For Palestinians under Israeli occupation, ICJ's ruling 'pointless' without action

In occupied Ramallah, 63-year-old Fatma Assi brushed off Friday's ruling by the International Court of Justice as "useless". According to observers, experts and politicians, the verdict is historic in that it strips Israel of any legitimacy in imposing authority over occupied Palestinian Territories, but to many average Palestinians across the occupied territories like Assi, the verdict offers nothing new.

"More international decisions, and more leaders and judges condemning what’s already been established for decades, and what the world should know by now," said the grandmother as she got up from before her television set to avoid hearing more of the news.

The ruling is the first by the UN's top court to confirm the illegality of Israel’s occupation of Assi's home country, and asserts that her people have been facing "systemic discrimination based on, inter alia, race, religion or ethnic origin". 

"I couldn't care less," Assi told The New Arab. "The whole world knows this, and they're still debating it?"

Amidst Israel's vicious war that has reaped at least 40,000 lives in Gaza and a worsening settler violence targeting Palestinians in the West Bank, the ICJ's verdict is deemed toothless by many Palestinians—it attests to the illegality of the Israeli settlement activity in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem and confirms that 2005 Israeli withdrawal from Gaza didn't end its occupation of the enclave, on which it maintained significant power. This was the first time the court has declared a position towards Israeli occupation.

Spokesman of the Jerusalem Governorate Marouf Al-Rifai said in spirit "no Palestinian wouldn't welcome this verdict". Yet, he added, "the problem is with the Israeli occupation. Since 1967, dozens of resolutions have been issued by the United Nations, the Security Council, and various UN bodies, but Israel has not implemented these resolutions and has been escaping sanctions without anyone following up on their implementation."

Despite the ICJ ordering Israel earlier in May to end its Rafah offensive, the growingly-isolated country continues to raid Gaza's southernmost city, enjoying impunity through the support it gets from Western powers.

"Israel is a strong country that gets away with a lot. There's been a large number of resolutions pertaining to settlement expansion in Jerusalem, but who can stop Israel?" he asked.

According to Israeli anti-occupation B'tselem, Israel has evicted Palestinians from more than 2,000 square-kilometres of land, and built over 280 illegal settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, that house more than 600,000 Jewish citizens, who are given rights and privileges which Palestinians are denied in their home country.

"There are those who are hopeful that this verdict will bring change," said Al-Rifai, "but in all honesty, I don't see anything stopping the Israelis. As a media person, I should be praising the ruling, but I know it's all in vain."

Days before the verdict, the Israeli Knesset overwhelmingly voted against Palestinian statehood. 

Accountability

In order for this ruling to mean anything, Al-Rifai said, Israel must be made accountable, and its actions are closely monitored to ensure the ruling is carried out, especially in regard to settlements in Jerusalem. "Israel has been meddling with Jerusalem, tearing down houses and dispossessing property, changing the legal and historical situation of the city, defying international and legal decisions," said Al-Rifai, adding that Palestine should be recognised as an independent country and given permanent membership in the ICJ to ensure the delivery of justice.

Rasem Obeidat, political analyst, said that while the ruling is not mandatory, it is "a blow to Israel and the Israeli nation because the decision has legal and authority weight, and constitutes a comprehensive condemnation of Israel, its occupation, settlements, and the racist procedures it follows, as well as classifies the occupying state as racist and apartheid."

Noting that the ruling on its own won't change Palestinians' fate, Obeidat stated that it remains important in "Palestinians' quest for independence, which is a lengthy war entailing countless battles that are fought on every front until the nation's goals of freedom and statehood is achieved within the borders of pre-1967, with Jerusalem as its capital". 

From his displacement tent in Gaza's Khan Younis, Talal Abu Rukba described the court's opinion as "undoubtedly historic". "It's akin to a corrective measure that identifies Israel for what it is, and holds it accountable—as an occupying state—and facing obligations which it should abide by, as per the international law," he added.

The 47-year-old father of five, who is displaced from northern Gaza, also said that the timing of the verdict is important. "It puts back on the correct track the narrative surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, correcting the story and defining Israel's illegal actions, and Palestinians as a nation that has the right to defend itself," he said, hoping that the decision would encourage more Western countries to recognise Palestine, and "embarrass" Arab nations seeking normalisation with Israel.

Despite the ongoing Israeli war on Gaza, reports have frequently resurfaced about Saudi Arabia not ruling out the possibility of normalising ties with Israel, which the kingdom got very close to when the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israeli military bases and civilian settlements within and around the Gaza envelope.

"What matters now, is how Palestine capitalises on this decision and how it pushes forward with its diplomatic and legal battles against the occupying force, to build on this ruling and cause more moral and ethical harm to Israel, exposing it to the public," he noted. 

This piece is published in collaboration Egab.