ICJ nails shut Israel's coffin of lies in historic ruling

Alameen Templeton

Israel’s occupation of Palestine is a grubby land theft that must be called for what it is – annexation – which is illegal under international law and must end, the International Court of Justice has ruled in an historic judgment.

And the Zionists must pay for all damages they have caused since 1967 to Palestinian life and property while ending the annexation and occupation “as soon as possible”, the court ruled on Friday.

The findings may take time to manifest, but they’re bound to send shockwaves throughout the entire Western establishment because it implies their blind support to Israel has been illegal all along.

The implications are apartheid Israel owes hundreds of billions of dollars in compensation to the Palestinians after over 70 years of brutality.

And the hated settlement policy that has seen 220 000 illegal settlers moving onto stolen West Bank land has to end immediately.

Settlers have to leave their settlements, many luxurious by Palestinian standards, straight away and the loathed wall that weaves a drunken line of chaos through Palestinian land must be dismantled, the judges said.

They brushed away all attempts by Israel, the US, England, France and other allies to head off an inquiry by launching a fog of obfuscatory complaints – the Oslo Peace Accords would be compromised; Israel’s security was at stake; the court had no jurisdiction; Israel had not consented to the process; Palestine wasn’t a state and didn’t exist; the issues were couched in unfair terminology; Arabia would be awash in flames … all were rejected for the red-herring trash they always were and were swept into the garbage bin of bombastic legal oblivion.

The court had been asked by the UN General Assembly to give an advisory opinion on the legality of Israel’s military occupation of Palestinian land it invaded and took over in 1967.

Its findings yesterday imply an immediate ceasefire in Gaza is now a legal imperative because it not only put juristic handcuffs on Israel, but also its allies.

The court ruled all states are obliged “not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by Israel’s illegal presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”. That includes all aid, be it military or financial.

And when dealing with Israel, all states are required to consider the fact that Israel is not Palestine, to consider the impact of their actions on the Palestinians.

The separation policy between Arab and Israeli is a form of apartheid and is illegal. And Israeli law cannot be applied to Palestinians; they are entitled to their own law, the court found.

That will be a major boon to so many Palestinians who have had their home destroyed because the Israeli courts hadn’t issued a permit, or because a member of the household had dared resist the annexation/occupation.

Destroyed houses have to be rebuilt, damaged ones repaired and Palestinians must be compensated for their losses.

Regarding Israel’s effective, 70-year theft of Palestinian land and livelihoods, the judges said occupation under international law can never be permanent and must be administered in the interests of the local population. The fact that the occupation had lasted for over 70 years undermined its justification and legitimacy, the judges said.

The court slammed Israel’s policy of transferring 220 000 settlers to the West Bank as contrary to the Geneva Convention and found settlement expansion was illegal and based on confiscating large areas of Palestinian land, also illegal under the Hague regulations.

While international law requires an occupying power to administer and safeguard resources in occupied territories, the court found Israel was using these resources, particularly water to benefit Israelis to the disadvantage of the Palestinians. “Israel’s use of natural resources in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is inconsistent with its obligations under international law,” the court found.

Israel is not allowed to implement Israeli law in the occupied territories and has to “respect the law in force in the occupied territories unless absolutely prevented from doing so. Israel was also abusing its regulatory authority. The court found the “regulatory authority is being exercised by Israel “in a manner that is inconsistent with the … Geneva Convention”.

It was also in contravention of the Convention through its forced displacement of the Palestinian population. The court found Israel was engaging in “large-scale confiscation of land and deprivation of access to natural resources”. It said this alongside “measures taken by Israeli military forces inducing the departure of the Palestinian population in Area C” were “contrary to the prohibition of forcible transfer of a protected population” under the Geneva Convention.

And it has been “systematically failing” to prevent or punish attacks by settlers against Palestinians and their property. These often result in Palestinian deaths while the Israeli Wehrmacht looks on, grinning. This was inconsistent with its obligations as the occupying power under the Geneva Convention.

“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,” the court concluded.

Israel is an annexing power, intent on taking ownership of Palestinian land and is not merely trying to administer a land under occupation, the court ruled.

“Israel’s policies and practices, most notably in East Jerusalem and Area C of the West Bank, are designed to remain in place indefinitely and to create irreversible effects on the ground. Israel’s policies and practices amount to annexation of large parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territory,” the court stated.

Effectively, the court said Israel grabbed the land by force and is keeping it by force, both completely illegal under international law.

And its entire residence permit policy, its “dompas” system, that is used to regulate the daily flow of Palestinians in narrow corridors of movement to places or work or study in “Israeli areas”, is also illegal. It “amounts to prohibited discrimination”

So does its policy of demolishing Palestinian homes for want of a building permit or because its owner dared to resist Zionism. The near-complete separation enforced between Israeli and Arab areas is apartheid, prohibited discrimination under the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the court has found.

Collectively, Israel’s illegal acts and policies were preventing the Palestinians’ right to self-determination, “a peremptory norm of international law”. “Peremptory” means the right is an absolute one, beyond any challenge or need for debate. The fact that self-determination is impossible for Palestinians means the Israeli Annexation is illegal – a fact beyond dispute, in no need of further discussion.

It means any discussion about Israel in Palestine needs to start from the proviso that it is illegal.

But, what does it all mean for the Nazi state?

The court says Israel must end its illegal land grab, its “annexation”, immediately. And its “security concerns” – a moral holdall excusing all Israel’s abuses of humanitarian law that is brandished reflexively and routinely by the US, Israel and its allies – “cannot override the principle prohibiting the acquisition of territory by force”, the court ruled.

Israel’s absolute prevention of Palestinian self determination was a violation of fundamental principles of international law, directly impacting the legality of its continuing presence in Palestine, it court said.

The illegality applied to the entirety of Palestinian territory it has annexed since 1967, with no exceptions due to the Oslo Peace Accords, the court ruled.

The Nazi state is now “obliged to bring to an end its presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as rapidly as possible” the court ordered. And it’s obliged to “immediately cease all new settlement activity” and to repeal all laws and measures maintaining the unlawful situation.

This includes all discriminatory policies, laws and regulations that discriminate against Palestinians or ethnically cleanse them from their land, Palestine.

It must also pay for and repair all the damage it has caused, at least since 1967, to all natural and legal persons concerned.

“Restitution includes Israel’s obligation to return the land and other immovable property, as well as all assets seized from any natural or legal person since its occupation started in 1967, and all cultural property and assets taken from Palestinians and Palestinian institutions, including archives and documents.

“It also requires the evacuation of all settlers from existing settlements and the dismantling of the parts of the wall constructed by Israel that are situated in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, as well as allowing all Palestinians displaced during the occupation to return to their original place of residence,” the judges ruled.

But the court didn’t restrict its recommendations to Israel alone. Its allies have also had their hands tied.

“All states” must cooperate with the UN to end the Israeli land theft and annexation and to ensure the “full realisation of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination”, the court ordered.

They’re also obliged “not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by Israel’s illegal presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”. This ruling must put US military assistance throughout the Gaza genocide under the spotlight. It also calls into question the $3billion in aid the US channels to Tel Aviv every year.

Any country dealing with Israel are also obliged to distinguish between Israel and Palestine and how the two will be affected by any agreements.

The UN is similarly called to book, while also being advised to formulate precise programmes to end the Israeli land theft.

The court ruled it can only refuse a UN request to give an advisory opinion or any judicial function only if there are compelling reasons not to do so. No such reasons existed and so it could proceed.

Although the request for opinion related to the dispute between Israel and Palestine, the request does not relate only to the bilateral differences between the two. It was of wider interest and concern to the whole of the UN too. Anyway, issuing an opinion would not circumvent the principle that the affected parties are usually required to first consent to the court issuing a judicial settlement before it can proceed.

England and the US had approached the court, warning ominously that an ICJ opinion might upset the ossified “Oslo peace process”. The court dismissed this, finding possible adverse affects were a matter of conjecture only.

They had also warned the court could be treading on the toes of the Security Council that has held effective oversight of the Midde East for decades. This was also rejected with the court ruling security issues were not an exclusive concern of the Council, but also were part of the General Assembly’s competencies.

Arguments that the UNGA’s request for an opinion had been written in a biased manner were also rejected as the judges pointed out they were quite capable of identifying bias an to determine for themselves the full meaning of questions sent to it.

It therefore ruled no compelling reasons existed to decline giving an opinion.