Israel’s response to the International Court of Justice
October 14, 2025
The ceasefire plan in Gaza has dominated our news in recent days and weeks. One aspect of the plan is the obligation of Israel in the first phase to release a number — a large number — of Palestinian prisoners.
One of those sought to be released is Marwan Barghouti, a Palestinian political leader until 2002, when he was captured and convicted on charges of involvement in deadly attacks resulting in the deaths of five Israelis. Barghouti declined to recognise the legitimacy of the court or enter a plea. He denied any involvement in the deaths. He has maintained popularity with Palestinians as a potential political leader in the years since his conviction.
Israel has refused to include Barghouti among those to be released. When justifying such refusal, a senior Israeli official emphasised his conviction by a court of law of the five murders, and the sentence passed, of life imprisonment for each. Those sentences are, of course, being served. Barghouti’s refusal to recognise the legitimacy of the court is regarded as irrelevant by lawmakers, whether or not Israeli lawmakers, to the validity of the sentences. I presume an appeals process was available.
This background caused me to consider just how important the decision of a court of law is to Israel and its citizens. The particular judgment that came to mind was that of the ICJ of 19 July 2024 – the Advisory Opinion regarding the legal consequences of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories. Simply stated, the Advisory Opinion held that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory is illegal and must be ended as soon as possible; all settlements with their settlers must be evacuated, and reparations for damage caused must be forthcoming. All states in the community of nations had to conduct themselves in their dealings with Israel in accordance with these rulings.
Did Israel participate in the litigation giving rise to this Advisory Opinion? Israel did not consent to the jurisdiction in the first stage of the hearing. It asserted this was a dispute between two States only, Israel and Palestine, and both had to consent to the court hearing the matter. However, the court ruled that Israel’s consent was not required as this was not simply a bilateral matter between Israel and Palestine. The court pointed, inter alia, to the involvement of UN organs, and before that, the League of Nations.
Member states of the UN were advised that they could make written submissions on jurisdictional issues. This was done by some 50 member states, including Israel. The court noted that Israel’s written statement, although mainly related to issues of jurisdiction and judicial propriety, contained information on other matters, including its security concerns. Many lawyers would consider that, having participated in the proceedings, even to a limited degree, it is inconsistent for Israel to now assert that the judgment is not binding upon it. That is not to suggest for a moment, however, that participation is required to establish validity/enforceability of a judgment.
Following the handing down of the Advisory Opinion, Israel responded through its Prime Minister Netanyahu. He asserted that the Court’s ruling is “absurd”, and how could it be said that Israel is occupying land, land which is its own land, given to it by God! Since the judgment, Israel has failed to take any steps toward ending the occupation. It has, in fact, intensified policies of annexation and settlement expansion.
So what of this gift from God? The Bible is not quite as clear as some would wish. Jafar Rahini addresses the issue in P&I of 10 September 2024 under the title _Are the people of Israel really the chosen peoples_? Rahini acknowledges that Jewish people are raised with the creed that “God gave us the land of Israel” in Genesis and that ethnically Jews are “the chosen people”. My searching found these two passages. The first is Genesis 15:18 –
“the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates”.
The second is Joshua 1:4 – here the Lord is said to address Joshua as the son of Moses, and says:
From the wilderness and this Lebanon even unto the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and unto the great sea toward the going down of the sun, shall be your coast.
By way of clarification, “the river of Egypt” is, of course, the Nile, well inside the country of Egypt, and the Euphrates is within Iraq, well east of the Jordan River.
One thing is tolerably clear – there will be plenty of disputation if there is ever a dispute as to just what were the boundaries of the land so given by God. And the potential for conflict is more than substantial, particularly given the expressed (by right-wing Israeli politicians) view that Israel cannot give away any land given to it by God.
On the peripheral issue of the status of the Advisory Opinion as a part of international law, it is appropriate to remind readers that the Advisory Opinion was adopted by a two-thirds majority vote of the General Assembly (UN Charter, Art. 18, r.2) on 18 September 2024: refer Barns and Heywood-Smith, UN Palestine vote: _Australia shows it lacks a backbone_, P&I of 19 September 2024.
But is there a connection between the assertion of the Jews of Israel being “the chosen people”, and the land of Palestine being given to them by God, and the refusal of Israel to comply with the directions of the ICJ and General Assembly? I believe there is, and I believe that it is consistent with Israel’s Basic Law: Israel – The Nation State of the Jewish People: 2018. That law establishes the primacy of Jews over non-Jews in the State of Israel.
Has the vast majority of the world’s people grown sick of Israel’s Jewish population considering itself superior to all others? I believe they have, and that it is reflected in their response to Gaza.
As for the US and its supporters on the issue of the ceasefire, do not confine any agreement only to Gaza. Consider the need for the occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem to end.
The integrity of our international legal system is otherwise at stake.
The views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.