Israeli Occupation of Palestinian Territory ‘Illegal’, Says UN Top Court

The panel of judges, with President Nawaf Salam (C), at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, the Netherlands, during a non-binding ruling on the legal consequences of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, 19 July 2024. (EPA)
The panel of judges, with President Nawaf Salam (C), at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, the Netherlands, during a non-binding ruling on the legal consequences of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, 19 July 2024. (EPA)
TT

Israeli Occupation of Palestinian Territory ‘Illegal’, Says UN Top Court

The panel of judges, with President Nawaf Salam (C), at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, the Netherlands, during a non-binding ruling on the legal consequences of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, 19 July 2024. (EPA)
The panel of judges, with President Nawaf Salam (C), at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, the Netherlands, during a non-binding ruling on the legal consequences of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, 19 July 2024. (EPA)

The UN's top court, in a sweeping opinion on Friday, said that Israel's decades-long occupation of Palestinian territory was "illegal" and needed to end as soon as possible.

The advisory opinion by The Hague-based International Court of Justice was immediately slammed as a "decision of lies" by Israel, but welcomed by the Palestinian presidency, which called it "historic".

The ICJ's statement, called an "advisory opinion", is not binding, but it comes amid mounting concern over the death toll and destruction in Israel's war against Hamas sparked by the group's brutal October 7 attacks.

It is also likely to increase diplomatic pressure on Israel, whose lawmakers on Thursday voted to oppose a Palestinian state, calling it an "existential threat".

In The Hague, ICJ presiding judge Nawaf Salam said: "The court has found... that Israel's continued presence in the Palestinian Territories is illegal."

Israel is "under the obligation to bring to an end its unlawful presence as rapidly as possible," the judge said in its finding, read at the Peace Palace, seat of the ICJ.

The ICJ added that Israel was "under an obligation to cease immediately all new settlement activities and to evacuate all settlers" from occupied land.

Israel's policies and practices, including the maintenance of a wall between the territories, "amount to annexation of large parts" of the occupied territory, the court said.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu slammed the ICJ's opinion as a "decision of lies".

"The Jewish people are not occupiers in their own land -- not in our eternal capital Jerusalem, nor in our ancestral heritage of Judea and Samaria" (the occupied West Bank), Netanyahu said in a statement.

Palestinian foreign minister Riyad Al-Maliki called it a "watershed moment".

A separate, high-profile case that South Africa has brought before the court alleges that Israel has committed genocidal acts during its Gaza offensive.

South Africa, in a statement, called upon the international community "to bring an immediate end to the occupation and the gross violations of international humanitarian and human rights law being perpetrated by Israel against the Palestinian people".

- 'Extreme danger' -

In late 2022, the UN's General Assembly asked the ICJ to give an "advisory opinion" on the "legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem".

The ICJ held a week-long session in February to hear submissions from countries following the request -- supported by most countries within the Assembly.

During the hearings, most speakers called on Israel to end its 57-year occupation. They warned a prolonged occupation posed an "extreme danger" to stability in the Middle East and beyond.

But the United States said Israel should not be legally obliged to withdraw without taking its "very real security needs" into account.

Israel did not take part in the oral hearings.

- 'Ongoing violation' -

The General Assembly asked the ICJ to consider two questions.

Firstly, the court should examine the legal consequences of what the UN called "the ongoing violation by Israel of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination".

In its answer, the ICJ's judges said Israel's "unlawful policies and practices are in breach" of its "obligation to respect the rights of the Palestinian people and their right to self-determination".

In June 1967, Israel defeated some of its Arab neighbors in a six-day war, seizing the West Bank and East Jerusalem, at the time annexed by Jordan, the Golan Heights from Syria, and the Gaza Strip and Sinai Peninsula from Egypt.

Israel then began to settle the 70,000 square kilometers (27,000 square miles) of seized Arab territory.

The UN later declared the occupation of Palestinian territory illegal, and Cairo regained Sinai under its 1979 peace deal with Israel.

- 'Restrictions' -

The ICJ also was asked to look into the consequences of what it described as Israel's "adoption of related discriminatory legislation and measures".

In this finding, the ICJ said a "regime of comprehensive restrictions imposed by Israel on Palestinians consisted of systemic discrimination based on race, religion or ethnic origin."

The ICJ rules in disputes between states. Normally, its judgements are binding but it has few means to enforce them.

In this case, however, the opinion is non-binding, although most advisory opinions are in fact acted upon.

The ICJ has previously issued advisory opinions on the legality of Kosovo's 2008 declaration of independence from Serbia and apartheid South Africa's occupation of Namibia.

It also handed down an opinion in 2004 declaring that parts of the wall erected by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory were illegal and should be torn down.

Israel has not complied with that ICJ ruling.



Houthi Ceasefire Reportedly Followed US Intel Showing Militias Sought Off-ramp

Houthi soldiers ride a pick-up truck as they patrol a street in Sanaa, Yemen, 11 May 2025. EPA/YAHYA ARHAB
Houthi soldiers ride a pick-up truck as they patrol a street in Sanaa, Yemen, 11 May 2025. EPA/YAHYA ARHAB
TT

Houthi Ceasefire Reportedly Followed US Intel Showing Militias Sought Off-ramp

Houthi soldiers ride a pick-up truck as they patrol a street in Sanaa, Yemen, 11 May 2025. EPA/YAHYA ARHAB
Houthi soldiers ride a pick-up truck as they patrol a street in Sanaa, Yemen, 11 May 2025. EPA/YAHYA ARHAB

Days before a surprise US ceasefire agreement with Houthis, US intelligence started picking up indications the Yemeni militias were looking for an exit after seven weeks of relentless US bombings, four US officials said.
Houthi leaders began reaching out sometime around the first weekend in May to US allies in the Middle East, two of the officials told Reuters.

"We started getting intel that the Houthis had had enough," one of the sources said, speaking on condition of anonymity to recount the internal discussions about the intelligence, which haven't been previously reported.
Interviews with current and former US officials, diplomatic sources and other experts show how a campaign that the US military's Central Command once envisioned might stretch through most of this year came to abrupt halt on May 6 after 52 days, allowing President Donald Trump to declare victory before heading to the Middle East this week.
Since November 2023, the Houthis have disrupted commerce by launching hundreds of drone and missile attacks on vessels in the Red Sea, saying they were targeting ships linked to Israel in solidarity with Palestinians over the war in Gaza.
Two sources said Iran played an important role in encouraging the Iran-aligned Houthis to negotiate, as Tehran pursues its own talks with the United States over its nuclear program aimed at ending crippling US sanctions and preventing a military strike by the US or Israel.
But the culmination of the ceasefire accord underscored how quickly the Trump administration moved on initial intelligence to secure what in March seemed unthinkable to many experts in the short term: a Houthi declaration it would stop striking US ships. Trump's unconventional approach included bypassing close US ally Israel, which is not covered by the agreement, and which was not told ahead of time, an Israeli official and a person familiar with the matter said.
The Houthis weren't the only ones feeling pressure. The bombing campaign has also been costly to the United States, which has burned through munitions and lost two aircraft and multiple drones.
After the early May tips on the Houthis, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth initiated a series of meetings at the White House on Monday morning, and concluded there was a window of opportunity with the Iran-aligned fighters, one of the officials said.
Trump's Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, who was already leading US negotiations on Iran's nuclear program, worked through Omani mediators and held indirect talks with the chief Houthi negotiator and spokesperson, Mohammed Abdulsalam, two US officials told Reuters.
Abdulsalam was in turn in contact with the Houthis' top leader, Abdul Malik al-Houthi, one of the officials said.
A framework agreement was reached later on Monday, one of the officials said.
By Tuesday, May 6, Trump was ready to announce an accord, declaring the Houthis had capitulated.
"They said please don't bomb us any more and we're not going to attack your ships," he told reporters.
Asked about Reuters' findings, the Houthis' Abdulsalam said the group communicated only via Oman and agreed to the ceasefire because the Houthis had been responding to the United States defensively.
"So if they stopped their aggression, we stopped our response," Abdusalam told Reuters, declining further comment.
A spokesperson for Witkoff did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
OFF-RAMP
Each side saw some benefit to striking a deal. For the Houthis, it offered an off-ramp that could allow them to rebuild and relieve pressure that, over months or years, could have strategically put them at risk, US officials and experts say.
At the start of the US campaign on March 15, al-Houthi was defiant, saying in a televised address that his fighters would target US ships in the Red Sea as long as the US continued its attacks on Yemen.
At the time, it appeared the United States might be locked in a costly standoff, as US forces used up munitions during more than 1,100 strikes. Hegseth said the US would only halt its bombings once the Houthis agreed to stop striking US ships and drones.
The Houthis shot down seven US MQ-9 drones -- each worth tens of millions of dollars -- since Trump took office.
The Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier, whose deployment in the Middle East was extended by Hegseth, lost two fighter jets, including one falling from the deck of the ship after the massive vessel was forced to make a hard turn because of a Houthi attack in the area.