International Court of Justice: settlement policy violates international law - de facto annexation

The International Court of Justice in The Hague (ICJ) published on Friday the advisory opinion regarding the "legality of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem". President of the Court of Justice, Nawaf Salam: "Israel's settlement policy violates international law; it is de facto annexation." Smotrich: "The answer to The Hague - sovereignty."
* The Hague Tribunal called on Israel to "end settlement activity, stop any new settlement establishment and compensate the Palestinians for damages caused to them as a result of the occupation".
* According to the court's determination, "The settlement policy enables violence by settlers against the Palestinians. Israel systematically fails to prevent the violence or enforce the law."
* "Israel's settlement policy is contrary to the Geneva Convention and international law," the court added. "The occupying body is not allowed to transfer population to the occupied territories."
* The court rejected the claim that it does not have jurisdiction: "All the territories of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip must be seen as one territorial unit and must be treated as such."
As soon as the decision was published, the Israeli political elite reacted. Minister Smotrich tweeted: "The answer to The Hague - sovereignty." Minister Ben Gvir added: "The decision proves for the umpteenth time - this is a definite anti-Semitic and political organization. We will not accept moral preaching from them, the time has come for governance and sovereignty."
In Israel they were not surprised, and came to the discussion very pessimistic: they initially feared that the tribunal might demand that Israel leave the territories of Judea and Samaria and call on the countries of the world to put pressure on Israel to end the occupation. A decision that could complicate Israel and lead to international boycotts of countries.
On December 30, 2022, the UN General Assembly made a decision to request an advisory opinion from the Court on the following questions:
- What are the legal consequences arising from Israel's continued violation of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, from its prolonged occupation, and from the settlements and annexation of the occupied Palestinian territory since 1967, including measures taken with the aim of changing the demographic composition, character and status of Jerusalem, and the adoption of legislation And discriminatory measures?
- How do the policies and practices (practices) of Israel mentioned in the section above affect the legal status of the occupation, and what are the legal consequences arising from this status for all countries and the UN?
- The questions were formulated as part of a decision that included widespread condemnation of Israel's policy in the territories (Judea and Samaria, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem). 87 countries voted in favor of the resolution (including Luxembourg, Malta, Argentina, Poland, Portugal, Russia and the United Arab Emirates), 26 countries opposed (including Australia, Austria, USA, Great Britain, Canada, Germany, Hungary and Romania), 53 abstained (including Cyprus , Greece, Denmark, France, Finland, India, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand and Norway), and 27 were absent.
- The State of Israel submitted to the court on July 24, 2023 a relatively short statement, in which it argued why the court should reject the request for an advisory opinion in the current case, without being required to consider the substance of the claims made against it.
The opinions are advisory as they are, having an advisory status only. They have no binding legal status towards the member states of the UN, and usually not towards the UN institutions either.
 The opinion does not include binding operative orders addressed to states. However, advisory opinions may still have real practical consequences: the tribunal's determinations are seen in many cases as reflecting an accepted interpretation of international law, and as such affect the legal positions of states:
* Israel actually annexed East Jerusalem, and is engaged in the "creeping" and permanent annexation of Judea and Samaria to the State of Israel. For example, it is claimed that the current government is working to transfer military powers in the occupied territory to government officials through the appointment of Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who previously stated that he intends to fully apply Israeli legislation to the territories, as a minister in the Ministry of Defense who will apply civilian powers to the territories of Judea and Samaria. It is argued that annexation of occupied territory is prohibited under international law.
* The settlement policy, which the Palestinians claim is part of the annexation policy, is intended to irreversibly change the reality on the ground. For example, Israel allocated 60% of the territories of Judea and Samaria (area C) for the purpose of establishing the settlements and security and other infrastructures, leaving only one percent for Palestinian residences. It is also claimed that Israel is promoting the displacement of Palestinians in the territories of Judea and Samaria, among other things by demolishing Palestinian homes and exposing them to severe violence from security forces and settlers.
* Israel denies a long list of rights from the Palestinians on a racial basis and violates their basic rights, among other things by applying different legal systems in relation to Israel and the Palestinians, and therefore employs a policy of apartheid. In this framework, claims were made regarding arbitrary arrests, house demolitions, movement prevention, violation of the right to family life, expropriation of land and the application of collective punishment to Palestinians.
* Israel denies the Palestinians' right to self-determination, a right protected by international law. According to the Palestinians, in light of the existence of the right to self-determination, Israel must not carry out "demographic manipulation" - to forcibly move Palestinians out of the occupied territory, and to move settlers into the occupied territory.
* It is claimed that the outcome of the aforementioned policies and actions is that the very Israeli control of Judea and Samaria is illegal, and that Israel is obligated to stop all illegal actions and immediately cease its control of the territory, and to compensate for the damage caused by the illegal activity.
Opinions may have real consequences indirectly. For example, such determinations can have an impact on the policy of Israel's allies in relation to the settlements, and on the policy of the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in the criminal investigation he conducts in relation to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (of which the settlement policy is one of the focal points).
Possible determinations in the advisory opinion can also influence judicial decisions of the judges of the International Criminal Court, of other international tribunals, as well as state courts in cases related to Israel's actions (for example, in the context of the sale of weapons to Israel).