In a significant development last week, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered its ruling against Israel, intensifying the mounting global pressure on the country's continued occupation of Palestinian territories. The landmark case, initiated by a request from the United Nations General Assembly in 2022, addressed the unlawful occupation of Palestinian land.

The ICJ's opinion, issued on Friday, categorically denounced the occupation, declaring the building of settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem as illegal. The court firmly rejected Israel's claims of sovereignty over the territories. Furthermore, the court's president went on to label Israel's laws in the occupied territories as "tantamount to the crime of apartheid."

Unsurprisingly, the Palestinian Authority welcomed the court's ruling, considering it a pivotal moment for Palestine. Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad Malki described it as a "watershed moment" for his nation. Meanwhile, Israel swiftly rejected the decision, dismissing it as false.

It is crucial to note that the ICJ's ruling, commonly referred to as an "advisory opinion," is not legally binding. As a result, the question of how to proceed next will be returned to the UN General Assembly. While the assembly's resolutions are non-binding, they carry substantial weight as they represent all member states. Though the assembly lacks the power to expel a member state without UN Security Council approval, it does possess the ability to suspend their rights and privileges. This would result in the suspension of participation in General Assembly sessions and other UN bodies, as witnessed with apartheid South Africa in 1974.

Hassan Ben Imran, a board member of Law for Palestine, suggested that given the compromised nature of the UN Security Council, it is imperative for the General Assembly to take the lead. Ben Imran argued that Israel's consistent rejection of ICJ rulings undermines the efficacy of legal measures, making political, economic, and military sanctions through the General Assembly necessary. Drawing a parallel with apartheid South Africa, he urged for Israel's suspension or removal from entities like the UN, FIFA, and the Olympics.

Expert Omar H Rahman, a fellow at the Middle East Council on Global Affairs, highlighted the ICJ's ruling as a potential tool for mobilizing international pressure on Israel. With additional legal challenges, such as the South African genocide case at the ICJ and applications for arrest warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant at the International Criminal Court, Israel faces mounting legal trouble. The ICJ's decision on the occupied territories reinforces the likelihood of unfavorable outcomes for Israel in these cases as well.

Mai El-Sadany, the executive director of the Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy, emphasized the consequences of the ICJ's ruling. El-Sadany asserted that the highest court's decision established the illegality of Israel's occupation and settlement policies, referred to the situation as racial segregation and apartheid, and clarified the obligation of other states to discontinue support for Israel's presence in the occupied Palestinian territories. These facts and conclusions could be utilized by diplomats in negotiations, leveraged by states in their bilateral relations, reported on by journalists, and utilized by lawyers and advocates in additional litigation and civil society work.

The ICJ's designation of Gaza as part of the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories may also impact the separate genocide case brought forward by South Africa, as occupying powers bear obligations and duties toward the people living under their occupation. Ben Imran further argued that the ruling put an end to the legal debate surrounding Israel's claimed right of self-defense against attacks originating from the occupied territories, since the Palestinian territories are deemed unlawfully occupied.

Despite the ICJ ruling, Israel remains steadfast in its position, refusing to relinquish control over East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that the Jewish people are not conquerors in their own land and deemed Israeli settlements across all territories within their homeland as beyond legal contestation. Hardline politicians have even advocated for the annexation of the West Bank, fueling concerns of further land grabs.

Observers have long feared that Israel may proceed with the annexation of the West Bank, mirroring its actions concerning occupied East Jerusalem and the occupied Golan Heights. Given Israel's reluctance to comply with international pressure, discredit critical international bodies like the ICJ, and maintain a fortress mentality, it is likely the country will persist on its current path, at least in the short term. Previous disregard for the ICJ's 2004 ruling on the illegal separation wall raises doubts about the power of the ICJ and international human rights law in matters involving Israel and Palestine.

However, there is growing hope that increased support for the rule of law concerning the occupation could eventually force Israel, alongside its backers, to reevaluate their stance. Countries, including the United States, Israel's closest ally, have acknowledged aspects of the ICJ's advisory opinion condemning the settlement policy's illegality. The majority of nations worldwide concur with the ICJ's advisory opinion, requiring concerted and coordinated action to bring about material change on the ground. While the path forward may be challenging, the potential for transformative progress exists.