The ICJ Just Demolished One of Israel's Key Defenses of the Occupation
The International Court of Justice in The Hague did not leave any stone unturned in finding that Israel's annexationist policies, dispossessing Palestinians, violate key principles of international law. The question is what happens next
The ICJ found that Israel's annexational policies contravene the principles of international law that require that occupation be temporary and prohibits the acquisition of territory by force.
Israel's vast confiscation of land and discriminatory water policy, the Court held, amount to the dispossession of Palestinians and violate the principle of administering the territory for the benefit of the local population. The Court also addressed Israel's discriminatory planning policies and the demolition of Palestinian homes (be they punitive or based on "planning" considerations). That Israel does not prevent or properly punish settler violence against Palestinians is also central to the Court's understanding of how Israel violates this obligation.
The Court also addressed in detail Israel's discriminatory legislation and policies in the Occupied Territories. While it held that Israel's actions amount to systematic discrimination, and violate the United Nations' Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination prohibition on "segregation and apartheid," the ICJ stopped short of determining whether the situation constitutes "only" segregation or, in fact, amounts to "apartheid." Presumably this ambiguity was deliberate, allowing as many judges as possible to join the majority – regardless of their view on this point
All of this led the Court to hold that Israel, by its continued, indefinite, discriminatory and annexational control of the territories, violates the Palestinians' right to self-determination and the prohibition on the acquisition of territory by force.
The Court's bottom line was thus very clear: Israel's continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is illegal. It must bring an end to its presence there "as rapidly as possible," and it must "immediately" cease all new settlement activity.
The contrast between the two determinations is striking. On one hand, the Court rejected the notion that Israel can continue its occupation of the territories indefinitely, and that the occupation cannot continue until, in Shamgar's terms, there is an alternative political or military situation, i.e. pending an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement.
archive.ph
As long as they occupy the lands, the Palestinians negotiate new agreement from a position where they're forced by continued encroachment of Israeli settlers in violation of past agreements. Each agreement becomes an opportunity for Israel to 'legalize' illegal settlements through coercion. As a result, the violence never ends as new prospective settlers are emboldened and the number of dispossessed natives keeps growing. |
