UN seeks ICJ opinion on Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine

The decision will see Worldwide Court docket of Justice give opinion on Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory.

The United Nations Common Meeting has handed a decision calling on the Worldwide Court docket of Justice (ICJ) to present an opinion on the authorized penalties of Israel’s unlawful occupation of Palestinian territories.

The Common Meeting voted 87 to 26 with 53 abstentions on the decision, with Western nations break up however with just about unanimous assist within the Islamic world – together with amongst Arab states which have normalised relations with Israel. Russia and China voted in favour of the decision.

Israel, the US and 24 different members – together with the UK and Germany – voted towards the decision, whereas France was among the many 53 nations that abstained.

The Hague-based ICJ, often known as the World Court docket, is the highest UN court docket coping with disputes between states. Its rulings are binding, although the ICJ has no energy to implement them.

Palestine’s UN ambassador Riyad Mansour famous that the vote got here at some point after the swearing-in of a brand new far-right Israeli authorities, which he stated guarantees an enlargement of unlawful Jewish settlements and can speed up “colonial and racist insurance policies” in direction of Palestinians. He additionally hailed nations that voted in favour of the decision and had been “undeterred by threats and strain”.

“We belief that, no matter your vote in the present day, in case you imagine in worldwide regulation and peace, you’ll uphold the opinion of the Worldwide Court docket of Justice when delivered and you’ll stand as much as this Israeli authorities proper now,” Mansour informed the Common Meeting.

The UN Common Meeting requested the ICJ to present an advisory opinion on the authorized penalties of Israel’s “occupation, settlement and annexation … together with measures geared toward altering the demographic composition, character and standing of the Holy Metropolis of Jerusalem, and from its adoption of associated discriminatory laws and measures”.

The UN decision additionally asks the ICJ to advise on how these insurance policies and practices “have an effect on the authorized standing of the occupation” and what authorized penalties come up for all nations and the UN from this standing.

The ICJ final weighed in on the difficulty of Israel’s occupation in 2004, when it dominated that Israel’s wall within the occupied West Financial institution and East Jerusalem was unlawful. Israel rejected that ruling, accusing the court docket of being politically motivated.

“No worldwide physique can resolve that the Jewish persons are ‘occupiers’ in their very own homeland. Any resolution from a judicial physique which receives its mandate from the morally bankrupt and politicized UN is totally illegitimate,” Israel’s UN ambassador, Gilad Erdan, stated in a press release forward of the vote.

Throughout the June 1967 conflict, Israel occupied all of historic Palestine and expelled 300,000 Palestinians from their properties. Israel additionally captured the Syrian Golan Heights within the north and the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula within the south. In 1978, Egypt and Israel signed a peace treaty which led to Israel withdrawing from Egyptian territory.

The occupied Palestinian territories have been beneath Israeli navy management since 1967. This makes it the longest occupation in trendy historical past. The segmented territories embrace Gaza, the West Financial institution and East Jerusalem.

“We don’t really feel {that a} referral to the Worldwide Court docket of Justice is useful in bringing the events again to dialogue,” UK diplomat Thomas Phipps stated of the UN vote.

“Additionally it is the place of the UK that it’s inappropriate with out the consent of each events to ask the court docket to present an advisory opinion in what is actually a bilateral dispute.”

Amongst Western nations that backed the decision was Portugal, whose consultant acknowledged the “danger of overjudicialising worldwide relations” however stated the world court docket “underpins the worldwide rules-based order which we search to protect”.