Thread by @NimerSultany

The big news is that the court determines that Israel is exercising an unlawful occupation that violates prohibition on discrimination and apartheid, that it should withdraw as rapidly as possible, including from Gaza, dismantle settlements, pay reparations and restitution

https://twitter.com/NimerSultany/status/1814266663115583812

As regards Gaza, Court makes clear that Gaza is occupied and thus the lack of clarity (or disagreement in the ICC OTP panel on status of Gaza for the purpose of arrest warrants is immaterial)

Moreover, this highlights again the fact that western media and government concealed from the public since Oct 7: that Gaza is occupied.

Court considers Israel’s presence in OPT unlawful, including Gaza. Oslo accords do not permit annexation of parts of OPT for its security needs.

Gaza is in integral part of the occupied territory in 1967. Despite disengagement, the criterion is not physical presence, but exercise of authority – Court considers Israel continues to exercise authority of Gaza Strip, even more so since October. Israel still has obligations over Gaza as an occupying power.

In contrast to UK ICC delay request, re relevance of Oslo accords – Court recalls 1. Oslo refers to international norms and rule of law, 2. Oslo does not detract from Israel’s legal obligations

Court considers Israel’s policies and practices (wall, settlements, East Jerusalem annex, extension of domestic law) constitute acts of annexation of large parts of the OPT.

Court concludes that Israels’ measures treat Palestinians differently. This treatment cannot be justified in reference to objective criteria or legitimate goals. Systematic discrimination based on race or origin, in violation of CERD and prohibition on apartheid.

Important also the repeated rejection of the security excuses that Israel has used for decades. Palestinians have been deprived of right to self-determination. Israel’s policies violate prohibition of acquisition of territory by force; Israel is not entitled to sovereignty over any part of OPT. Israel’s security concerns can override this prohibition.

Self determination cannot be subject to conditions imposed by Israel, the occupying power. Court considers Israel’s presence in OPT unlawful, including Gaza. Oslo accords do not permit annexation of parts of OPT for its security needs.

Israeli presence in OPT is of an unlawful character, thus Israel is under an obligation to bring to an end its presence as rapidly as possible [including Gaza!].

The formula that the court adopted is similar to the one in Chagos case: "as rapidly as possible".

The operative opinion is usefully detailed, part 2:

Although the Court sticks to the language of occupation (in fairness, the the UNGA referral, unlike in the case of Chagos, did not mention decolonisation either), it makes 2 references to UNGA res 1514 (Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples) in its discussion of the right to self-determination and Israel's violation of it.

Ultimately, the court has made clear that Israel's is not a temporary occupation in response to military necessity but an annexation (and the de facto versus de jure distinction is immaterial because they have similar consequences) that practices apartheid.

Consequently, Israel owes reparations, restitution, compensation to affected persons in the OPT, including Gaza!

This legal document confirms yet again that Israel is a pariah state that has violated all the basic and fundamental rules of international law.

The fact that this pariah state, rogue state, enjoys the support of the mainstream media and all the governments in the West tells you all you need to know about their commitment to human rights or "rules-based international order".

Dynamite from President Salam, in his separate declaration: Israel practices apartheid

President Salam argues that a determination of apartheid need not resemble South Africa's experience, although he does quote Desmond Tutu on similarities

The elements of Israel's apartheid are "the existence of two or more distinct racial groups; the commission of inhumane acts against one or more groups; an institutionalized régime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over one or more other racial groups and an intentionn to maintain this regime"

More dynamite from President Salam: Israel's violation of Palestinian right to self-determination goes back to 1948 not 1967!

Interestingly, the court did not rule on the illegality of occupation from the start, beginning in 1967 and only due to practices in recent decades, because of the way the UNGA framed its question. President Salam reiterates that the Occupation is illegal ab initio, since 1967.

Finally, President Salam makes an interesting observation on law and peace: the underlying problem is that Palestinians have been left prey to unequal power relations in a bilateral process, shepherded by the biased US "mediator", without law. Arguments by UK and US in UNSC and elsewhere seek to maintain this lawless situation

Crucially, Judge Yusuf discusses the difference between belligerent occupation and colonisation/ colonial occupation. Argues that Israel's prolonged occupation is not belligerent but colonial (alien and foreign domination). This is important because the term itself "prolonged occupation" has been used for 2 decades to conceal this fact in academia.

Dynamite from Judge Xue, like Judge Yusuf: "the effects of Israel’s occupation in that regard have little difference from those under colonial rule"

Judge Nolte seems like in a state of eternal equivocation: like in the Genocide case, he says: not sure about "intent" to commit apartheid and annex... we do not have enough info... Can someone please send him the 500 pages by HRW and Amnesty? not serious.

Joint declaration by judges Tomka, Abraham, Auresco in dissent, shows what I emphasised above, that ICJ opinion's determination re occupation and demand for withdrawal from OPT includes Gaza. The claim of insufficient information is laughable.

Important points made by Judge Tladi:

1. Morally unthinkable: can not be considered Question of Palestine a mere bilateral dispute to exclude international law

2. Judge Tladi: Like President Salam: this is apartheid: it is impossible to miss the similarities to South Africa

3. Dynamite from Tladi: on security: 1. Also Palestine has security concerns, not only Israel; 2. security concerns cannot override self determination.

The main three judges who elaborate on Court decision and affirm that Israel violates prohibition of apartheid are President Salam, Judge Xue, and Judge Tladi

Also, fourth judge, is judge Brant on apartheid