ICJ hearings on Israel’s occupation of Palestine updates: Day two
Week-long arguments continue as representatives of 10 nations make their case before the UN court in The Hague.
This live page is now closed.
This live page is now closed.
- Oral proceedings have continued for a second day at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the legal consequences of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories.
- South Africa, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, the Netherlands, Bangladesh, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil and Chile presented their arguments.
- More than 50 states and at least three international organisations will address judges at the United Nations’ top court until February 26. A nonbinding legal opinion is expected after months of deliberation by the judges.
- On Monday, Palestinian representatives presented their arguments on the legal consequences of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza Strip. The occupation is illegal and must be brought to an immediate, unconditional and total end, they argued.
- Israel is not attending the hearings but sent a five-page written statement saying an advisory opinion would be “harmful” to attempts to resolve the conflict because questions posed by the UN General Assembly are prejudiced.
Thanks for joining us
This live page is now closed, but you can follow our continuing coverage of Israel’s war on Gaza here.
To learn more about the ICJ case against Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine, read this.
And if you want to know about South Africa’s separate case at the ICJ on the war and the possible crime of genocide, watch this.
Here’s what happened today
We will be closing this live page soon. Here’s a recap of the day’s events:
- Ten countries presented their arguments on the legal consequences of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories.
- South Africa, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, the Netherlands, Bangladesh and Belgium made their case during the morning session, with Belize, Bolivia, Brazil and Chile delivering their statements in the afternoon.
- Canada was also initially scheduled to present its arguments but decided to pull out at the last minute.
- Kicking off proceedings, the representative of South Africa compared the Israeli occupation to apartheid and said the ICJ’s hearings could help bring an end to a system of racial oppression that had no place in the modern world.
- Overall, the speakers’ main points revolved around the right of Palestinian people to self-determination and the permanent nature of Israel’s occupation, which is resulting in a de facto annexation.
- They also stressed Israel’s obligation to cease its violations, make full reparation and offer appropriate assurances of non-repetition. Other states have the obligation to cooperate to bring this situation to an end.
Meanwhile, US vetoes another Gaza ceasefire resolution at UNSC
US Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield has said the Algeria-drafted resolution would harm the truce negotiations between Israel and Hamas.
Thirteen countries in the 15-member body backed the measure, with one – the United Kingdom – abstaining.
The vote marks the third time the US, which is scheduled to present its arguments tomorrow at the ICJ, has vetoed Gaza ceasefire proposals at the Security Council since the start of the war on Gaza.
Find all the details here.
Who will present arguments tomorrow?
Wednesday promises to be another busy day at the ICJ, with the following countries scheduled to present their oral arguments:
- Colombia
- Cuba
- Egypt
- United Arab Emirates
- United States
- Russia
- France
- The Gambia
- Guyana
- Hungary
Proceedings will kick off at 09:00 GMT.
First 10 countries made clear Israel’s occupation unlawful, should end immediately
The question of whether the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories is unlawful was very clearly answered by all 10 countries: It is absolutely unlawful and it should end immediately.
South Africa argued that this is a colonial apartheid system and that settlements have to be dismantled and reparations paid. Even countries that have very strong ties with Israel, like the Netherlands and Belgium, had very strong words of condemnation.
One legal argument that was very much dominant throughout the hearing was the permanence of the occupation. Israel has long argued that the occupation is temporary, but these countries have argued that there is no evidence that this is so.
That violates international law. There was condemnation for the defiance shown by Israel for the hundreds of resolutions that have been passed over the years.
We are going to continue tomorrow as these were only 10 of the more than 50 countries we will hear from over six days here at the Peace Palace in The Hague.
Sitting adjourned
And that brings an end to today’s proceedings.
It was an eventful today at the court, with presentations from South Africa, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, the Netherlands, Bangladesh, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil and Chile.
Canada was also initially scheduled to present its arguments but decided to pull out at the last minute.
Stay with us as we continue to bring you analysis and reaction to the second day of hearings at the ICJ.
‘Systematic violation of international law part of Israel’s state policy’
Ximena Fuentes Torrijo continues by saying that the policy and practices of settlements pursued by Israel since 1967 “indicates its intention to claim that its own population has the right to stay permanently” in the occupied territories.
Similarly, Chile’s legal representative notes that the exploitation of Palestinian natural resources also demonstrates Israel’s attempt to exercise sovereign powers over these territories.
“By virtue of its actions, including the exploitation of natural resources, the policies of settlements, the erection of the wall, the legalisation of outposts, among others, Israel has demonstrated its intention to control indefinitely the occupied Palestinian territory,” she says.
“Hence Israel’s occupation has become an annexation.”
Concluding the presentation, Torrijo says that Chile contends that “these systematic breaches are also a basis to declare that the occupation is illegal”, adding that “the systematic violation of international law” is part of Israel’s state policy.
“The obligations of the occupying obviously persist despite the fact that this occupation must come to an end,” she says.
More from Chile’s representative
Ximena Fuentes Torrijo notes that the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has documented a rapid deterioration of the situation in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem since October 7, including the disproportionate use of force resulting in unlawful killings, mass arbitrary arrests and ill treatment.
She also says the following:
- High-ranking Israeli authorities clearly express that they have no intent to guarantee the right of Palestinian people to self-determination. Instead, occupation has become indistinguishable from annexation as Israel neither regards itself nor behaves as a temporary occupant.
- Israel’s policies run counter to the possibility of reaching a two-state solution and a sustainable peace in the region.
- The conclusion that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories is illegal lies on two grounds: The occupation has become an annexation. Israel’s systematic violations require an end to the occupation to effectively protect the right of Palestinians.
- Israel is under the obligation to cease these violations, make full reparation and offer appropriate assurances of non-repetition. Other states have the obligation to cooperate to bring this situation to an end.
Chile comes to ICJ with hope of assisting process for two-state solution: Representative
Ximena Fuentes Torrijo, the representative of Chile, says that the two questions submitted by the General Assembly to the ICJ “are of the utmost importance to assist the organs of the United Nations in fulfilling its responsibility under Article 1, paragraph 1 and 2 of the United Nations”.
“Namely to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, to bring about adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of peace and to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of people and to take appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace,” she adds.
She also says:
- The situation that affects the occupied Palestinian territory may only find a satisfactory solution on the basis of compliance with the charter of the United Nations, international human rights law and international humanitarian law.
- The right to self-determination to which the Palestinian people living in the OPT are entitled to play a central role in the resolution of this longstanding conflict.
- Chile is home to a large Palestinian community, the largest outside the Middle East and two an important Jewish community, the third in South America … Chile would like to see the implementation of the two-state solution within the internationally recognised and secure boundaries, and it is convinced these advisory proceedings are going to assist in that process … putting an end to the 57-year occupation of Palestinian territory.
- Chile strongly supports the view that by giving the requested advisory opinion to the General Assembly the Court will be acting within the scope of its advisory function, fulfilling its duty to provide the legal assistance that the General Assembly requires to exercise its power in the context of a longstanding conflict.
Chile last country to present arguments today
Ximena Fuentes Torrijo has taken the floor to present Chile’s oral arguments.
Chile’s legal representative is the last speaker we will hear from in today’s session.
More from Brazil’s representative
Maria Clara Paula de Tusco concludes her statement by saying that Brazil has been consistently advocating for a two-state solution that allows for the creation of an independent, sovereign and economically viable Palestinian state coexisting with Israel in peace and security within mutually agreed and internationally recognised borders, which include the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and East Jerusalem as its capital.
She also says:
- The prolonged occupation, settlement and annexation of Palestinian territories, including measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of these territories, including Jerusalem, violate relevant rules of international law.
- By extending its jurisdiction over the occupied Palestinian territories and establishing two distinct legal systems, one applied to Israeli settlers and another imposed under military rule to Palestinians, Israel is practising discrimination against the Palestinian population while impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise on an equal footing of their human rights and fundamental freedoms.
- Brazil expects that the court reaffirms that the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories is illegal and violates international obligations through a series of actions and omissions by Israel.
- The confiscation of Palestinian lands, the destruction of Palestinian properties, the construction of Israeli settlements and of the wall, and the adoption of measures aimed at changing the demographic composition of areas within Palestinian territories must all be taken into account by the court.
- Those persistent practices are tantamount to annexation.
Brazil presents its arguments
Maria Clara Paula de Tusco, the head of the United Nations division at the Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, says Brazil will highlight the main points of a written statement presented in July 2023 to the ICJ.
- The jurisdiction of the court: There seems to be no doubt according to Article 65 of the ICJ Statute that this court is competent to issue the Advisory Opinion commissioned by the General Assembly.
- People’s right to self-determination: The right to self-determination is enshrined in international law and recognised by the UN General Assembly. Brazil asks the court to highlight the principled position that the Israeli occupation violates the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.
- Occupation, settlements and annexation: In 1967, the UN Security Council resolution 242 emphasised the inadmissibility of acquiring territory by force and directed Israel to withdraw from the territory it occupied. However, the occupation persists to this day and has been aggravated by the construction of the wall, the building of illegal settlements and the annexation of East Jerusalem.
‘Israel obliged to stop atrocities, genocide in Gaza’
In conclusion, Bolivia’s representative says the policies and practices of the Israeli occupation in Palestinian territory are illegal and have legal consequences with obligations for Israel and other states, as well as the UN, since they violate the rights of Palestinians as people and of Palestine as a state.
He adds:
- Bolivia considers that Israel as the state responsible for this violation of international law must cease de jure and de facto acts and policies that prevent the exercise of the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people.
- It must also fulfill its obligation to end the situation of illegal occupation and its discriminatory policies and practices designed to maintain and establish dominance in a peaceful, immediate and unconditional manner.
- Israel is also obliged to stop the development of the atrocities of genocide committed more recently in Gaza and to comply with the provisional measures set forth in the order of this court on January 26, 2024.
- As the occupying power, it must assume responsibility for 76 years of occupation, and for the siege imposed on the Gaza Strip and the ongoing atrocities of the crime of genocide.
‘Israeli occupation must be considered illegal in its entirety’
Continuing Bolivia’s oral argument, Roberto Sarmiento notes that the international community has repeatedly condemned Israel’s actions, including through the United Nations, insofar as they hinder the exercise of the Palestinian right to self-determination, including the construction of illegal settlements in occupied Palestinian territories, the construction of the separation wall in the West Bank and other measures that affect the daily lives of Palestinians.
Sarmiento also says:
- Israel’s occupation both in its means and its purpose does not fall within the framework of legality established in international law.
- The de facto annexation of territory imposes restrictions on where Palestinians can live and travel, as well as a racially discriminatory legal and administrative regime that favours Israeli settlers and deprives Palestinians of their most basic rights.
- The conclusion is unavoidable that Israel has used its prolonged occupation as a pretext to pursue its illegal objective of annexing the occupied Palestinian territories in violation of the charter of the United Nations.
- Therefore the Israeli occupation must be considered illegal in its entirety.
More from Bolivia’s representative
- The occupying power lacks the right of sovereignty of the occupied territory as confirmed by the principle of permanent inviolability of the rights of the protected population in the event of annexation.
- The occupying power cannot alienate the land or the properties of the occupied state.
- Thus, Bolivia considers that the Israeli colonialist occupation is clearly illegal.
- Bolivia observes with concerns that Israel’s actions of persecution, operation and domination of the Palestinian people have been accompanied by systematic violations of fundamental human rights.
- These include a system of racial discrimination and a system of apartheid that has not abated despite repeated condemnations from the international community.
Israel’s discriminatory actions result in consequences and obligations for all states: Bolivia’s representative
Roberto Calzadilla Sarmiento, Bolivia’s ambassador in the Netherlands, has told the ICJ that his country considers “the ongoing illegal occupation [of the Palestinian Territories] to be in violation of international law”.
- Bolivia considers the discriminatory measures of a colonial nature imposed by Israel prior to the legal status of the occupation are aimed at a dispossession of the Palestinian population, to the denial of their rights by altering the demographic composition, character and the status of the city of Jerusalem.
- The ongoing situation results in consequences and obligations for all states and for the United Nations.
- Bolivia considers that continuously depriving and denying the Palestinian peoples’ right to self-determination for 75 years, Israel is in a clear breach of its international obligations.
- The transfer of 750,000 Israeli settlers and building of settlements in East Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank have been deliberately carried out with the intention of acquiring the territory through annexation, including through colonisation, confinement and the fragmentation of the occupied Palestinian territories.
Belize argues Israel’s illegal occupation of Gaza has been ongoing
Taking Belize’s remarks forward, advocate Ben Juratowitch argues that the Gaza Strip remains occupied despite the withdrawal of Israeli forces and the removal of settlers in 2005. He notes:
- Israel was occupying Gaza before October 7 and is doing so now. Gaza is under Israeli occupation and has been since 1967.
- A state can be occupying a territory even if it has no more troops in it, if it can at any time assume its physical control and has the capacity to send troops within a reasonable amount of time to make its authority felt.
- Israel’s recent conduct is the continuation and intensification of its long-term control over, violence against and incursions into Gaza.
- Israel’s occupation is, at the present time, not necessary or proportional. Israel signed peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt and should not be required to maintain its presence in Gaza or the West Bank.
- Israel’s use of force in Gaza is plainly not a necessary or proportional response to the October 7 attack.
Belize arguments continue
Philippa Webb, a law professor at King’s College London, has now taken the floor, with her arguments focusing on apartheid and its consequences with respect to self-determination. She notes that:
- Apartheid is the strongest concentration of racist concepts put into action. It goes hand in hand with Israel’s violation of the right to self-determination.
- It is impossible to realise a people’s right to self-determination within an institutionalised regime of systematic racial oppression and discrimination.
- The dehumanising nature of apartheid suppresses the equality, identity and dignity at the heart of self-determination.
- It is indisputable that the Palestinians are a racial group.
- Under Israeli law, the separate identity of the Jewish race is afforded a privileged status, and the right to exercise self-determination in the state of Israel is exclusive to the Jewish people.
- Israel has long-standing discriminatory laws, policies and practices that affect only Palestinians and are designed to benefit exclusively and maintain the dominance of Israeli Jews on both sides of the Green Line.
- Many measures are designed to fragment the Palestinian people and to separate Palestinians from Israeli Jews.
- In the West Bank, there are the separation wall, restrictive permit requirements, checkpoints, and segregated roads. This creates what the Israeli army officially calls sterilisation – areas and roads closed to Palestinians – and Hebronisation, meaning the strategy of repression and segregation is spreading.
- Gaza is under siege and blockade. Millions of Palestinians are confined to ever-smaller strips of land, the longest and most complete siege of the greatest number of people in modern history.
- The whole of Gaza has become an impoverished, desperate ghetto.
- Since 1967, Israel has detained one million Palestinians, including tens of thousands of children.
Israel’s violation of international law with impunity must be stopped: Belize representative Shoman
Assad Shoman, a representative of Belize, has told the ICJ that “Palestine must be free”.
He also said:
- The Palestinian people have an inalienable right to self-determination and complete independence, which has always been systematically denied to them.
- Israel has used systematic manipulation of negotiations to undermine the presumed objectives and ensured that the Palestinian people are prevented from ever exercising that right.
- Israel cannot be permitted to continue flouting one of the most fundamental principles of the international law with impunity. Impunity breeds inhumanity.
South Africa, Algeria key at ICJ hearing
South Africa and Algeria are probably the most relevant countries to speak before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) because they are the predecessors of the colonial reality that we see unravelling in Israel and Palestine.
They’ve scored big against colonialism in the past, against what was the horrendous reality in the developing world. Therefore, they have a lot to teach us.
What is taking place in Palestine resembles so much what took place in their homelands.
Algeria suffered 132 years of occupation and ended up paying the price with the lives of more than a million people. South Africa endured almost five decades of apartheid, another crime against humanity.
Panel returns
The judges are back inside the courtroom taking their seats.
Proceedings should start any moment now.
A reminder that we will hear from Belize, Bolivia, Brazil and Chile this afternoon.
Photos: Day two of ICJ hearings
Life under occupation in East Jerusalem
Munir Nuseibah, an academic and human rights lawyer in occupied East Jerusalem, has described the difficulties of life under occupation.
“The Israeli occupation has been continuously, since 1967 until today, displacing Palestinians from their homes, building settlements and Jewish-only colonies in the occupied Palestinian territory, controlling their movement, where they can go and what they can do,” he told Al Jazeera.
The control of the population, Nuseibah said, extends to measures such as imprisonment and torture, among others.
“These policies amount to apartheid; this is what a number of human rights organisations – Palestinian and international, as well as Israeli – have found after they examined the way that the Israeli legal system works,” Nuseibah added.
“Here in East Jerusalem, after the annexation and the building the wall, which the ICJ in 2004 declared as illegal, Jerusalem is isolated from the rest of Palestine. The Palestinian population is unable to move into Jerusalem, to work in Jerusalem and move freely.”
LISTEN: Why South Africa sued Israel for genocide in Gaza
The International Court of Justice recently heard a case brought by South Africa, accusing Israel of genocide.
Rulings by the ICJ are legally binding, but the court has no way of enforcing them. So, will it make a difference as the Israeli war on Gaza goes on?
What is the Namibia ICJ case of 1971?
Several speakers who presented arguments referenced the ICJ’s advisory opinion of 1971, in which it found the continued presence of South Africa in Namibia was illegal and Pretoria was obligated to withdraw its administration immediately.
Namibia, formerly known as South West Africa, was a German colony. After WWI, it came under direct administration by South Africa, which applied the system of apartheid on its Indigenous people.
The UN Security Council in 1969 described the continued presence of South Africa as illegal and called on it to withdraw.