ICJ Finds Israel’s Settlement Policies in Violation of International Law

The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the United Nations' highest judicial body, has issued a landmark ruling declaring that Israel’s settlement policies and exploitation of natural resources in occupied Palestinian territories breach international law. Announced on Friday, this decision represents a significant development in the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict and could have profound implications for future negotiations and international relations in the region.

During a session lasting about an hour, ICJ President Nawaf Salam presented the court's detailed opinion. The panel of 15 judges from various nations concluded that "the transfer by Israel of settlers to the West Bank and Jerusalem, as well as Israel's maintenance of their presence, is contrary to Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention." This article prohibits an occupying power from transferring its civilian population into the territory it occupies.

Additionally, the court determined that Israel’s use of natural resources in these territories is "inconsistent" with its obligations as an occupying power under international law. This ruling addresses a crucial aspect of the occupation that has been a longstanding point of contention between Israelis and Palestinians.

The territories in question—the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip—were captured by Israel during the Six-Day War in 1967. While Israel views the West Bank as disputed territory and has annexed East Jerusalem (a move not recognized internationally), it withdrew from Gaza in 2005 but has maintained a blockade since Hamas took control in 2007.

This ICJ ruling comes amid heightened tensions, with Israel engaged in a military campaign in Gaza following Hamas-led attacks in southern Israel in October. At the same time, the ICJ is considering a separate case brought by South Africa, alleging that Israel's actions in Gaza amount to genocide—a charge Israel strongly denies.

The court's decision aligns with the international community’s longstanding position that Israeli settlements in these territories are illegal and hinder peace efforts. According to the anti-settlement monitoring group Peace Now, Israel has established over 100 settlements in the West Bank. The pro-settler group reports that the settler population in the West Bank has surged by more than 15% in the past five years, now exceeding 500,000 Israelis.

In East Jerusalem, an additional 200,000 Israelis live in settlements that Israel considers neighborhoods of its capital. Palestinian residents in these areas face systemic discrimination, particularly regarding permits for new construction or the expansion of existing homes.

The ICJ’s ruling follows hearings held in February, where then-Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad Malki accused Israel of apartheid and urged the court to declare Israel’s occupation illegal, calling for its immediate and unconditional end to preserve the possibility of a two-state solution.

Israel, which often views UN and international tribunals as biased, did not send a legal team to these hearings. Instead, it submitted written comments, arguing that the questions posed to the court were prejudiced and failed to acknowledge Israel’s right and duty to protect its citizens, address security concerns, or recognize existing Israeli-Palestinian agreements for negotiating various issues.

This is not the first time the ICJ has been asked to evaluate Israeli policies. Two decades ago, the court ruled that Israel’s West Bank separation barrier was "contrary to international law." Israel boycotted those proceedings, claiming they were politically motivated.

The current ruling originates from a UN General Assembly vote in December 2022, which, by a wide margin, requested the ICJ’s advisory opinion. Israel strongly opposed this request, which was promoted by the Palestinians, while 50 countries abstained from voting.

As the international community absorbs this significant legal opinion, its impact on future negotiations, diplomatic relations, and the prospect of a two-state solution remains to be seen. The ruling introduces a new dimension to the complex web of legal, political, and humanitarian issues surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, potentially influencing policy decisions and international responses in the years ahead.