Natasha Hausdorff, The Telegraph, July 20, 2024
The virulently anti-Israel Advisory Opinion handed down by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Friday, arguing Israel’s “policies and practices” have breached international law, is just that: an opinion. It does not have legally binding status. The value of that opinion is ultimately undermined by the weakness of its reasoning, the misapplication of international law and the false factual basis upon which it is predicated, admirably highlighted by the powerful Dissenting Opinion of the Court’s Vice President Julia Sebutinde.
For context, the Opinion was requested from the Court by General Assembly Resolution 77/247, which already pre-judged Israel as a violator of international law for political reasons. Out of the 32 states that drafted and sponsored that Resolution, two-thirds do not have any diplomatic ties with Israel, and several of them do not recognise Israel as a state.
The Court has adopted the politicized allegations made against Israel in the Resolution, even erasing Israel from the map, purporting that the “contiguity” of “Palestinian territory” is to be “preserved and respected”. Neither cartography nor history seem to be the judges’ strong suit. As a consequence of deeply flawed findings, the Court has called for the “evacuation” of Jews – read ethnic cleansing – from Judea and Samaria, also known as the West Bank, and Israel’s capital Jerusalem. It will not be lost on students of history that these are the very places that Jordan ethnically cleansed Jews from in 1948. [To read the full article, click here]