Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Maliki urged an immediate end to Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories.
At the opening of proceedings on the legal status of the disputed area at the UN’s top court on Monday. Following a request for an advisory, or non-binding, ruling on the occupation made by the U.N. General Assembly in 2022, more than 50 governments will argue their cases before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague until February 26.
![Palestinian Loss of Land, 1948 - present : r/MapPorn](https://preview.redd.it/palestinian-loss-of-land-1948-present-v0-nx95dr8yqdv91.png?auto=webp&s=fd7bbe1af6169714ff88dc55dad856074834654d)
For a long time, Israeli officials have denied that the territories are officially occupied, arguing that they were taken during a 1967 war from Jordan and Egypt rather than from a sovereign Palestine.
Al-Maliki said that the Palestinians had been forced to choose between “displacement, subjugation, or death” after decades of discrimination and apartheid, a charge that Israel has denied.
“The only solution consistent with international law is for this illegal occupation to come to an immediate, unconditional, and total end,” he stated.
It is anticipated that the judges would ponder for several months before deciding.
Although Israel has previously disregarded these legal decisions, this one may heighten political pressure on its conflict in Gaza, which has resulted in the deaths of around 29,000 Palestinians since Hamas attacked Israel on October 7. This is according to Gaza health officials.
During the 1967 battle, Israel took control of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, which are parts of ancient Palestine that the Palestinians desire to become a state. Although it left Gaza in 2005, it still maintains border control with Egypt, its neighbor.
“IMPERATIVES LEGAL, POLITICAL, AND MORAL”
The hearing is a component of Palestinian attempts to have international courts look at Israel’s actions. According to Israeli counts, they have increased since Israel launched a war on Gaza in retaliation for the Hamas assault, which claimed 1,200 lives.
During separate proceedings in The Hague last month, Israel vehemently denied allegations of Israeli genocide in Gaza made by Al-Maliki.
“Decades of inactivity and impunity have led to the genocide currently taking place in Gaza. “It is morally, politically, and legally imperative to put an end to Israel‘s impunity,” al-Maliki stated.
Israel claims that Hamas terrorists and other groups pose an existential danger to it, and it is defending itself.
Concerns of an Israeli ground invasion against Rafah, the last destination for over a million Palestinians who fled to the south of the enclave to escape Israeli attacks, are growing.
Although it remains in place today, the court said in July 2004 that Israel’s separation wall in the West Bank breached international law and ought to be taken down.
The proposed partition of Israel and the demographic composition of Jerusalem
Judges are now tasked with reviewing Israel’s “occupation, settlement and annexation … including measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character, and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and from its adoption of related discriminatory legislation and measures.”
China, Russia, South Africa, Egypt, and the United States, which is Israel’s biggest ally, are among the nations that have been invited to attend the hearings. Israel has sent written observations, but it will not.
The 15-judge panel of the ICJ was also requested by the General Assembly to provide advice on how such actions and policies “affect the legal status of the occupation” and what legal ramifications result for all nations and the UN from this status.
The World Court genocide lawsuit that South Africa brought against Israel for allegedly violating the 1948 Genocide Convention in Gaza is unrelated to the advisory opinion process. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) gave an injunction to stop crimes of genocide in Gaza by the end of January.
As to the ICJ, the advisory opinion’s ruling would have “great legal weight and moral authority,” but it would not be legally binding.