The International Court of Justice (ICJ) decision issued last Friday constitutes, from a legal perspective, a great victory for the Palestinian people and an unprecedented and stinging blow to Israel and its fascist government.
All controversy regarding the nature of the situation in the occupied Palestinian territories (OPT) – which has been confirmed to include the entirety of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip – has been laid to rest, with these territories unambiguously declared to be unlawfully occupied by Israel.
They are not recognised as Jewish territory, as Netanyahu claims, nor as "disputed" territory, as the Israeli Labor Party and other Zionist parties claim.
The ICJ decision also confirmed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the OPT, which Israel has always denied is relevant in this case.
Moreover, it clarified that the settlements are unlawful, and all of them must be removed. Not only this, but the Palestinians must be compensated for the harm inflicted on them throughout the occupation's duration – for all land seized, every home demolished, and every violation perpetrated.
The decision also confirmed that Israel is practising a system of apartheid against the Palestinians. This provides a strong legal basis for a global campaign to resist the Israeli apartheid regime.
The ICJ decision holds all states — and the UN General Assembly and the Security Council — responsible for implementing international law and enacting the court's ruling. It demands that these bodies and states do not accept Israel's illegal presence in the OPT, its colonising settlement enterprise, extend any support for its unlawful presence or act to preserve the existent occupation and its accompanying system of racial discrimination.
In fact, the decision went further – demanding that the UN and its member states look into additional measures they can take to end Israel’s unlawful presence in the OPT. This demand, in conjunction with the legal grounds of the decision, together form a solid foundation for sanctions to be imposed on Israel, as well as boycott and divestment measures — as it has been unequivocally identified as a rogue entity acting outside the bounds of international law.
Many continue to focus on the fact that the decision was "advisory", as though that detracts from its value, so here I must explain what that means.
The opinion is advisory because it was issued based on a request by the UN General Assembly for a legal opinion from the ICJ on the occupation and the oppression of the Palestinian people in the OPT.
Following the opinion's issuance, it becomes the duty of the states which requested the ICJ ruling to implement it. This is because the ICJ, like any court, has the authority to make legal judicial decisions and rulings, and it can oblige the executive authority or power, which in this case is the UN, to fulfil its duty and enforce the judgment.
The executive power, in this case, is the Security Council, or in the case that it fails to do so, a decision can be taken by the UN General Assembly under a provision in Chapter VII. Both actions will be opposed by the United States and some Western colonial countries that consider Israel their protégé.
To simplify the matter, it is akin to a situation where a criminal has committed theft, murder, and assault (Israel), and the victims (the Palestinian people) go to court to claim their rights. The court rules in their favour, and for the aggressor to be punished, for the effects of their crime to be removed, and for compensation for the victims. The judgment is then in the hands of the police (the Security Council), but the police are corrupt due to American bias towards Israel and the reckless use of their veto power in the Security Council.
So what is the solution? It is to resist the aggressor, which is legitimate resistance, and for all elements of Arab, Islamic and international solidarity to mobilise to enforce sanctions on the aggressor and force compliance with the law.
This is at the crux of civil society efforts to push the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign, which has the potential to gain tremendous momentum — in parallel with the impact and strength of Palestinian resistance — to create a shift in the balance of power, in the favour of the Palestinian people.
And, as happened in the South African case, popular pressure became an enormous force, which ultimately imposed its view onto political parties, parliaments, and governments.
This is what is demanded today in the Palestinian case, which calls for coordination between the Palestinian resistance and the international BDS movement.
Timewise, the ICJ ruling arrived exactly one day after the approval of an Israeli Knesset decision rejecting the future establishment of a Palestinian state and represented a slap in the face of those who voted for that decision.
However, what was striking was that Israeli reactions to the ICJ decision, which have gone as far as accusing it of antisemitism, totally embodied what was also embodied by the Israeli Knesset decision, in four respects:
Firstly, the Zionist movement's unity, in all its components and parties, whether those in the government or the opposition, when it comes to its wholesale rejection of the rights of the Palestinian people.
Secondly, the general trend towards fascism in Israeli society and other components of the Zionist system, in their treatment of the Palestinian people.
Thirdly, the removal of the illusion that it would be possible to reach a compromise with the Zionist movement through negotiations.
Fourthly, the Knesset decision represented the burial of the dead Oslo accords and process, which was built on the twin illusions that there could be a middle-ground solution, and that the US would ever be a neutral mediator.
To be sure, the Zionist movement and the Israeli Knesset wouldn't have dared adopt this decision if not for the continuing normalisation agreements with Israel, the weakness of the official Arab and Islamic responses to the genocidal slaughter in Gaza, and the official complicity of the US and several Western states with its war crimes.
Comments made on the Knesset decision by a US State Department spokesman (Vedant Patel) were both telling and absurd, as well as an insult to the intelligence of the public.
"I think it can be safely implied that a piece of legislation that is in opposition to the two-state solution is not something that we would be thrilled about. But again, I don't have the expertise or the analysis of this legislation," he remarked, a comment which deserved its labelling as "ridiculous".
Israel's actions, decisions, and stances on the ICJ rulings and the anticipated decision from the International Criminal Court (ICC), all culminate in one conclusion – that it has established itself as a rogue entity that defies all international and humanitarian laws and norms.
The only remedy is sanctions.
Mustafa Barghouti is founder and leader of the Palestinian National Initiative (PNI) as well as a doctor, activist, writer, and advocate of Palestinian rights. He has been a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council since 2006, and was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2010.
This is an edited translation from our Arabic edition. To read the original article click
Have questions or comments? Email us at: editorial-english@alaraby.co.uk
Opinions expressed in this article remain those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of °®Âþµº, its editorial board or staff, or the author's employer.