UK accepts ICJ ruling that Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories is unlawful

The UK government has acknowledged the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) landmark ruling that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories is unlawful, accepting the Court’s findings that Israel must end its occupation, dismantle settlements and pay reparations for damages caused. The government’s position was set out during a debate in the House of Commons.

“The UK does not disagree with the central findings of the International Court of Justice’s Advisory Opinion,” said Hamish Falconer, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan, on Monday. Details of his comments were shared on X.

So the UK government agrees that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory, Gaza & the West Bank, inc East Jerusalem is “unlawful”, that it’s carrying out racial segregation & apartheid, that it should end its occupation, dismantle settlements & pay reparations?

Time to act. pic.twitter.com/6vYGlrwH6p

— Joseph Willits (@josephwillits) November 4, 2024

The ICJ’s advisory opinion — “Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem” — was delivered on 19 July at The Hague. It found that Israel’s policies in the occupied territories constitute “systemic discrimination” based on race, religion and ethnic origin. The World Court determined that Israel’s presence in Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem violates international law and must be ended “as rapidly as possible.”

The ruling represents a significant shift in the legal framework surrounding the occupation, with the court ordering Israel to “cease immediately all new settlement activities” and “evacuate all settlers from the Occupied Palestinian Territory.” Additionally, Israel is required to make reparations for damages caused to Palestinians in the occupied territories.

In a crucial determination that challenges previous diplomatic positions, the ICJ established that occupation “cannot be used in such a manner as to leave indefinitely the occupied population in a state of suspension and uncertainty, denying them their right to self-determination while integrating parts of their territory into the occupying Power’s own territory.”

The ruling carries significant implications for Britain’s foreign policy, as the court declared that all states are “under an obligation not to recognise as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation.”

Legal experts note that the judgment effectively negates claims of self-defence by an occupying power against the population under occupation. This directly challenges previous assertions of Israel’s “right to self-defence” in Gaza and the West Bank.

Watch: Debunked: Israel’s right to self-defence

International law analysts argue that the UK government’s acknowledgment of the ICJ ruling fundamentally contradicts its repeated assertions of Israel’s right to self-defence against Palestinians since October last year. The court’s determination that Israel’s occupation is unlawful, combined with established principles of international law, indicates that an occupying power cannot claim self-defence against the people it occupies.

The implications of this position are far-reaching, as it requires the UK to reassess its diplomatic and military support for Israel’s actions in the occupied territories. The UK government’s acceptance that the occupation is unlawful means it must also accept that Israel cannot claim self-defence for its military actions against Palestinians in these territories, a position that marks a significant departure from decades of British foreign policy.