The Israeli newspaper "Haaretz" said that the advisory opinion presented by the International Court of Justice undermined the basic arguments advanced by Israel for its long-term occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and essentially armed countries, institutions and companies with a strong justification to punish Israel, stressing that ignoring it should not be Israel's choice.

The newspaper explained, in an analysis written by Israeli writer and diplomat Alon Pinkas, that the decision of the International Court of Justice regarding the Israeli occupation and its administration of the West Bank and East Jerusalem is dangerous and unpleasant, explaining that Tel Aviv can challenge it, ignore it, ridicule it, and attack it with all arrogance as it wants, but when the judges reach a conclusion... This conclusion, and their demand that Israel pay compensation to the Palestinians, gives justification to many countries, enemies, friends, critics and supporters alike.

Key points of the court's opinion

The continued Israeli presence in the occupied Palestinian territories is illegal.

Israel must end its presence in the occupied territories as soon as possible.

Israel must immediately stop settlement expansion and evacuate all settlers from the occupied territories.

Israel is required to provide compensation for damages caused to local and legal residents of the Palestinian territories.

It is the duty of the international community and international organizations not to recognize the Israeli presence in the territories as a legal presence and to avoid supporting its continuation.

The United Nations must consider the necessary measures to end the Israeli presence in the territories as quickly as possible.

Apartheid

The far-right government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu can - and will do so, as the writer says - reject this decision as an irrelevant ruling from a court that has no jurisdiction, and will say that the court did not express anything more than anti-Zionism that crossed the fine line into anti-Zionism. Sublime.

However, this will not change the fact that there is now broad consensus around the world, and this week’s Knesset vote “against the establishment of a Palestinian state” supports the court’s statement that the occupation is a de facto annexation, adding that it consists of systematic discrimination, segregation, and that dreaded word “apartheid.” ".

Regarding the settlements, the court echoed and armed world public opinion, saying that the settlements were “illegal and in violation of international law,” and made clear that Israel, despite its unilateral withdrawal in 2005, remained “an occupying power in the Gaza Strip.”

American veto

The court issued its decision as a legal opinion based on a referral from the United Nations, and it is not legally binding, and even if the General Assembly refers it to the Security Council for implementation, it is expected that the American veto will be used to prevent this.

However, the decision carries major political consequences, especially against the backdrop of the war in Gaza and global opinion against Israel’s continuation of it. In addition, it undermines Israel’s basic arguments regarding the nature of its relationship with the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and countries, banks, and companies may use it to expand sanctions on Israel.

However, what is more serious is that this opinion is bound to have an impact on the International Criminal Court, which is considering more accusations of genocide and war crimes against Israel, and may issue arrest warrants against officials more than just the prime minister and the defense minister.

Unsustainable

The newspaper pointed out that the opinion issued on Friday is separate from the petition submitted by South Africa to the International Court of Justice regarding genocide, which was submitted a year before the war, and describes “the huge losses among Palestinian civilians, including children” and stresses that “the situation in Gaza is not "sustainable."

The basic question posed to the court was whether Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem since the June 1967 war, regardless of how it was defined, was “temporary” or whether it had become a “permanent” feature leading to partial occupation or complete annexation, and whether the settlements constitute Israeli occupation is irreversible? Especially with the transfer of large numbers of population to the occupied territories, and with the continued military presence and massive infrastructure works.

Settlements are an argument against Israel

Under international law, an occupation is not automatically illegal if it is temporary and the circumstances leading up to it can be justified or adequately explained, such as the American occupation of Japan and West Germany, and the Soviet occupation of East Germany after World War II.

Once a territory is occupied, both the Hague Rules and the Geneva Conventions set out broad obligations on the occupying power, with the aim of preventing actions that might lead to annexation, which is strictly prohibited under international law.

The writer explained that the essence of the argument against Israel in the International Court of Justice relates to the demographic aspect, as 650,000 Israelis live in settlements east of the Green Line, which is the 1949 armistice line and also called the borders of June 4, 1967, which constitutes clear evidence of permanent occupation.

It is not a temporary occupation

The court said that 57 years of continuous and expanded military presence, huge investments in infrastructure, numerous declarations of intent and the refusal to establish a Palestinian state or announce the intention of annexation do not indicate a temporary nature, especially since the International Court of Justice itself issued a decision in 2004, stating that The “security fence” was a de facto annexation of the areas west of the wall adjacent to the 1967 borders.

Regardless of the non-binding nature of Friday's ruling and its lack of political feasibility, the court has armed states, institutions and companies with rationales to not only rebuke Israel, but to punish it, even though no one believes this ruling will lead to political reform or political awakening.