World court case on illegal occupation could lead to vindication for Palestine, more isolation for Israel: Expert

By Rabia Ali

ISTANBUL (AA) - Emotions ran high as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) started its hearing on Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories, with Palestine’s UN envoy Riyad Mansour moved to tears as he delivered his final remarks.

Mansour spoke about a future where the children of Palestine would be treated as children and not as a “demographic fit,” when the human rights of Palestinians would not be “diminished” because of their ethnicity and identity, and where two states would live side by side, in peace.

Over six days, the world court is hearing oral arguments from 52 countries and three international organizations, on a UN General Assembly request filed in 2022 for an advisory opinion on the legal consequences of Israeli practices in the occupied Palestinian territory.

The hearing comes as Israel continues its devastating war on the Gaza Strip, where it has now killed nearly 30,000 Palestinians and laid waste to most of the besieged enclave.

The UN’s top court is already deliberating on a case filed by South Africa accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza, having ordered provisional measures and finding a plausible risk of genocide in its interim ruling in January.

- Significance of ICJ case

All the speakers will present their views on why they support or oppose the measures Israel has enforced in occupied Palestinian territories.

Israel itself has opted out of the hearing and instead submitted a written argument.

A court ruling is likely to take months, but could be possible somewhere between April to June, according to Victor Kattan, assistant professor of international law at the University of Nottingham in the UK.

Any decision in favor of Palestinians will be “a vindication of their rights by the principal judicial organ of the United Nations,” Kattan told Anadolu.

If the court comes out and holds Israel responsible for the “prohibition of the crime apartheid, for example,” that could be quite significant, because the UN has special organs and institutions to deal with combating apartheid, which have not been used for almost four decades, he explained.

“​​​​​​​They could be used to coordinate policies aimed at putting pressure on Israel to end its occupation in discriminatory policies against the Palestinian people,” said Kattan, who has written extensively on the Israel-Palestine dispute.

“In a way, it kind of reinforces the importance and value of this approach to the International Court of Justice.”

In a way, the court has essentially been “asked to defend international law and to make international law relevant again,” he emphasized.

- Key points

The hearings, Kattan said, deal with two issues, the first being looking at the ongoing violations that Israel’s committed by prolonging its occupation, denial of self-determination, major demographic changes, human rights violations, racial discrimination, as well as apartheid.

The second is the question about the consequences for states arising from these violations of international law, he said.

He explained that the participating countries had submitted their arguments well before the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks, so it would be interesting to see how Israel’s allies shape their arguments in light of its deadly actions in Gaza.

“The argument that Israel or these allies would be putting in front of these proceedings will be that this does not come in the (ICJ) jurisdiction or that this is not admissible. They may say this is a political issue that needs to be resolved in negotiations,” he said.

According to Kattan, "they’re going to simply ask the court not to consider the request at all on the grounds of jurisdiction and admissibility. But, in my view, it’s a very weak argument given the special role of the court in matters concerning decolonization and the like."

They may also say that this is a bilateral process and that peace can only come, statehood can only come when the Palestinians reach an agreement, he added.

“That may be their argument, but David Cameron, the foreign secretary of the UK, just came out and said that actually a Palestinian state doesn’t have to wait until the end of negotiations,” said Kattan.

“So, we may already be seeing a shift in even the stance of Israel’s friends in that regard, and this would explain why (Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu’s coming out with such belligerent statements saying that he’ll never accept a Palestinian state.”

These proceedings have enough significance that Israel “might do something to draw the world’s attention away from them,” warned Kattan.

“That could, for example, be deciding to attack Rafah,” he said, referring to Israel’s planned ground assault on the southern Gaza area currently sheltering over 1.4 million displaced Palestinians, drawing condemnation and warnings from around the world.

- Possible outcomes

Once the oral arguments conclude on Feb. 26, the court will start its deliberations and likely give an opinion in a few months.

“The judges will have heard the oral submissions, and they have access to written statements and comments on written statements since the summer or since last year, which they have undoubtedly read, which may have also informed them, by the way, on the genocide case as well,” said Kattan.

The key points to look out for are “how far does the court accept some of the arguments that Palestine has made,” what kind of majorities or dissenting opinions emerge, and the reasons for the dissent, he said.

“If the court does give a good opinion, a majority opinion, that the occupation, for example, is illegal or that Israel’s committing the crime of apartheid, for example, and that states have an obligation to … refrain from trading in arms … then that will then be referred back to the United Nations General Assembly,” he explained.

“The General Assembly will take note of it and then it’ll have to pass a resolution.”

Kattan pointed out that these resolutions are not formally binding and if it gets to the UN Security Council, “one would expect the United States to veto any attempts to enforce international law against Israel.”

“However, it is possible that some states may take matters into their own hands if the opinion is drafted well. If it’s got a large majority, it would give some states the opportunity to enforce international law themselves,” he said.

These states could contend that the court has said they should not be trading with Israel or with entities that are operating in the occupied territories, he said.

“It might give a reason for those states to cut diplomatic relations or to take measures to enforce international law,” Kattan emphasized.

“So, even if it doesn’t come from the UN Security Council level, it’s possible for states to unilaterally implement sanctions. Whether they do so, we have to see.”

- Isolation for Israel

Regarding the participation of countries in favor of Palestine, Kattan said it is “testimony to the hard work of Palestinian diplomats, who undoubtedly would have been lobbying their friends to support them in this case.”

The case also shows that Israel is “more isolated” than before Oct. 7, particularly among states of the Global South, he said.

“Perhaps it is also becoming more isolated with states from areas it considers its friends, such as in Europe,” he added.

Initially there was massive sympathy for Israel after the Hamas attacks, he continued, but that has “now dissipated because of the Israeli military operations and attacks in Gaza.”

“I think it simply shows that Israel is increasingly becoming isolated and it is now even more isolated because of what’s happened in the last few months,” he reiterated.

- Recognition for Palestine

Kattan asserted that Israel’s war on Gaza has revived the issue of Palestinian statehood and brought it back on the global agenda.

“It has undoubtedly galvanized the tension and reminded everyone that this conflict, although it’s very old, was not finished. It was still there, festering,” he said.

While most states recognize Palestine, there are some like the UK that have already made a legal determination that Palestine is a state but have withheld recognition for political reasons, he added.

“There were some states, for instance, that voted in favor of the UN General Assembly resolution according Palestine observer statehood all the way back in 2012, but withheld from upgrading their relations,” said Kattan.

“And now we can see that the idea of recognizing Palestine, for some Western countries, is back on the agenda in connection with debates on how to end the conflict in Gaza, how to give the Palestinian people a political horizon, how to ensure that the conflict that we are seeing never happens again.”