Individual countries, banks, pension funds, and multinational corporations might use the opinion to expand sanctions against individuals, settlements, organizations, and Israeli companies. More ominously, the court’s ruling is bound to affect the International Criminal Court, the sister court in The Hague, considering further accusations of genocide and war crimes against Israel. It might issue warrants against more officials than the prime and defense minister.

 Friday’s opinion is separate from South Africa’s petition to the International Court of Justice alleging that Israel is committing or facilitating genocide in Gaza. The current appeal was made in December 2022, and, interestingly, even though it’s a different case than the South African petition, it mentions Gaza at least 15 times in a document drawn up almost a year before the war began. It, too, describes “high casualties among Palestinian civilians … including among children” and stresses that “the situation in Gaza is unsustainable.”

 When the referral was made, it was supported at the UN General Assembly by 87 countries and opposed by 23, among them the United States, Britain, and Germany. The fundamental question the court was asked was whether Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem – a reality in place since June 1967 no matter how it’s defined – is “temporary” or has become a “permanent” feature that leads to partial or complete annexation.

 Now, when the International Court of Justice pronounces our occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, calling it illegal and classifying it as discrimination, what remains for us but to face the weight of our signatures? The court declared the illegality of our settlements and demanded that we make restitution and dismantle them. The occupation, termed “de facto annexation” by the court, was conducted through “systematic discrimination and segregation.”

 And now, the question that imposes itself with the force of an inevitable blow: if we signed, what is the doubt? We committed to respecting the court’s decisions and following the principles of international law. The ordered restitution includes the evacuation of all settlers from existing settlements and the dismantling of parts of the wall we built that are situated in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The court also underscores the need to allow all displaced Palestinians to return to their original places of residence.

 Moreover, the court decided that Gaza, despite our withdrawal in 2005, remains under de facto occupation due to our control over its borders and restriction of the movement of goods and people. The harsh truth is that the panel of 15 judges from around the world highlighted that we have abused our status as an occupying power, executing policies of territorial annexation, imposing permanent control, and building settlements. The construction of settlements must cease immediately.

 The situation is delicate and complex, and Benjamin Netanyahu and his far-right group in the government only exacerbate the scenario. With his uncompromising policies and bellicose rhetoric, Netanyahu has fueled tensions and polarizations. His insistence on expanding settlements and resisting fair peace negotiations makes any movement toward a peaceful and just resolution of the conflict even more difficult. The risk of growing isolation and punitive measures is actual and imminent with a government that seems increasingly willing to defy international norms and global opinion.

 Netanyahu and his far-right group in power not only hinder compliance with the decisions of the International Court of Justice but also intensify the ongoing discrimination and segregation. This leadership openly challenges the principles we committed to follow, casting a shadow over our credibility on the international stage. The continued expansion of settlements and the denial of fundamental rights to Palestinians not only violate international law but also undermine the morals and integrity of Israel as a nation.