ICJ hearings on Israel’s occupation of Palestine updates: Day three
The UN’s International Court of Justice is holding a week of public hearings on the consequences of Israel’s six-decade occupation of Palestinian territories.
This live page is now closed.
This live page is now closed.
- The International Court of Justice (ICJ) hears arguments from more than 50 countries and three international organisations this week – the largest number of parties to participate in any single World Court case.
- The 15-judge panel is asked to review Israel’s “occupation, settlement and annexation” as well as policies “aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem”.
- The six-day hearings are based on a request by the UN General Assembly (UNGA) for a nonbinding advisory opinion on the legality of Israel’s policies in the occupied Palestinian territories.
- Israel is not taking part in this week’s oral arguments and reacted angrily to the 2022 UNGA request of the ICJ with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu calling it “despicable” and “disgraceful”.
Day 3 of the ICJ hearings ends
Proceedings have ended the third day of hearings at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Netherlands.
Hungary called on the ICJ to decline to exercise its jurisdiction as its advisory opinion could “directly contribute to the escalation of the conflict”.
Guyana said “Israel’s occupation must end, immediately, comprehensively, irreversibly”.
The Gambia asked the ICJ to affirm that the occupation is illegal. It also argued that Israel was under an obligation to end its occupation immediately.
France said all damage caused to the Palestinian population as a result of Israeli policies and practices illegal under international law must be the object of restitution and, failing that, compensation.
Russia called for the establishment of the Palestinian state, saying “a negotiated two-state solution with an independent and viable Palestinian state peacefully coexisting with Israel will be the best recipe for bringing an end to Israel’s violations, creating guarantees of their non-repetition and redressing the damage”.
Rendering opinion would result in ‘politicisation’ of the court: Hungary
Rendering an advisory opinion on this matter would result in the “politicisation” of the court, Kocsis argued, and could “undermine the maintenance of global peace and security”.
He added that issuing an opinion would “be tantamount to adjudicating on the Palestine-Israel question”. He said the issue should instead be handled within the “already existing and accepted institutional architecture”, first and foremost: the UN Security Council.
What is needed today is not a new legal interpretation but a “renewed effort to restart peace negotiations implementing all UN Security Council resolutions”, he said. There is no alternative to a political resolution that allows the state of Israel to live side by side with a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as the capital of both states.
‘The court should decline to exercise its jurisdiction’: Hungary
Hungary’s second speaker, Gergo Kocsis, said the ICJ “should decline to exercise its jurisdiction.” While the court has jurisdiction over the case, it has the right to exercise discretion on whether it exercises its jurisdiction.
The reasons pertain to the issue of judicial propriety and include: the specifics of the question; the essentially bilateral nature of the dispute and the lack of consent of one of the parties; the already existing legal framework for the resolution of the conflict.
There are compelling reasons why the court should refuse to give an opinion made by the UN General Assembly. Kocsis says the UN General Assembly’s questions posed to the ICJ mention unspecified Israeli practices and legislations but provide a “distinct qualification stating their illegality”.
Replying to this would “require an affirmation of these statements operated in the question”.
Hungary says ICJ advisory opinion could be considered as provocation in Israel’s war on Gaza
Attila Hidegh, a representative of Hungary, advises the ICJ against issuing an advisory opinion.
“The proceedings brought before this esteemed court may directly contribute to the escalation of the conflict,” he said.
“We are of the view that both the present proceedings as well as the proceedings against the State of Israel on application of the Geneva Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide in the Gaza Strip may be considered as provocations in the ongoing conflict, not contributing to the escalation and the immediate settlement of the conflict,” Hidegh added.
“Potential utilisation of the court in the communication war could create a narrow dividing lines and could continue to fuel tensions in one of the most severe conflicts in recent history.”
Permanent occupation is military conquest, annexation: Guyana
Craven is now directly addressing the question of whether the occupation should be considered illegal. He made the following remarks:
- The conduct of an occupation is governed by international humanitarian law while the legality of the occupation is determined by UN Charter and general international law. The argument advanced by the US that the occupation is governed solely by international humanitarian law leaves no room for the application of the Charter, especially article 2(4) by which the acquisition of territory by force is prohibited.
- Occupation is “inherently and exclusively a temporary state of affairs”. An occupying power does not acquire “one atom” of the occupied territory and cannot make permanent changes. “Permanent occupation is military conquest, it is annexation, and annexation is of course strictly forbidden under international law,” he said.
- It is indisputable that Israel’s occupation is unlawful as a whole. Israel has annexed almost all Palestinian territories and has extended the application of its laws to that territory. It is irrefutable that Israel intends its occupation to be permanent.
- There have been unequivocal declarations on the annexation of East Jerusalem, as well as deliberate demographic manipulation that profoundly changed the character of the Holy City.
- “Israel’s occupation must end, immediately, comprehensively, irreversibly,” Craven said.
Guyana says Israel’s actions threaten global peace, security and stability
Guyana’s representative Edward Craven tells the ICJ that “although situated far from the Middle East, Guyana has a close interest in the legality of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory”.
“Israel’s activities in the occupied territory, which have been brought in sharp focus by the tragic and ongoing humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, are a matter of truly global concern,” he said.
Craven added that the occupation has “significant implications not only for the state of Palestine and the Palestinian people but for all states opposed to the acquisition of territory by force”.
“Israel’s continued occupation of Palestinian territory is an offence against this bedrock principle of international law, and it is a serious and a continuing threat to a peaceful, secure and stable world”.
“Guyana’s participation in these proceedings and presence here today reflect its firm conviction that the advisory opinion by the court on the questions posed by the General Assembly will play a valuable and indeed vital role in enabling the United Nations and all of its member states to secure full compliance with international law and ultimately to achieve a permanent, just and peaceful settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” he said.
Craven also said the countries that advocate against an advisory opinion against Israel’s occupation are wrong. For example, the US argument is based on the assumption that negotiations are ongoing between the Israelis and the Palestinians, which is not the case, Craven argued.
Session resumes after quick break
Guyana’s representative has taken to the floor after a quick break during the court session.
Israel set up ‘apartheid regime’ in Palestinian territories: The Gambia
Jallow says the 1967 war that resulted in the occupation was a violation of the use of force from the onset. Even if the occupation of the Palestinian territories had once been lawful, its protracted nature means it cannot possibly be lawful today.
Israel has since set up an “apartheid regime” where the Palestinians continue to be deprived of their right to self-determination indefinitely, while “there is no reason for Israel’s continued use of force to maintain the occupation if there was ever one to begin with”.
Israel cannot justify its occupation as a response to threats from the occupied Palestinian territories. The maintenance of Israel’s occupation is unnecessary and disproportionate. “It is simply not possible that it has been necessary for Israel to maintain its occupation for over 56 years,” Jallow says.
The representative ended his remarks by asking the court to affirm that the occupation is illegal. The Gambia argued that Israel is under an obligation to end its occupation immediately.
There is no end in sight to Israel’s occupation: Gambia
Attorney General Dawda Jallow, agent for the Gambia, has said:
- The international system is based on certain fundamental principles of law … The international community collectively over many years has found Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories to be illegal … and collectively we have invoked Israel’s responsibility in that regard to end the occupation.
- Israel’s occupation violates the rights to Palestinian peoples’ self-determination and is therefore illegal.
- There is no end in sight to Israel’s occupation, already extending more than 56 years.
- Israel’s current leaders boast with pride of the country’s long-standing efforts to prevent the creation of an independent Palestinian state.
France calls for restitution or compensation for Palestinians
In his final remarks, Colas said France believes the court’s advisory opinion must demand the following:
- All damage caused to the Palestinian population as a result of policies and practices illegal under international law must be the object of restitution and, failing that, compensation.
- Israel must be required to prosecute people responsible for human rights violations.
- Other states have an obligation not to recognise any form of illegal annexation of territories. France will never recognise the illegal annexation of territories in the West Bank.
- From an economic standpoint, as requested by the UN all states must make a separation between the Israeli territories and the territories occupied since 1967 and distinguish products depending on that origin.
France condemns Israeli calls for expelling Palestinians from Gaza
French representative Diego Colas also said:
- France reiterates its condemnation of illegal settlement policy by Israel, particularly in the current context. Its policy includes eviction of Palestinian families and destruction of properties.
- The war in Gaza in no way constitutes a pretext to continue to impose on the ground unilateral measures that undermine the prospects for a two-state solution, the only one that can guarantee the just and lasting peace.
- France reiterates its condemnation of pronouncement of promoting the reinstallation of settlements in Gaza and the transfer of the Palestinian population of Gaza outside this territory.
France says ICJ opinion must go ‘no further than necessary’
Diego Colas has opened France’s remarks by condemning Hamas’ attack of October 7 and underlining that Israel has a right to defend itself. Israel, however, must do so in compliance with international law.
“Only a two-state solution will meet both Israel’s right to security and the legitimate aspirations of Palestinians for a viable, contiguous, independent state. To this end, France calls for a decisive and credible restarting of the peace process,” Colas says.
This will require security arrangements and a state that is capable to take sovereign action. The Palestinian people have a right to live side by side with Israelis within internationally recognised boundaries.
With regards to the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion on the legal consequences of Israel’s occupation, France’s believes the scope of the current ICJ proceedings must be “precisely delineated” and that the court should offer an opinion that “goes no further than it is necessary to do so”.
Russia calls for establishment of Palestinian state
Tarabrin ends his speech, saying:
- A negotiated two-state solution with an independent and viable Palestinian state peacefully coexisting with Israel will be the best recipe for bringing an end to Israel’s violations, creating guarantees of their non-repetition and redressing the damage.
- The Russian Federation invites the Court to be guided by the need to contribute to creating conditions for successful final status negotiations. The best contribution would be confirmation by the court that Israel and Palestine are under an obligation to resume such negotiations while all states and organisations shall cooperate in order to make that possible.
- The continued Israeli occupation of Palestine impedes the realisation of the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination. Israeli settlements are contrary to the principle of the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by force.
Settlements imperilling two-state solution, Russia says
Tarabrin says Israeli settlements established in breach of international law “are contrary to the principle of inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by force”.
The UN Security Council has already determined that these settlements constitute a “flagrant violation of international law and a major obstacle to the two-state solution and a just and lasting peace”, he says.
Israel’s policy of settlement expansion continues unabated in defiance of UN Security Council resolutions and in breach of the right to property, freedom of movement and an adequate standard of living, the ambassador charged.
The court would be right to conclude that Israel has a duty to put an end to its current violations and provide reparations, he said.
Russia’s representative calls for vicious circle to be broken in Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Vladimir Tarabrin, Russia’s ambassador to the Netherlands, has taken the floor, summarising the suffering of the Palestinian people and condemning the October 7 attack on Israel, but slamming the Israeli retaliation as “collective punishment” that cannot be justified.
He said:
- Images from Gaza are terrifying. Indiscriminate air strikes are killing civilians and erasing whole residential districts … Up to 90 percent of Gazans have been forced to leave their homes and they are living in inhumane conditions. Against the backdrop of tough Israeli blockade the Gaza Strip is experiencing a genuine humanitarian catastrophe.
- Russia of all countries understands the danger of terrorism. We have faced this evil time and again. Let me use this opportunity to reiterate our heartfelt condolences to the Israelis who lost their loved ones in the attack on the 7th of October. Brutal massacre of innocent people, taking of hostages and other terrorist violence do not have and cannot have any justification.
- We are convinced the tragic events of the 7th of October cannot justify the collective punishment of more than two million Gazans. We cannot accept the logic of those officials in Israel and some Western countries who try to defend the indiscriminate violence against civilians by referring to Israel’s duty to protect its nationals. Violence can only lead to more violence. Hatred brings hatred. This vicious circle must be broken.
ICJ hearing resumes
The hearing has resumed for the afternoon session. The Russian Federation is the first to take the floor.
We’ll bring you more live updates shortly.
LISTEN: Why South Africa sued Israel for genocide
The ICJ also 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?
WATCH: Why are Israel and its Western allies targeting UNRWA?
Is Israel trying to associate UNRWA with Hamas to mobilise anti-Palestinian sentiment in the US?
About 20 countries have announced suspensions of funding to UNRWA, the agency that has been providing services to Palestinian refugees since 1950.
The official reason for the suspension was Israel’s accusation that a dozen UNRWA employees in Gaza had participated in the October 7 Hamas attacks.
How is this occupation case different to South Africa’s case against Israel?
The current hearings are part of a case against Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories and are separate from another ICJ case brought by South Africa on December 29 that alleges that Israel is committing the crime of genocide in its ongoing war on Gaza.
In a preliminary ruling in that case, the court ordered Israel to prevent and punish incitement to genocide and to provide needed humanitarian aid by February 26.
South Africa is also part of the current occupation case and opened the second day of hearings as they accused Israel of apartheid against the Palestinians and labelled its occupation “inherently and fundamentally illegal”.
This case is not linked directly to the current war on Gaza, though it pertains to many of the concerns of international law violations that bind Israel’s approach to all Palestinian territories.
You can find out more about the current case in our explainer here and read more about South Africa’s ICJ case here.
France set to address ICJ after denouncing ongoing ‘colonisation’
Representatives from France will address the World Court after Russia. Paris recently denounced the ongoing settler expansion in the occupied West Bank.
“Colonisation is illegal under international law and must stop,” the French Foreign Ministry said earlier this month.
“Its continuation is incompatible with the creation of a viable Palestinian state, which is the only solution so that Israelis and Palestinians can live, side by side, in peace and security.”
France announced sanctions against 28 Israeli settlers whom it accused of committing human rights abuses against Palestinian civilians.
How would ruling the occupation illegal burden peace negotiations?
The United States defended Israel in a very clever way. Its arguments were sober and sophisticated, but this doesn’t make them any less dishonest.
The overall message of the American representative is that the court should be at the service of the American and Israeli negotiation strategy – not that the American and Israeli negotiation strategy should abide by the court’s ruling.
But a World Court cannot be at the disposal of the US. It is otherwise unclear why a potential ruling by the court that the occupation is illegal would be a burden on the negotiations.
On the matter of Israel’s security, who defines what that means? Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu defines security as Israel taking control of the territory from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, which would mean accepting the acquisition of territory by force.
A recap of today’s developments
Let’s bring you up to date on the arguments presented at the ICJ so far:
- The US representative, Richard Visek, told the World Court it “should not find that Israel is legally obligated to immediately and unconditionally withdraw from occupied territory”.
- Cuba’s representative, Anayansi Rodriguez Camejo told the ICJ to qualify Israel’s actions “merely as acts of apartheid would leave out the implicit intention to exterminate the Palestinian people”.
- Egypt’s Jasmine Moussa said Palestine has been subjected to the “longest protracted occupation in modern history” as she denounced “the ongoing obstruction of the Palestinian people’s inalienable, permanent and unqualified right to self-determination”.
- UAE envoy Lana Nusseibeh said Israel must end its siege of Gaza, let aid in, and stop the forcible transfer of the Palestinian population.
- Colombia’s representative, Andrea Jiménez Herrera, described a “veritable map of horror and devastation” that the Gaza Strip has become as a result of the “scorched earth policy unleashed by the government of Israel”.
US representative offers ‘a lot of dry legal arguments’
The US is one of two states together with Fiji arguing against the idea that the court should declare Israel’s occupation illegal.
The US State Department official Richard Visek was trying to argue the question the court is being asked to consider is one-sided as it only focuses on Israel’s role in the occupation. The focus should instead be on the UN Security Council resolutions that over the decades have affirmed the commitment to the two-state solution, according to Visek.
The US representative also said the allegations that Israel breaches the fourth Geneva Convention by transferring settlers to the occupied Palestinian territories should be addressed by the UN Security Council.
There were a lot of dry legal arguments suggesting that the court shouldn’t be considering this question because it’s biased against Israel.
Who is up next at the ICJ hearings this week?
Thursday: China, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mauritius
Friday: Namibia, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Indonesia, Qatar, United Kingdom, Slovenia, Sudan, Switzerland, Syria, Tunisia
Monday: Turkey, Zambia, Arab League, Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, African Union, Spain, Fiji, Maldives