“PROLONGED OCCUPATION”
The UN Basic Meeting requested the ICJ to think about two questions.
Firstly, the court docket ought to look at the authorized penalties of what the UN referred to as “the continuing violation by Israel of the precise of the Palestinian individuals to self-determination”.
This pertains to the “extended occupation, settlement and annexation of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967” and “measures geared toward altering the demographic composition, character and standing of the Holy Metropolis of Jerusalem”.
In June 1967, Israel crushed a few of its Arab neighbours in a six-day conflict, seizing the West Financial institution together with east Jerusalem from Jordan, the Golan Heights from Syria, and the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt.
Israel then started to settle the 70,000 sq km of seized Arab territory. The UN later declared the occupation of Palestinian territory unlawful. Cairo regained Sinai underneath its 1979 peace take care of Israel.
The ICJ has additionally been requested to look into the results of what it described as Israel’s “adoption of associated discriminatory laws and measures”.
Secondly, the ICJ ought to advise on how Israel’s actions “have an effect on the authorized standing of the occupation” and what are the results for the UN and different international locations.
Israel mentioned the “prejudicial” and “tendentious” questions “characterize a transparent distortion of the historical past and current actuality of the Israeli-Palestinian battle.”
The court docket will rule “urgently” on the affair, most likely by the top of the 12 months.
Dozens of pro-Palestinian protesters demonstrated outdoors the court docket, waving flags and brandishing banners.
“I actually hope justice will prevail,” organiser Nadia Slimi instructed AFP. “I actually hope all of the mixed efforts to strain Israel, to demand a extra humane coverage, will lastly result in some steps to liberate the Palestinian individuals.”
The ICJ guidelines in disputes between states and its judgements are binding though it has little means to implement them.
Nonetheless, on this case, the opinion it points will likely be non-binding though most advisory opinions are in reality acted upon.
Human Rights Watch (HRW) mentioned that whereas advisory opinions are non-binding, “they’ll carry nice ethical and authorized authority” and may ultimately be inscribed in worldwide legislation.
