The opinions provided by judges at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) are advisory in nature and do not carry binding force. However, they hold significance in international law and their most recent stern censure of Israel’s 57-year hold over Palestinian regions might potentially undermine international backing for Israel.
As foreseen, Israel reacted fiercely to the pronouncement. “The Jewish nation aren’t interlopers in their homeland – neither in our everlasting capital, Jerusalem, nor in our forefathers’ land of Judea and Samaria”, stated Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, using the Biblical designation for the West Bank currently under occupation. “No deceptive verdict in The Hague will distort this historic reality, and the legitimacy of Israeli colonies across our national territories is undeniable,” he added.
Israel’s Foreign Office dismissed the advisory verdict of the ICJ, interpreting it as politically skewed and “utterly disconnected” from actuality, and charged the judgement with “overlooking” the atrocities perpetrated by Hamas on the 7th of October.
It also highlighted that the judgement “violates” the concept that peace can only materialise from “direct discussions”, and alleged that the Palestinian Authority used international courts to undermine Israel.
The ICJ lacks an executive authority to enforce its rulings. Nevertheless, its member states can appeal to the UN Security Council to enforce the court’s resolutions. In such a situation, Israel would count on the veto power of the US.
While it is anticipated that the US will agree to such a request, considerable disagreements are surfacing between Israel and the US about the terms for ending the Gaza war and facilitating the release of Israeli captives. A veto by the US at the Security Council could result in further Israeli compromises to restore peace in Gaza.
Other Western nations considered allies of Israel might choose to uphold the court’s ruling, and some might even ponder on placing sanctions on Israel should it disregard court directives.
Recent times have seen the US and Western nations impose sanctions on individual colonisers and extreme right-wing groups, and the latest judgement could result in more stringent measures.
Additionally, this ruling from the World Court has deepened Israel’s feeling of seclusion. This comes after the recent request from the International Criminal Court prosecutor, Karim Khan, in The Hague for arrest warrants for Mr. Netanyahu and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant.
Despite the ruling of the International Court of Justice, Israel continues to exhibit resistance. The Knesset parliament voiced its disagreement to the formation of a Palestinian state a day prior to the court’s judgement. The opposing resolution received support from 68 right-wing and centre-aligned members within the 120-seat assembly.
Leading the far-right Religious Zionism party, Israel’s finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, took to social media platform X broadcasting his reply to The Hague’s ruling: “Sovereignty now”, alluding to Israel’s annexation of the West Bank. The National security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, who is at the helm of the far-right Otzma Yehudit (Jewish Strength), made an even bolder statement. He insisted that The Hague’s judgment reiterated its conspicuous anti-Semitic and political leanings, adding, “We will reject any moral sermonising from them, it’s time for self-rule and sovereignty.”
Israel’s two extreme right-wing factions, along with numerous legislators from Netanyahu’s ruling Likud party, are advocates for the West Bank’s annexation. Smotrich, since assuming West Bank civilian affair duties in the existing government, has aggressively pursued a ‘de facto’ annexation policy.
In the waging Gaza war, numerous right-wing proponents see an opportunity to reestablish Jewish settlements in the region. To recall, all 21 Jewish settlements were demolished and evacuated as part of the 2005 disengagement plan adpoted under the leadership of the then prime minister Ariel Sharon.