A message sheet was distributed to Israeli ambassadors around the world, after the publication of the anti-Israel opinion on Friday by the International Court of Justice in The Hague, in which it was determined that Israel is “annexing the illegal settlements” – including East Jerusalem.
The exceptional opinion is not defined as a binding ruling, but the Ministry of Foreign Affairs instructed the ambassadors to act urgently in order to prevent negative leverage of the opinion at various levels.
In a message sheet issued by Foreign Minister Israel Katz through a “diplomatic activation telegram” sent to all Israeli embassies in the world, the ambassadors were instructed to contact “interlocutors” and provide a response to the toxic opinion.
In the opinion it was determined by a majority of votes that the settlements are illegal and that Israel must evacuate them “as quickly as possible”, including as mentioned the settlement in Jerusalem since the Six Day War. The ruling is particularly dramatic not because it is the first time that an international forum has determined that the settlements in Yosh and East Jerusalem are legal, but because the court accuses the State of Israel of annexation and even apartheid.
The opinion was published after a request from the UN General Assembly at the initiative of the Palestinian Authority. It is likely that the opinion will go to the Security Council or to a discussion in the General Assembly, where the call of the judges in The Hague to “end Israeli control of the territories” will be met with an American veto that will lead to its cancellation.
The response of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the ruling of the court in The Hague:
As mentioned, in an attempt to prevent the leverage of the opinion by anti-Israeli elements, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs published a message page that includes the following claims:
1. “The opinion ignores Israel’s historical rights, and is an invalid attempt to circumvent all the peace agreements and binding bilateral arrangements that have been reached so far between Israel and its neighbors (Oslo vis-à-vis the Palestinians, the peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan), and which were anchored in international decisions, according to which the resolution of the conflict will only be possible through Direct negotiations between the parties”.
2. “The opinion is completely disconnected from the security reality in the Middle East. It is impossible for the opinion of the International Court of Justice to ignore Israel’s right and duty to defend itself and its citizens after the largest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust on 7/10, and when Iran and its proxies are attacking Israel From seven different fronts, including Gaza and Judea and Samaria. The opinion gives support to terrorism.”
3. “The opinion distances the parties from resolving the conflict through bilateral negotiations, which was and remains the only way to resolve the conflict, thus playing into the hands of extremist elements in the region.”
4. “The Palestinian Authority that initiated the opinion is not interested in peace, but in spreading false slander and delegitimizing the State of Israel through the abuse of international legal forums. The opinion ignores the serious violations by the Palestinian side (encouraging terrorism, financing terrorists, incitement, education).”
5. “An ‘advisory opinion’ is not legally binding. The State of Israel is a democracy with an independent and strong legal system, and will continue to be committed to the rule of law and international law.”
6. “The role of the court and damage to its status: the more the court continues to allow its abuse through cooperation with politically biased and unilateral requests, the more it will lose its status as a neutral judicial body that gains the trust of countries and the international community, and will sin against the noble goals for which it was established.”
The minority judges: The PA must respect Israel’s right to security
On the positive side of things, it is worth noting that the precedential opinion was not unanimously accepted. Ugandan judge Julia Sabutinda, who opposed South Africa’s lawsuit against Israel, stood by Israel a second time and opposed all the determinations of the judges even in this proceeding.
Along with Sabutinda, other judges opposed some of the determinations; The French judge Roni Avraham, the Slovakian judge Petar Tomka, and the Romanian judge Bogdan Rosko opposed the determinations according to which the countries of the world are obliged to stop the aid to the Israeli government that owns the territories.
The judges who attached different reasons to their opposition explained why the majority judges were wrong in stating that the Israeli presence in the territories is illegal and that Israel must end it as soon as possible.
Among other things, the judges pointed out that the majority’s position lacks a proper balance between the Palestinian obligations and the Israeli obligations, and that it stands out for its absence of the statement that Israel’s obligation to stop controlling the territories is subject to guarantees for its security.
“For the first time, the court not only declares that Israel’s methods in the territories it occupies are illegal, in light of the obligations that apply to it as an occupying power, but it holds that Israel’s very presence in the territories is illegal and that therefore it must withdraw from them without any prior guarantee, especially with regard to its security – even that respecting Israel’s right to security is one of the main foundations required to achieve sustainable peace”, judges Avraham, Tomka and Orsko, two of whom (the French and the Slovak) themselves served as presidents of the court. “Our position is that in doing so the court chose the wrong legal path and reached illegal conclusions.”
The minority judges also added that a “balanced and comprehensive approach that includes nuances – and which is completely absent from the opinion – must be taken. For many decades, the Israeli people and the Palestinian people have been in conflict, with many and complex legal, political and historical aspects – related to the Palestinian territories under the mandate given to Britain on by the League of Nations in 1922”.
They also added that, “the rights of one cannot be determined at the expense of the other. The ‘two-state solution’, which is called for in a series of resolutions of the Security Council, is the only one that can meet the legitimate need for security for Israel and the Palestinians. This solution can be realized from a comprehensive understanding that will be reached in the and granting that it must take into account all the rights and interests that pertain to the matter: the Palestinians’ right to self-determination does not contradict Israel’s right to exist in security, and the Palestinians’ right to security must also be taken into account. The existence of two states – which will also bring an end to Israel’s presence as an occupying power in the Palestinian territories.”
In conclusion, the judges expressed the regret that the ruling completely ignores the obligations of the Palestinians in relation to Israel’s security: “In addition to the court’s findings (which we supported) with regard to Israel’s violations of international law (including violations of the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people) and the resulting responsibilities – it is unfortunate that the court did not discuss the responsibilities and obligations of Palestine, which arise from the dependence between the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people and the rights of Israel and Palestine to security, as well as the framework of the negotiations. As Israel is obliged to respect and enable the right of self-determination of the Palestinians and the right to security of the Palestinian state, Palestine must respect the right to security. of Israel, to provide guarantees for its implementation – and to cooperate with Israel for this purpose.”
