In its coverage of the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) “advisory opinion,” Jüdische Allgemeine highlighted B’nai B’rith International’s statement fiercely criticizing the ICJ for parroting the overt, exhaustive bias of the political body (UNGA) that commissioned it.

Read in Jüdische Allgemeine (in German).

Israel sharply criticizes the expert opinion according to which the settlement of the West Bank is illegal.

No matter which side you stand on, the legal opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Israel’s settlement policy could not have been clearer and more unambiguous.

Although it is not binding, the 80-page paper of the highest UN court could still have an effect – and not only on the UN General Assembly, which had commissioned it from the Hague judges at the end of 2022. At that time, Germany and other Western states had voted against the request of the majority to obtain a legal assessment on the topic that has been controversial for decades. Israel had not participated in the hearings of the experts.

The expert opinion, which describes Israel’s settlement policy in the West Bank and in the eastern part of Jerusalem as incompatible with international law, is not the first of its kind. In 2004, the ICJ had already issued a similar statement, at that time only on the question of the legality of the barrier wall to the Palestinian territories in the West Bank. The Court thus had a lasting influence on the debate.

With the legal opinion read out on Friday by the Lebanese court president Nawaf Salam, Israel is likely to attract even more international criticism than it already has. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may have been aware of this. In a first reaction on Friday evening, he did not even try to respond to the content of the verdict.

Instead, Netanyahu wrote on Platform X: “The Jewish people are not an occupier in their own country, not even in our eternal capital Jerusalem or in Judea and Samaria, our historical home. No opinion, however absurd in The Hague, can deny this historical truth or the right of the Israelis to live in their own communities in our ancestral homeland.”

On the other hand, the vast majority of judges – only Ugandan Vice President Julia Sebutinde took a fundamentally different view in her long “Dissenting Opinion” – see Israel’s policy and its behavior in the West Bank as the main obstacle to peace. The areas conquered by Israel in 1967 in the Six-Day War must be administered, they wrote in their expert opinion, “in the interest of the population living there.”

This meant only the Palestinians. Israel has no claim to the West Bank or the eastern part of Jerusalem, nor does the length of the occupation justify such a claim.

The settlement construction, the judges demanded, must be stopped immediately. And not only that. Israel must also withdraw all settlers from the areas as soon as possible, as it did in Gaza in 2005. The distinction made by Israel between (legal) settlements and (illegal) outposts in the West Bank is also irrelevant. Rather, it is important that Israel actively supports the construction of settlements.

However, the settlement policy of Israel allegedly violates Article 49 of the IV Geneva Convention, which prohibits the expulsion or forced evacuation of residents of an occupied territory, unless compelling military reasons or the safety of the civilian population require it.

With its settlement policy, however, Israel allegedly contributes systematically, the court continues, to deprive the Palestinians of their livelihoods. It is aimed at persuading the local population to leave the areas. At the same time, the government is giving state incentives for Israelis to move to the settlements in the West Bank.

In the areas of the West Bank under Israeli military administration, conditions prevailed that left the Palestinian population no choice but to move away, the judges claimed. This was no longer an evacuation measure allowed under the Geneva Convention.

The application of Israeli law to the eastern part of Jerusalem, which was annexed in 1980, and the Israeli settlements in the West Bank, is also not legal. Israel exceeds its powers as an occupying power and deliberately creates an “inhospitable environment” for the Palestinians living in the city.

According to the judges, the Israeli government also fails “systematically” in the fight against settler violence against Palestinians. The behavior of the Israeli state indicates that permanent control over the occupied territory is sought, which in turn could be regarded as a form of “annexation.” This is also contrary to international law.

And the controversial term “apartheid” is also discussed in the expert opinion. According to Article 3 of the International Convention against Racism (ICERD), all forms of “racial segregation” and apartheid are prohibited.

The Court of Justice stated that “the Israeli legislation and measures in the West Bank and East Jerusalem cause and serve to maintain an almost complete separation between the settler communities and the Palestinian communities. For this reason, the Court considers that the Israeli legislation and measures constitute a violation of Article 3 of the CERD.”

And it came even thicker. Israel must, the court demanded, “make reparations to all natural and legal persons in the occupied territories. In addition, no state or international organization should recognize Israel’s presence in the occupied territories as lawful.”

In trade relations with Israel, third countries must strictly distinguish between “the occupied Palestinian territory” and the territory of Israel, the judges demanded. And the United Nations must take “measures to end the Israeli presence in the occupied territories.”

There is “the urgent need” to bring the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, “which still poses a threat to world peace and international security, to a rapid conclusion and thus create a just and lasting peace in the region,” the ICJ wrote in its opinion and thus reaffirmed its postulate to the legal opinion on the barrier wall of 2004.

Although the current paper is also not binding, the heated debate about the legality of settlement policy is now likely to intensify further—also in Israel itself. Whether the International Court of Justice has promoted the peace process in the Middle East with this paper can be doubted, because the judges almost consistently represent the extremely one-sided attitude propagated by the Palestinian and UN officials, which completely overlooks the actions of radical Palestinians and the security interests of Israel.

The Jewish organization B’nai B’rith sharply criticized the ICJ decision. “Inexplicably, the World Court of Justice has not recognized that Israel’s presence and its defense measures in the areas are a direct response to the never-ending, acute violence and existential threats.”

It is “plainly false and defamatory” to claim that Israel violates the ban on “racial segregation and apartheid,” explained B’nai B’rith President Seth J. Riklin and CEO Daniel S. Mariaschin in a press release.

The Geneva organization UN Watch pointed out that Court President Nawaf Salam made several unilateral statements against Israel during his time as Lebanese UN ambassador and was not impartial on this issue.

Israel could simply ignore the expert opinion and continue to take the view that only a peace agreement negotiated between the two parties can end the conflict. But another case is pending at the ICJ in The Hague: South Africa’s lawsuit for alleged violation of the Genocide Convention by Israel.

Its outcome is still completely uncertain. But one thing is already certain: In that procedure, the decisions of the judges are binding – and then no longer contestable.