Written comments of Qatar

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
________________________________________________________
LEGAL CONSEQUENCES ARISING FROM THE POLICIES
AND PRACTICES OF ISRAEL IN THE
OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY,
INCLUDING EAST JERUSALEM
(REQUEST FOR ADVISORY OPINION)
WRITTEN COMMENTS OF THE STATE OF QATAR
25 OCTOBER 2023

i
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 1
Chapter 2 The Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process Does Not Preclude the Court
From Rendering an Advisory Opinion ........................................... 7
I. From the Beginning of Its Occupation, Israel Has
Never Been a Constructive Partner for Peace ................... 10
II. There Is General Consensus that There Is No Viable
Peace Process Today ......................................................... 25
III. Recent Events Only Underscore the Urgency and
Necessity of the Court’s Advisory Opinion ...................... 31
Chapter 3 Israel’s Prolonged Occupation of the OPT Is Illegal .................... 49
I. The Reasons Underlying the Illegality of Israel’s
Occupation ........................................................................ 50
A. Israel’s Occupation Violates the Right of the
Palestinian People to Self-Determination ............. 51
B. Israel’s Occupation Constitutes a Regime of
Apartheid............................................................... 53
C. Israel’s Occupation Violates the Jus Cogens
Prohibition on the Use of Force ............................ 55
D. Israel’s Occupation Violates the Jus Cogens
Prohibition on Acquisition of Territory
Through the Use of Force ..................................... 60
E. Israel’s Occupation Violates International
Humanitarian Law ................................................ 65
II. The Court Should Adopt Each of the Five Reasons
Discussed Above in Answering the First Part of
Question (b) ...................................................................... 69
Chapter 4 Conclusion .................................................................................... 75

1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Pursuant to the Order of the Court dated 3 February 2023, the State of Qatar
(“Qatar”) hereby submits these written comments on the written statements made
by other States and international organizations on the questions presented in the
United Nations General Assembly’s request for an advisory opinion concerning the
Legal Consequences Arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the
Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem (“Request”).
***
1.2 In its 25 July 2023 Written Statement, Qatar joined the chorus of States,
international organizations, and experts sounding the alarm about the unsustainable
situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (“OPT”), and the need for the
Court’s decisive intervention. Qatar wrote:
The intervention of the Court is needed now more
than ever; the situation on the ground in the OPT
continues to deteriorate at an alarming pace. In the
first half of 2023 alone, Israel has approved new
settlements in unprecedented numbers; killed more
Palestinians in the West Bank than any time since
2004; indiscriminately bombed Gaza and the West
Bank; beaten worshipers in the holiest sites of Islam
and Christianity; and tolerated (and even celebrated)
mass violence by Jewish Israeli settlers against
Palestinian civilians.
This has occurred alongside its ever-tightening
control of all aspects of Palestinians’ lives. For 16
years, the approximately two million Palestinians of
Gaza have endured what the [OPT Special
Rapporteur] has called a ‘medieval military
blockade’.
2
Children born since have known nothing but
imprisonment, poverty and hunger. They have also
lived through as many as half a dozen large-scale
Israeli armed attacks just in their lifetimes, while the
fear of Israeli drones and warplanes overhead is ever
present.1
1.3 Citing the June 2023 statement of former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-
Moon and former High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson, Qatar
warned that the situation in the OPT “risk[ed] an uncontrollable explosion of
violence on both sides”.2 Those fears have now become reality with the outbreak
of unprecedented violence on 7 October 2023.
1.4 The Court must lead the international community away from the abyss and
assist the General Assembly in its functions. As recent events demonstrate, the
stakes could not be higher. Qatar respectfully submits that the Court must speak
with clarity to the root cause of the present crisis in the Middle East: Israel’s 56-
year settler-colonial occupation of the OPT to which there is currently no end in
sight.
1.5 As the former United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Situation of
Human Rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 (“OPT Special
Rapporteur”) explained, Israel’s occupation can only be maintained through everincreasing
violence:
The past 70 years has taught us that a covetous alien
Power has two choices: either to abandon the feverdream
of settler colonialism and recognize the
freedom of the indigenous people or instead to
double-down with increasingly more sophisticated
and harsher methods of population control as the
1 Written Statement of the State of Qatar (hereinafter, “QWS”), paras. 1.9-1.10.
2 QWS, para. 1.12 (citing The Elders, Elders warn of consequences of ‘one-state reality’ in Israel
and Palestine (22 June 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/595fh8a2, p. 1).
3
inevitable consequence of entrenching permanent
alien rule over a people profoundly opposed to their
disenfranchisement and destitution.3
1.6 In a similar vein, the United Nations Commission of Inquiry on the
Occupied Palestinian Territory concluded in September 2023 that it is the violence
perpetrated by the occupying Power—Israel—that has caused and continues to
cause all bloodshed in the OPT:
The increasing use of force in Israeli security forces’
operations in the West Bank perpetuates cycles of
protraction of conflict, fuelling endless killings and
harm. These operations trigger protests, encourage
greater armed resistance and lead to further attacks
by Palestinian armed groups against Israelis or
Israeli security forces, which in turn lead to more
military operations. The use of force against the
Palestinian population is thus both a driver and a
root cause of conflict.4
1.7 Qatar emphatically agrees. Ending the cycle of violence necessarily means
ending the illegal occupation and finally allowing the Palestinian people’s right to
self-determination to be realized. The Court can provide the international
community the roadmap it needs to a just and peaceful solution by answering the
Request fully, clearly, and forcefully.
1.8 In hopes of facilitating the Court’s task, Qatar submits these written
comments to address two discrete issues raised by the written statements made by
other States and international organizations.
3 Human Rights Council, Report of Special Rapporteur S. M. Lynk on the situation of human rights
in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, UN Doc. A/HRC/49/87 (12 Aug. 2022), para.
36. See also QWS, para. 2.5.
4 UNGA, Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied
Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel, UN Doc. A/78/198 (5 Sept. 2023),
para. 73 (emphasis added).
4
1.9 The first issue is whether the Court should exercise its discretion to respond
to the Request. The vast majority of written statements expressed the view that the
Court should—and, in accordance with its jurisprudence constante, must—render
the requested advisory opinion. Ten States, however, argued that responding to the
Request would somehow undermine the Israeli-Palestinian “peace process”. In
Chapter 2 of these written comments, Qatar shows that there is no merit to that
argument. In the first place, there is no meaningful “peace process” to speak of.
There have not been any negotiations between the two sides in more than ten years
and, as explained in the expert report by eminent Oxford historian Avi Shlaim
included with Qatar’s Written Statement, Israel has never adopted a constructive
approach to peace in any event (Section I). On the contrary, an advisory opinion
answering the Request—which the Court manifestly has jurisdiction to render—
could only serve to revive the moribund peace process (Section II). The urgent
need for the Court to intervene to kick-start the peace process is only underscored
by the most recent tragic events (Section III).
1.10 The second issue concerns the reasons for concluding that the occupation
is unlawful under international law. The vast majority of written statements
concluded that in the course of its occupation of Palestinian territory, Israel has
systematically committed serious violations of international humanitarian law
(“IHL”) and international human rights law. Chapter 3 surveys those conclusions
and distils five reasons 29 States and all three international organizations
submitting written statements have offered as to why the Court should answer the
first part of question (b) by finding that the occupation is unlawful. Namely,
because it intrinsically violates: (i) the jus cogens requirement to respect the right
to self-determination; (ii) the jus cogens prohibition on apartheid; (iii) the jus
cogens prohibition on the use of force; (iv) the jus cogens prohibition on the
acquisition of territory by force; and (v) the law of occupation, including because
it is permanent and is not carried out in good faith or in the best interests of the
5
Palestinian people (Section I). As support for this analysis, Qatar submits nine
appendices that illustrate the views of various States and international
organizations on the illegality of the occupation (Appendices 1-6) and their
conclusions that Israel has violated the right of the Palestinian people to selfdetermination,
has breached the prohibition on apartheid, and has illegally annexed
all or parts of the OPT (Appendices 7, 8, and 9, respectively). Qatar then further
explains why the Court can, and indeed in its view must, make clear in the dispositif
to its advisory opinion that Israel’s occupation is unlawful for each and all of these
five reasons. (Section II).
1.11 Chapter 4 contains Qatar’s brief conclusions.

7
CHAPTER 2
THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN PEACE PROCESS DOES NOT
PRECLUDE THE COURT FROM RENDERING AN ADVISORY
OPINION
2.1 There appears to be near unanimity among States in their written statements
that the Court enjoys jurisdiction to render the advisory opinion requested by the
General Assembly.5 A small minority of States, however, have expressed the view
that the Court should take the extraordinary and unprecedented step of declining to
exercise it.6 As Qatar explained in its Written Statement,7 while the Court does
have discretion whether or not to respond to a request for an advisory opinion, it
has consistently held that its answer to such a request, “in principle, should not be
refused”.8 It has also consistently held that “only ‘compelling reasons’ may lead
the Court to refuse its opinion in response to a request falling within its
jurisdiction”.9
2.2 The arguments raised against the Court exercising its jurisdiction in the
present proceedings are familiar to the Court, which has rejected them, in one form
or another, time and again. None of these arguments now remotely constitute
5 See, e.g., Written Statement of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, para. 2.9; Written Statement of
the Government of Canada, para. 11; Written Statement of the People’s Republic of China, para. 9;
Written Statement of Italy, paras. 4-5; Written Statement of the African Union, para. 34. See also
QWS, para. 6.98.
6 See, e.g., Written Statement of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, para.
59.
7 See QWS, para. 6.99.
8 Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965,
Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2019, p. 95 (hereinafter, “Chagos Advisory Opinion”), para. 65.
See also Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in
Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2010, p. 403 (hereinafter, “Kosovo Advisory
Opinion”), para. 30; Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian
Territory, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2004, p. 136 (hereinafter, “Wall Advisory Opinion”),
para. 44.
9 Ibid.
8
“compelling reasons” that would justify the Court’s refusal to respond to the
General Assembly’s Request:
 The fact that the General Assembly shares competence over
international peace and security, including the Question of Palestine,
with the Security Council is no obstacle to the Court rendering an
advisory opinion;10
 The purported political implications of questions before the Court do
not and cannot act as a barrier to the Court’s judicial function;11 and
 The existence of a bilateral dispute between two States cannot prevent
the Court from providing an advisory opinion on questions of evident
concern to the entire international community.12
2.3 These stale arguments were rebutted in advance, as a matter of law, in the
written statements of at least 30 States and international organizations.13 In addition
to being legally unfounded, these arguments also all rest on a false factual premise:
that the advisory opinion would somehow impede or obstruct an ongoing “peace
process” between Israelis and Palestinians. A number of States argue that, rather
than being the responsibility and concern of the international community as a
whole, the end of the occupation should be negotiated under the auspices of the
10 See Wall Advisory Opinion, paras. 28, 35. See also QWS, paras. 6.100-102.
11 See Wall Advisory Opinion, paras. 51-53; Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons,
Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1996, p. 226 (hereinafter, “Nuclear Weapons Advisory
Opinion”), paras. 13, 17; Interpretation of the Agreement of 25 March 1951 between the WHO and
Egypt, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1980, p. 73, para. 33. See also QWS, paras. 6.103-6.106.
12 See Chagos Advisory Opinion, para. 89; Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence
of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276
(1970), Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1971, p. 16, para. 34.
13 See, e.g., Written Statement of the Kingdom of Norway, pp. 1-3; Written Statement of the
Principality of Liechtenstein, paras. 9-18; Written Statement of the Republic of Chile, paras. 6-27;
Written Statement of the Government of the Republic of South Africa, paras. 10-44; Written
Statement of the Arab Republic of Egypt, paras. 13-50; Written Statement of the Government of
the Republic of Indonesia, paras. 5-22; Written Statement of Ireland, paras. 5-11; Written Statement
of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, paras. 6-22; Written Statement of the Federative Republic of
Brazil, paras. 9-13.
9
Security Council’s 2003 Roadmap for Peace or relegated to a bilateral framework
under the 1993 Oslo Accords.14
2.4 More than a half century after the beginning of the occupation and more
than a decade since the last round of negotiations between Israel and the
Palestinians, these hollow talking points do not give rise to any reason, let alone
“compelling reasons”, to decline the exercise of the Court’s statutory powers.
2.5 Political statements and actions by Israeli officials themselves make clear
that Israel is no partner for peace. Standing before the General Assembly last
month, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu held up a map of the “New Middle
East” that depicted the entire OPT as being part of Israel. There is no West Bank,
no Gaza. For Israel, peace in this “New Middle East” equates to the total erasure
of Palestinians, in contravention of the most basic principles underlying the peace
process that Israel claims this advisory opinion will undermine. This was true
before 7 October 2023. It is even more true now.
Figure 2.1: An excerpt of a map shown by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu
during his addresses to the UN General Assembly on 22 Sept. 202315
14 See, e.g., Written Statement of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, para.
71.
15 B. Wilkins, “Netanyahu Shows Map of ‘New Middle East’—Without Palestine—to UN General
Assembly,” Common Dreams (22 Sept. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/4a5ddm4n.
10
2.6 As Qatar demonstrates below, from the beginning of the occupation in
1967, Israel has used the so-called “peace process” to provide cover for its ongoing
settler-colonial project in Palestine (Section I). There is now widespread consensus
that there is no viable “peace process” to speak of, let alone one that could compel
the Court to decline to render its advisory opinion (Section II). To the contrary, in
light of the recent tragic escalation in violence in the OPT and beyond, the
intervention of the Court is needed more urgently than ever (Section III).
I. From the Beginning of Its Occupation, Israel Has Never Been a
Constructive Partner for Peace
2.7 Since Israel first occupied the OPT following the 1967 war, there have been
many attempts to achieve a final and comprehensive peace agreement between it
and the Palestinians (and, relatedly, Israel’s Arab neighbours). However, as
Professor Avi Shlaim, one of the world’s preeminent historians of the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict, details in his expert report submitted with Qatar’s Written
Statement—The Diplomacy of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (1967-2023)—
Israel has consistently obstructed a negotiated solution to the conflict. Although
Israel participated in the various iterations of the so-called “peace process” through
the years, it has never compromised on the core elements of its settler-colonial
project in the OPT; namely, its illegal settlements in and control of the West Bank
and East Jerusalem.
2.8 This core reality exposes the fallacy of the claim that there is—or ever
was—a genuine Israeli-Palestinian peace process based on equality between the
two sides and international law that an advisory opinion might obstruct or derail.
Qatar briefly sets out below the key moments in this history. For a fuller account,
Qatar respectfully refers the Court to Prof. Shlaim’s expert report.
11
2.9 When the June 1967 war ended, Israel controlled all of Mandatory
Palestine, including the OPT, as well as Syria’s Golan Heights and Egypt’s Sinai
Peninsula.16 Jordan continued to claim sovereignty over the West Bank. In the
immediate aftermath of the war, Jordan offered Israel a peace agreement in
exchange for its withdrawal from the West Bank.17 It offered total peace in return
for total withdrawal. Israel rejected the proposal and countered with the Allon Plan,
pursuant to which Jordan would regain roughly 70% of the West Bank but not the
fertile Jordan Valley, most of the Jordan desert along the Dead Sea, or a substantial
area around Greater Jerusalem.18 Jordan rejected this lopsided plan.19 Israel also
ignored a peace proposal put forward by a group of influential Palestinian figures
that would have involved the establishment of an autonomous Palestinian State in
the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.20
2.10 Even as it rejected these initial peace proposals, Israel publicly proclaimed
its openness for peace.21 Yet at the same time, it was already creating the conditions
that would prevent reaching any peace agreement that would require it to give up
all of the land it seized in 1967, some of which it has since annexed both de facto
and de jure, as detailed in Qatar’s Written Statement22 and 36 other written
16 Prof. Avi Shlaim, The Diplomacy of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (1967-2023) (20 July 2023)
(hereinafter, “Report of Prof. Avi Shlaim”), p. 2. QWS, Vol. II, Annex 2.
17 Ibid., p. 3. See also I. Pappe, THE ETHNIC CLEANSING OF PALESTINE (One World Publications,
2006), p. 240; A. Shlaim, THE IRON WALL: ISRAEL AND THE ARAB WORLD (2nd Ed., W. W. Norton
& Co., 2014) (hereinafter, “A. Shlaim, THE IRON WALL”), p. 279.
18 Report of Prof. Avi Shlaim, p. 3. See also R. Pedatzur, “Coming Back Full Circle: The Palestinian
Option in 1967,” 49(2) MIDDLE EAST JOURNAL 269 (Spring 1995).
19 Report of Prof. Avi Shlaim, p. 4.
20 Ibid. See also R. Shehadeh, WE COULD HAVE BEEN FRIENDS,MY FATHER AND I:A PALESTINIAN
MEMOIR (2022).
21 Report of Prof. Avi Shlaim, p. 5.
22 QWS, Chapter 3, § I.
12
statements.23 As Prof. Shlaim explains, Israel was already taking “concrete
measures to render the occupation permanent”.24 This included “perpetuat[ing] the
territorial status quo” by “creat[ing] facts on the ground in the form of Jewish
settlements in the occupied territories” and preventing Palestinian refugees from
returning to the West Bank.25 These policies continue to this day.26
2.11 Israel’s attachment to the OPT doomed the first international effort to bring
about a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In November 1967, the UN
Security Council passed Resolution 242. The resolution called for a:
just and lasting peace in the Middle East …
includ[ing] the … (i) [w]ithdrawal of Israel[i] armed
forces from territories occupied in the recent
conflict; [and] (ii) [t]erminaton of all claims or states
of belligerency and respect for and
acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial
integrity and political independence of every State in
the area and their right to live in peace within secure
and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts
of force.27
2.12 As Professor Rashid Khalidi, another preeminent historian of the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict, explains in his expert report also submitted by Qatar with its
Written Statement—Settler Colonialism in Palestine (1917-1967)—Resolution
242 treated the conflict as one between Israel and its neighbours; the fate of the
23 See Appendix 9.
24 Report of Prof. Avi Shlaim, p. 5.
25 Ibid. See also Prof. Rashid Khalidi, Settler Colonialism in Palestine (1917-1967) (20 July 2023),
pp. 45-46. QWS, Vol. II, Annex 1. On the right of return, see I. Pappe, THE ETHNIC CLEANSING OF
PALESTINE (One World Publications, 2006), pp. 241-247. On the expansion of settlements since
1967, see A. Raz, THE BRIDE AND THE DOWRY: ISRAEL, JORDAN, AND THE PALESTINIANS IN THE
AFTERMATH OF THE JUNE 1967WAR (2012).
26 QWS, Chapter 2, §§ I-II.
27 UNSC, Resolution 242 (1967), The Situation in the Middle East, UN Doc. S/RES/242(1967) (22
Nov. 1967) (Dossier No. 1245), Preamble, art. 1.
13
Palestinians was deemed “at best a humanitarian issue”.28 Yet even the flawed
framework of Resolution 242 “remains largely unimplemented”.29 For any
progress towards peace to be made under its terms, Israel would have to give up
the territory it seized in 1967. In other words, Israel would have to end the
occupation of the OPT, something it evidently had no intention of doing.
2.13 Prof. Shlaim similarly explains:
Israel declared that before it would withdraw from
any part of the territories, there must be direct
negotiations leading to a contractual peace
agreement that incorporated secure and recognized
boundaries. The problem was that Israel refused to
spell out what it meant by ‘secure and recognised
boundaries’ then and it still refuses to do so today.
Israel insisted that the peace agreements must be in
place before beginning any withdrawal from the
territories. … [B]y pursuing its expansionist policy,
[Israel] undermined the prospect of a negotiated
agreement.30
2.14 To achieve the aim of Resolution 242, the UN Secretary-General appointed
the Swedish diplomat Dr. Gunnar Jarring as mediator.31 While consolidating its
gains from the 1967 war by, inter alia, establishing settlements, Israel strung
Dr. Jarring along with various proposals in order to “keep his mission alive and
prevent the matter from going back to the UN, where Israel thought it would be
blamed for the failure”.32 Dr. Jarring’s mission finally came to an end in February
28 Prof. Rashid Khalidi, Settler Colonialism in Palestine (1917-1967) (20 July 2023), p. 43. QWS,
Vol. II, Annex 1.
29 Ibid., p. 45.
30 Report of Prof. Avi Shlaim, p. 7.
31 Ibid., p. 10.
32 Ibid.
14
1971 when Israel rejected his proposal for peace with Egypt.33 The plan would have
required it “to withdraw to the former Egypt-Palestine international border”,34 but
the Israeli response was categorical: “Israel will not withdraw to the pre-5 June
1967 lines.”35 Thereafter, Israel continued to swiftly and categorically reject peace
proposals from Jordan and Egypt from 1971 through the October 1973 war.36
2.15 In the wake of the October 1973 war, the Palestinian National Council and
the Palestine Liberation Organization (“PLO”) began to advocate political
engagement with Israel.37 Yet, the Israeli leadership remained “firm and inflexible:
Israel would never recognize the PLO, enter into any negotiations with the PLO,
or agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state”.38
2.16 In 1977, the Likud Party came to power in Israel.39 One of the core planks
of its platform is that “the West Bank and the Gaza Strip [are] an integral part of
the Land of Israel,” over which the “Jewish people have an exclusive right to
sovereignty”.40 This did not portend well for the next serious third-party attempt to
achieve a comprehensive peace agreement—the 1978 trilateral summit between
US President Jimmy Carter and the Israeli and Egyptian leaders. There, Israel
publicly kept its “claim to sovereignty over the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in
abeyance while negotiations were in progress but [did] not … give it up”.41
33 Ibid., pp. 10-11. See also A. Shlaim, THE IRON WALL, pp. 301-305.
34 Ibid., p 10.
35 Ibid., p. 11. See also A. Eban, PERSONAL WITNESS: ISRAEL THROUGH MY EYES (1992), pp. 500-
501.
36 Ibid., p. 12.
37 Ibid., p. 13.
38 Ibid., p. 14.
39 Ibid., p. 16.
40 Ibid. See also A. Shlaim, THE IRON WALL, p. 360; C. Shindler, ISRAEL, LIKUD AND THE ZIONIST
DREAM: POWER, POLITICS AND IDEOLOGY FROM BEGIN TO NETANYAHU (1995), p. 85.
41 Ibid, p. 17. See also A. Shlaim, THE IRON WALL, p. 380.
15
Internally, however, it “ruled out in advance any notion of an independent,
sovereign Palestinian state”42 and, consequently, relinquishing its control of the
OPT.
2.17 The resulting September 1978 Camp David Accords consisted of
agreements between Israel and Egypt on (i) a process for achieving Palestinian selfgovernment
in the West Bank and Gaza and (ii) a framework for the conclusion of
a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt.43 Egypt and Israel successfully concluded
a peace treaty in March 1979 and Israel thereafter withdrew from the Sinai
Peninsula.44 Efforts to address the Palestinian question suffered a different fate,
however.45 Again, “[t]he main obstacle to an agreement was Israel’s refusal to give
up its claim to sovereignty over the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and its rigidly
narrow parameters for Palestinian autonomy.”46
2.18 After Israeli-Palestinian negotiations under the rubric of the Camp David
Accords failed, Israel’s strategy was “to gain time, to increase the number of Jewish
settlers, and to entrench Israel’s occupation [of] the West Bank”.47 By 1981, when
Prime Minister Begin presented his new government to the Israeli Knesset, he
affirmed Jerusalem’s status as “the eternal capital of Israel” and declared the
“eternal unassailable right” of “Jewish people to the Land of Israel”.48 In direct
42 Ibid. See also A. Shlaim, THE IRON WALL, p. 380.
43 Ibid. See also A. Shlaim, THE IRON WALL, p. 383.
44 Ibid. See also A. Shlaim, THE IRON WALL, pp. 386-393.
45 Regarding the contrasting fates of the Camp David and Oslo peace processes, see S. Anziska,
PREVENTING PALESTINE: A POLITICAL HISTORY FROM CAMP DAVID TO OSLO (2018).
46 Report of Prof. Avi Shlaim, p. 17.
47 Ibid., p. 19.
48 A. Shlaim, IRON WALL (2014), p. 400 (quoting Prime Minister Begin).
16
contradiction of undertakings made at Camp David, he later promised that “[n]o
part of its territory will be given to alien rule, to foreign sovereignty”.49
2.19 Meanwhile, various international actors presented a succession of peace
plans to Israel’s leaders.50 As the Israeli Prime Minster at the time, Itzhak Shamir,
would later record in his autobiography, the plans “rarely contained new elements
… what they amounted to was ‘peace in exchange for territory; recognition in
exchange for territory; never ‘just’ peace”.51 Like those that came before them,
these proposals were non-starters for Israel because they would have required it to
relinquish its territorial claims. While publicly at least Israel did not reject the idea
of peace out of hand, during the 1980s “[s]ettlement activity was strongly
encouraged … [t]o reinforce [Israel’s] claim to sovereignty over the whole of the
West Bank”.52
2.20 Twenty years after the 1967 war and in the absence of any progress towards
the realization of Palestinian’s right to self-determination, a powder keg of popular
Palestinian discontent with Israeli rule erupted in December 1987 into the First
Intifada,53 which continued for over five years.
2.21 Against this backdrop, and in light of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in late 1991,
the United States and the Soviet Union convened an international peace conference
in Madrid, Spain. The Palestinian delegation to the conference “adopted [an] olive
branch strategy”, signalling that they were “genuinely committed to peaceful coexistence
[with Israel], that the Israeli occupation had to end, that the Palestinians
49 Ibid., p. 401 (quoting Prime Minister begin, and citing Ma’ariv, 9 Aug. 1981).
50 Report of Prof. Avi Shlaim, pp. 20-21.
51 Ibid., p. 21. See also Y. Shamir, SUMMING UP: AN AUTOBIOGRAPHY (1994), pp. 174-75.
52 Ibid., p. 21.
53 Ibid., pp. 21-22. See also A. Shlaim, THE IRON WALL, pp. 465-475.
17
had a right to self-determination, and that they were determined to pursue this right
relentlessly until they achieved statehood”.54
2.22 At the conclusion of the Madrid peace conference, a track for further Israeli-
Palestinian negotiations under the auspices of the United States was established.55
Nothing tangible resulted. Consistent with its two decades-old approach to peace
talks, Israel held itself out as willing to negotiate but continued to consolidate its
territorial control of the West Bank. “I would have carried on autonomy talks for
ten years’”, Israeli Prime Minister Itzak Shamir said, “and meanwhile we would
have reached half a million people in Judea and Samaria [i.e., the West Bank].”56
His goal, he said, was “the integrity of the Land of Israel”,57 i.e., Mandatory
Palestine. In a defiant speech on the same day talks were due to resume in
Washington (but did not as they were boycotted by Israel), Shamir made clear that
“[e]ven as they work day and night for peace, Israel’s leaders cannot conceive of
considering ideas aimed at concessions on Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, and
the Golan Heights”.58
2.23 Next, in 1993, back-channel negotiations in Oslo, Norway, ultimately
resulted in the Oslo Accord, according to which “a Palestinian Authority … would
be established and assume governing responsibilities in Gaza Strip and part of the
West Bank over a five-year period”.59 In turn, the Palestinians formally recognized
54 Ibid., pp. 24-25. See also W. Laqueur & B. Rubin, THE ARAB-ISRAELI READER (7th Ed., Penguin,
2008), pp. 394-400; A. Safieh, THE PEACE PROCESS: FROM BREAKTHROUGH TO BREAKDOWN
(2010), p. 158.
55 Ibid., p. 25.
56 Ibid., p. 26. See also A. Shlaim, THE IRON WALL, pp. 515-518.
57 Ibid.
58 A. Shlaim, THE IRON WALL, p. 509 (quoting Prime Miniter Shamir).
59 Report of Prof. Avi Shlaim, p. 27.
18
Israel’s right to live in peace and security.60 Like other agreements establishing a
framework for peace between Israel and the Palestinians, however, the Oslo Accord
posed no threat to the key facets of Israel’s settler-colonial project. It “was silent
on all the key issues in the conflict: Jerusalem, the right of return of the 1948
Palestinian refugees, the status of the Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian
territory, and the borders of the Palestinian entity”.61 The agreement did not even
require Israel to freeze the expansion of its illegal settlements or recognize the
Palestinians’ rights to statehood or self-determination.62
2.24 In the years following the Oslo Accord, violence by Palestinian militants
was virtually eliminated. Yet, the Israeli security establishment, led by then-Chief
of Staff Ehud Barak, saw the agreement as having offered too many concessions to
the Palestinians.63 Adopting a hard line, and capitalizing on the persistent
asymmetry of power, Israel set to “repackage rather than end [the] military
occupation”.64 The result was the 1995 Interim Agreement on the West Bank and
Gaza Strip (“Oslo II”).
2.25 Oslo II divided the West Bank into three areas, Areas A, B and C. In Areas
A and B, Palestinians were given exclusive control and civilian authority,
respectively.65 However, Israel retained full authority in Area C, which
compromises 60% of the West Bank and covers the area where it had consolidated
its settlements over the nearly 30 years since it occupied the OPT.66 As clearly set
60 Ibid.
61 Ibid. See also A. Shlaim, ISRAEL AND PALESTINE (2010), p. 192.
62 Ibid., p. 28.
63 A. Shlaim, THE IRON WALL, p. 541.
64 Ibid., p. 542.
65 Report of Prof. Avi Shlaim, p. 28. See also A. Shlaim, ISRAEL AND PALESTINE (2010), pp. 201-
203.
66 Ibid.
19
out in its terms, Oslo II was, within 18 months, to lead to the “powers and
responsibilities relating to territory [being] transferred gradually to Palestinian
jurisdiction that will cover West Bank and Gaza Strip territory”.67 Following
establishment of full Palestinian jurisdiction over Gaza and the West Bank, certain
final status issues—including the status of Jerusalem and refugees—were to be
agreed in negotiations set to begin no later than May 1996.68
2.26 The Oslo Accords raised a faint hope of a negotiated agreement leading to
the realization of the Palestinian right to self-determination. But in the three years
following the 1996 return of the Likud party to power, Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu worked successfully to “freeze, subvert, and undermine the Oslo
accords”.69 Though he paid lip service to the principles of the Oslo Accords, and
the subsequent 1998 Wye River Memorandum (under which Israel “promis[ed] to
turn over another 11 per cent of the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority”70), no
substantial policy changes were made. Instead, Israel “continued to deny that the
Palestinians had any right to national self-determination” and increased the rate of
demolitions of Palestinian structures and confiscation of land.71
2.27 The Oslo Accords envisaged that a final, comprehensive agreement would
be reached by May 1999.72 No such agreement was reached then or since. In the
meantime, power changed hands in Israel and Ehud Barak of the Labour Party
became Prime Minister. The dynamic of Israel publicly making a show of
67 Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (Oslo II) (28 Sept.
1995) (hereinafter, “Oslo II”), art. XI(2)(e).
68 Ibid., art. XXXI(5).
69 Report of Prof. Avi Shlaim, p. 29. See also A. Shlaim, ISRAEL AND PALESTINE (2010), pp. 203-
205.
70 Ibid., p. 30.
71 Ibid., pp. 30-31.
72 Oslo II, Preamble, para. 5.
20
negotiating for peace while consolidating its hold on the West Bank continued,
however. During Mr. Barak’s administration, Israel actually accelerated the pace
of settlement on the West Bank.73 Though Israel reportedly offered the Palestinians
a deal that would have resulted in a “demilitarised Palestinian state on the Gaza
Strip and 90% of the West Bank”, its offer fell short of recognizing Palestinian
sovereignty “over the Muslim holy places in the Old City of Jerusalem and the right
of return of the Palestinian refugees”.74 As before, Israel’s participation in the peace
process was conditioned on preserving the foundations of its settler-colonial
project.
2.28 At the turn of the millennium, power in Israel reverted back to the Likud
Party. The new Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, made the conditions of Israel’s
engagement with the so-called peace process public and explicit. He declared that
the Oslo accords were “null and void” and drew up a list of “red lines”: no
dismantling of settlements, no withdrawal from the Jordan Valley, and no
concessions on Jerusalem.75
2.29 Indeed, rather than championing peace, Prime Minister Sharon precipitated
the Second Intifada through his “much-publicised visit to al-Haram al-Sharif, the
Noble Sanctuary … [f]lanked by a thousand security men and in deliberate
disregard for the sensitivity of the Muslim worshippers”.76 This led to a wave of
violence across Israel and the OPT, including Israel’s siege and destruction of most
of President Yasser Arafat’s office compound in Ramallah, confining him to only
a few rooms of the compound that had been left intact.77 As recalled by U.S.
73 Report of Prof. Avi Shlaim, p. 32.
74 Ibid., p. 33. See also C. Enderlin, SHATTERED DREAMS: THE FAILURE OF THE PEACE PROCESS IN
THE MIDDLE EAST, 1995-2002 (2003), pp. 213, 270, 324.
75 Ibid. p. 34.
76 Ibid.
77 J. Carter, PALESTINE: PEACE NOT APARTHEID (2006), p. 156.
21
President Jimmy Carter, “[e]xcept for one brief interlude, Arafat was to be
permanently confined to this small space until the final days of his life.”78 When
the UN Security Council demanded Israel’s withdrawal from Ramallah, “Israel
ignored the resolution.”79
2.30 During his premiership, Mr. Sharon rejected all international peace plans
aimed at a two-State solution.80 This included the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative,
which “offered Israel peace and normalization with all 22 members of the Arab
League in return for agreeing to an independent Palestinian state on the West Bank
and Gaza with a capital city in East Jerusalem”.81
2.31 In 2003 the United States, Russia, the UN and the European Union (the
“Quartet”) put forward the so-called “Roadmap for Peace”, a “long-awaited plan
for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It envisaged three phases leading to
an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel by the end of 2005.”82
Prof. Shlaim explains that while “[t]he Palestinian leaders embraced the Road map
with great alacrity”, Prime Minister Sharon insisted on no less than fourteen
amendments to the Roadmap, and took the position “that he would present the road
map to his government for consideration only if all fourteen amendments were
included in the text”.83 The result was a watered-down version of the Quartet’s
78 Ibid., p. 157.
79 Ibid.
80 Report of Prof. Avi Shlaim, p. 35.
81 Ibid.
82 Ibid., p. 37.
83 Ibid. See also A. Shlaim, IRON WALL (2014), pp. 765-769.
22
original Roadmap,84 and “[a]nother major international initiative to resolve the
conflict was dead on arrival.”85
2.32 It is therefore no surprise that no peace negotiations took place between
2001 and 2006.86 Instead, Israel further intensified the construction of its illegal
settlements in the West Bank87 and constructed the separation barrier, in open
contempt of the Court’s 2004 advisory opinion on the subject.88 Even Israel’s 2005
unilateral withdraw from Gaza—which was not coordinated or negotiated with the
Palestinians—was “not a prelude to a peace deal with the Palestinian Authority but
a prelude to further expansion on the West Bank”.89 Indeed, the unilateral
withdrawal was a way to remove over a million Palestinians from the
“demographic equation”, confining them to Gaza and allowing Israel to focus its
settlement efforts on the West Bank.90 In the year following the withdrawal of
8,000 Israeli settlers from Gaza, 12,000 were settled in the West Bank.91 As
explained by the official spokesperson of Prime Minister Sharon, “[t]he
significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process.”92
84 See J. Carter, PALESTINE: PEACE NOT APARTHEID (2006), pp. 243-47 (including Appendix 7,
‘Israel’s Response to the Roadmap’).
85 Prof. Avi Shlaim, The Diplomacy of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (1967-2023) (20 July 2023),
p. 37. QWS, Vol. II, Annex 2.
86 Ibid., p. 35.
87 S. L. Whitson, “Ariel Sharon’s legacy is deeply disturbing,” CNN (13 Jan. 2014), available at
https://tinyurl.com/2s3fnrsn.
88 QWS, para. 2.25.
89 Report of Prof. Avi Shlaim, p. 36. See also I. Pappe, THE ETHNIC CLEANSING OF PALESTINE (One
World Publications, 2006), pp. 248-249.
90 See D. Gerrard, “Israel’s Iron Wall Still Stands After Nearly a Century: An Interview With Avi
Shlaim,” Jacobin (18 Sept. 2020), available at https://tinyurl.com/f5ftrnxx. See also A. Shlaim,
“How Israel brought Gaza to the brink of humanitarian catastrophe,” The Guardian (7 Jan. 2009),
available at https://tinyurl.com/28cev6ry.
91 Report of Prof. Avi Shlaim, pp. 36-37.
92 I. Pappe, THE ETHNIC CLEANSING OF PALESTINE (One World Publications, 2006), p. 248.
23
2.33 Despite its withdrawal, Israel continued its repeated and calculated attacks
on Gaza. These military operations are cynically referred to by Israeli generals as
“mowing the lawn”, a phrase that reflects the idea that such operations have to be
performed regularly and mechanically and “alludes to indiscriminate slaughter of
civilians and inflicting the kind of damage on the civilian infrastructure that takes
several years to repair”.93
2.34 The United States sought to bring Israel back to the negotiating table.94
Though Benjamin Netanyahu, who returned to power in 2009, “rhetorical[ly]” and
“grudgingly” “endorsed for the first time a ‘demilitarized Palestinian state’”, he
insisted on Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and insisted on “the right to ‘natural
growth’ in the existing Jewish settlements on the West Bank while their permanent
status was being negotiated”, among other conditions.95 The Palestinian side
interpreted this position as “clos[ing] the door to permanent status negotiations”.96
During this time Israel bowed to US pressure and “agreed to enter direct talks” and
to a “partial ten-month freeze on settlement construction”.97 In reality, however,
the purported freeze “had no significant effect on actual housing and infrastructure
construction in and around the settlements”.98 Towards its end, Israel made its
93 Report of Prof. Avi Shlaim, p. 51.
94 Ibid., pp. 43-45. See also C. McGreal & R. McCarthy, “Obama: halt to new Israeli settlements is
in America’s security interests,” The Guardian (28 May 2009), available at
https://tinyurl.com/4cv2xya5.
95 Ibid., p. 43. See also A. Shlaim, IRON WALL (2014), pp. 805-806; I. Kershner, “Netanyahu Backs
Palestinian State, With Caveats,” New York Times (14 June 2009), available at
https://tinyurl.com/52rn35vc.
96 Ibid., pp. 43-44.
97 Ibid., p. 44.
98 Ibid.
24
priorities clear: instead of pursuing further peace negotiations, it “approved new
[settlement] construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem”.99
2.35 This brief historical overview shows that, from the time it first occupied the
OPT in 1967, Israel’s participation in the “peace process” was defined by three
contradictory characteristics: (i) a publicly expressed openness to peace talks; (ii)
a steadfast refusal to consider a complete end to the occupation, and (iii) the
continuing expansion and consolidation of its control over the OPT. In short, Israel
manipulated the peace process as a tool for such consolidation. For example,
despite the Oslo Accords providing for Israel’s temporary administration of parts
of the West Bank, Israel used the Palestinians’ agreement to that effect as an excuse
for its de facto annexation of Area C, while confining Palestinians to increasingly
isolated and shrinking patches of land in the West Bank.
2.36 The on-the-ground results of the half-century of Israel’s cynical
engagement with the peace process have hindered the realization of a contiguous
and viable Palestinian State. They have, moreover, culminated in the de jure
annexation of East Jerusalem,100 the creeping annexation of much of the West
Bank,101 and the institution of an apartheid regime across the OPT.102 At the same
time, Israel has taken measures to exacerbate internal political divisions in
Palestine, isolate Gaza from the rest of the Palestinian territory, and exhaust the
Palestinian people such that, as Prof. Shlaim explains, “they would cease to
99 Ibid.
100 QWS, Chapter 3, § I(A).
101 Ibid., Chapter 3, § I(B).
102 Ibid., Chapter 4, § II.
25
constitute a coherent political community capable of asserting its right to
sovereignty on even a fraction of historic Palestine”.103
II. There Is General Consensus that
There Is No Viable Peace Process Today
2.37 Israel’s unwillingness to end the occupation means that no viable peace
process exists today. In fact, “[n]o peace negotiations have been held for nearly 10
years”.104 Regrettably, it is not no longer credible to argue that the fate of the
occupation should be settled through an established negotiation framework
governing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
2.38 As Tor Wennesland, the UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace
Process, recently briefed the Security Council: “We are a long distance apart from
the sentiments prevailing when the Oslo Accord was signed 30 years ago”.105 In a
forewarning of recent events, he emphasised: “The lack of progress towards a
political horizon that addresses the core issues driving the conflict has left a
dangerous and volatile vacuum”.106 This follows prior warnings by his predecessor,
Nickolay Mladenov, about the “lack of any perspective to revive” the “complete
political deadlock of the Middle East peace process”.107
103 Prof. Avi Shlaim, The Diplomacy of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (1967-2023) (20 July 2023),
p. 49. QWS, Vol. II, Annex 2. See also B. Kimmerling, POLITICIDE:ARIEL SHARON’S WAR AGAINST
THE PALESTINIANS (2006), pp. 3-4.
104 Norway, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Speech/statement of Minister of Foreign Affairs Anniken
Huitfeldt: Time is running out (15 Sept. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/3dm2k2jm.
105 UNSCO, Briefing to the Security Council on the Situation in the Middle East (As Delivered by
Special Coordinator Tor Wennesland) (21 Aug. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/39zszxnf.
106 Ibid.
107 “‘Complete political deadlock’ over Middle East peace risks more violence, regional escalation,
warns UN envoy,” UN News (27 Aug. 2019), available at https://tinyurl.com/yn759yfy.
26
2.39 The failure of the peace process is a concern echoed by world leaders.
Recalling the 30th anniversary of the signing of the Oslo Accords in September
2023, for example, the Norwegian Foreign Minister, lamented that “we are further
from a two-state solution than we were in 2011”.108
2.40 There is no shortage of similar statements about the failure of the peace
process by leading experts, including by the very same individuals who negotiated
the Oslo Accords. These include:
 A lead US negotiator, Aaron David Miller: “Today, 30 years after that
historic day, what remains of the spirit and much of the substance of the
Oslo agreement lies bloodied, buried, and betrayed across an Israeli-
Palestinian landscape that seems to leave little room for hope and none
for illusions.”109
 Israel’s lead negotiator, Yossi Beilin: “The right-wing has dominated
and actively works to undermine the Oslo Accords, albeit unofficially.
There has been a considerable increase in settlements and settlers,
which undoubtedly detracts from any potential political resolution. This
has left Palestinians feeling disillusioned, with no visible political
prospects.”110
 The Norwegian State Secretary who facilitated the agreement, Jan
Egeland: “The signing of the Oslo Accords was a rare moment of
optimism in the long and bitter conflict. The diplomats around me
gasped as Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat, chair
of the PLO, shook hands. We all got to our feet and applauded. Thirty
years on, each visit I make to the still occupied Palestinian territory
108 Norway, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Speech/statement of Minister of Foreign Affairs Anniken
Huitfeldt: Time is running out (15 Sept. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/3dm2k2jm.
109 A. D. Miller, “Why the Oslo Peace Process Failed,” Foreign Policy (13 Sept. 2023), available
at https://tinyurl.com/27zvvrtv.
110 A. Pita, “Yossi Beilin: ‘The Israeli right has actively worked to undermine the Oslo Accords’,”
El País (14 Sept. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/5fzcz4my.
27
leaves me asking how the situation for the civilian population could
possibly get any worse.”111
2.41 Israeli officials themselves openly recognize their abandonment of Oslo. In
Prime Minister Netanyahu’s words, he “de facto put an end to the Oslo Accords”.112
As recently as February 2023, he extolled his strategy of avoiding engagement with
the Palestinians through the Abraham Accords: “I went around them (Palestinians),
I went directly to the Arab states”.113
2.42 In the context of the present proceedings, States have also not hesitated to
recognize that the peace process “has been nothing short of an abject failure”,114
or, more charitably, “seems to be shelved”.115 As Ireland aptly sums up in its
statement, “it is the prolonged absence of any prospect of such a solution for many
years that makes the provision of an advisory opinion at this moment all the more
necessary”.116
2.43 Assertions that the status of the occupation should be settled through direct
negotiations between Israel and Palestine also fail to take into account the
fundamental “asymmetry between the parties, where one side dominates the other”,
making it “impossible to make progress through direct bilateral negotiations”.117
Under the cover of the peace process, Israel continues to intensify its illegal
111 J. Egeland, “We can’t wait 30 more years for another breakthrough in the Middle East,”
Financial Times (6 Sept. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/52fn2ju2.
112 M. Hirsh, “Bibi Netanyahu: The Non-Negotiator,” The Atlantic (27 Nov. 2013), available at:
https://tinyurl.com/msrznfyf.
113 T. John & R. Picheta, “Exclusive: Netanyahu says don’t get ‘hung up’ on peace with Palestinians
first,” CNN (1 February 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/5n6nazwn.
114 Written Statement of the Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, para. 8.
115 Written Statement of the Republic of Türkiye, p. 2.
116 Written Statement of Ireland, para. 10.
117 J. Egeland, “We can’t wait 30 more years for another breakthrough in the Middle East,”
Financial Times (6 Sept. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/52fn2ju2.
28
unilateral actions in the OPT, creating irreversible facts on the ground. In February
2023, for instance, a “bureaucratic maneuver” by Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu’s government “all but made annexation official” by transferring control
over the OPT from military to civilian leadership.118 As warned in a statement by
numerous UN mandate holders, this move “solidified Israel’s annexation of
occupied territory”.119
2.44 As shown in Figure 2.2 below, the peace process of the 1990s and early
2000s had no perceptible impact on the pace of Israeli settlement. Since Israel
signed the Oslo Accords thirty years ago, the number of settlers in East Jerusalem
and the West Bank has in fact expanded from around 300,000 settlers then to over
700,000 now.120 The situation is even worse today. In his latest briefing to the
Security Council on 27 September 2023, the UN Special Coordinator for the
Middle East Peace Process, highlighted that during this last reporting period
alone—i.e., from 15 June to 19 September 2023—plans for 10,000 housing units
in the OPT have been advanced.121
118 M. Sfard, “Israel Is Officially Annexing the West Bank,” Foreign Policy (8 June 2023), available
at https://tinyurl.com/2xt5buhk.
119 OHCHR, Press Release: International community must act to end Israel’s annexation of
occupied West Bank, including east Jerusalem, and defend international law: UN experts (26 July
2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/56esc66d.
120 UNSCO, Report to the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee (15 Sept. 2023), available at
https://tinyurl.com/3u5ny2yz, p. 18.
121 UNSCO, Briefing to the Security Council on the Situation in the Middle East, Report of the
Secretary-General on the Implementation of UN SCR 2334 (As Delivered by Special Coordinator
Tor Wennesland) (27 Sept. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/4359z5fm, p. 4.
29
Figure 2.2: Graph showing the number of Israeli settlers in the OPT
(excluding East Jerusalem) from 1967-2021122
2.45 To facilitate its accelerating colonization of the OPT, Israel also continues
its policy of deploying brutal violence against Palestinians. Between September
2000 and September 2023 alone, Israeli forces killed 10,555 Palestinians, including
2,270 children and 656 women.123 During the same period, Israel has engaged in a
policy of “mass incarceration”, detaining tens of thousands of Palestinians, often
without charge.124
2.46 States that invite the Court to decline exercising its jurisdiction to provide
an advisory opinion ignore these circumstances and argue that Israel and Palestine
have continuously reaffirmed their intent to resolve the future of the occupation
through direct negotiations. These arguments fail to acknowledge the context of
122 Peace Now, “Population” (last accessed: 19 Oct. 2023), available at
https://tinyurl.com/bddp62k9.
123 See B’Tselem, “Statistics – Fatalities (Palestinians killed by Israeli forces)” (last updated: 26
Sept. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/4ze97vba.
124 Human Rights Council, Report of Special Rapporteur F. Albanese on the situation of human
rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, UN Doc. A/HRC/53/59 (9 June 2023),
available at https://tinyurl.com/38r7u9kw.
30
these purported affirmations. For example, in its Written Statement, Israel argues
that as recently as March 2023, at a summit in Egypt, Israel and the Palestinian
Authority “reaffirmed their commitment to all previous agreements between them,
and reaffirmed their agreement to address all outstanding issues through direct
dialogue”.125 Qatar cannot help but note the irony of Israel relying on this alleged
reaffirmation even as it has explicitly rejected the relevance of previous
agreements, including most notably the Oslo Accords, and continued to deny
Palestinians’ aspirations for self-determination.126 Tellingly, only a few hours after
the summit in Egypt, Israel’s Minister of Finance, Bezalel Smotrich, declared that
there is “no such thing as Palestinians”127 and that Palestine is “an invention of
[the] past 100 years”,128 echoing prior offensive remarks made by Israeli Prime
Minister Golda Meir.129
2.47 Israel also overlooks the fact that the brief summit in Egypt was not held in
the context of wider peace talks, but was a “diplomatic effort to maintain ‘calm’
during the Muslim holy month, when matters often escalate between Israeli forces
and Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territories”.130 The Egyptian Foreign
125 Statement of the State of Israel Pursuant to the Court’s Order of 3 February 2023 Relating to the
Advisory Proceedings Initiated by UN General Assembly Resolution 77/247, pp. 3-4.
126 See supra, paras. 2.26, 2.28, 2.41.
127 “Palestinian Authority PM pans Smotrich for saying his people doesn’t exist,” The Times of
Israel (20 Mar. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/28tp7far.
128 “Smotrich says there’s no Palestinian people, declares his family ‘real Palestinians’,” The Times
of Israel (20 Mar. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/bddbb9ar.
129 A. Soussi, “The mixed legacy of Golda Meir, Israel’s first female PM,” Al Jazeera (18 Mar.
2019), available at https://tinyurl.com/3w5em7bb (“‘There were no such thing as Palestinians,’
[Prime Minister Meir] was quoted as saying in the Sunday Times and Washington Post in June
1969.”).
130 “Israeli, Palestinian Authority officials meet for talks in Egypt,” Al Jazeera (19 Mar. 2023),
available at https://tinyurl.com/bdehhbkf.
31
Ministry confirmed that the talks aimed to “stop unilateral actions and escalation,
and to break the existing cycle of violence and achieve calm”.131
2.48 Tragically, as discussed below, even such modest rhetorical
rapprochements—which are themselves a far cry from a genuine peace process—
appear out of reach in light of recent events.
III. Recent Events Only Underscore the Urgency and Necessity of the
Court’s Advisory Opinion
2.49 The international community and numerous experts have warned for years
that the status quo in the OPT is untenable and that Israel’s ongoing occupation is
causing a spiralling cycle of violence.132 The former OPT Special Rapporteur,
Michael Lynk, cautioned in 2022 that “[t]he level of violence required by Israel to
maintain its occupation has been steadily increasing” and that “[i]nternational
inaction in the face of these new levels of violence will only encourage more of the
same.”133 A September 2023 policy brief by the European Council on Foreign
Affairs further highlighted that, “[i]n the absence of any prospect of reaching a
negotiated end to Israeli occupation, violence is escalating across Israel and the
occupied Palestinian territory, reaching levels not seen since the second
intifada.”134
131 Ibid.
132 In the context of these proceedings, see, e.g., Written Statement of the Government of the
Republic of South Africa, para. 8 (“The ongoing delay in achieving a settlement has resulted in an
unending cycle of violence.”); Written Statement of the African Union, para. 19; Written Statement
of the United Arab Emirates, paras. 25, 101.
133 OHCHR, Press Release: UN expert warns Israeli crackdown will fuel more violence, urges
international response (22 Apr. 2022), available at https://tinyurl.com/5n6cbcku.
134 European Council on Foreign Relations, House in Disorder: How Europeans Can Help
Palestinians Fix Their Political System (Sept. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/ycxjfrz2, p. 2.
32
2.50 These fears were realized on 7 October 2023, when members of Palestinian
armed groups launched an unprecedented attack against Israel. These attacks,
which included aerial, sea, and ground operations, resulted in the deaths of over
1,300 people in Israel.135
2.51 Qatar condemns in the strongest possible terms the targeting and killing of
civilians—and all international crimes—regardless of their perpetrators.136 What
cannot be denied, however, is that Israel is capable of ending these cycles of
violence by ending the occupation. Regrettably, it refuses to do so. In fact, Israel
appears intent to do the opposite as evidenced by its ever-increasing
dehumanization and dispossession of, and violence toward, Palestinians.
2.52 2022 was the deadliest year for Palestinians in the West Bank since 2005.
Israel killed over 150 Palestinians.137 Even before the recent escalations, this record
had already been broken by 22 August 2023. As of that date, Israel had killed over
200 Palestinians in 2023 alone, among them 34 children.138 In addition, as of 27
September 2023, Israel held “1,264 Palestinians in administrative detention, the
135 OCHA, “Hostilities in the Gaza Strip and Israel | Flash Update #9” (15 Oct. 2023), available at
https://tinyurl.com/yca3rv3n.
136 During a joint press conference with the United States Secretary of State, Qatar’s Prime Minister
and Minister of Foreign Affairs stated: “I reiterated Qatar’s firm position in condemning all forms
of targeting civilians. I would like to stress here that the killing [of] innocent civilians, especially
children and women, and the practice of collective punishment policies are unacceptable under any
circumstance. These condemnations should be directed at all parties concerned on an equal basis.”
Qatar, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Tweet (13 Oct. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/245ertcr.
137 “UN envoy reports ‘sharp increase’ in violence this year in Israel-Palestine conflict,” UN News
(19 Dec. 2022), available at https://tinyurl.com/bp6ukc96.
138 UNSCO, Briefing to the Security Council on the Situation in the Middle East (As Delivered by
Special Coordinator Tor Wennesland) (21 Aug. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/39zszxnf;
“West Bank: Spike in Israeli Killings of Palestinian Children,” Human Rights Watch (28 Aug.
2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/2p96xwuv.
33
highest number in over a decade”.139 Settler attacks on Palestinians reached their
highest levels in over a decade, with about three settler attacks per day, resulting in
the displacement of over 1,100 Palestinians since 2022. Three Palestinian villages
were emptied out in the West Bank this summer alone. As the head of the UN
OCHA in the OPT noted in late August 2023: “The displacement of Palestinians
amid increasing settler violence is of a magnitude that we have not previously
documented”.140
2.53 The editorial board of Haaretz, Israel’s newspaper of record, recalled this
important context in its scathing 8 October 2023 editorial, one day after the
appalling attacks in Israel:
The disaster that befell Israel on the holiday of
Simchat Torah is the clear responsibility of one
person: Benjamin Netanyahu. The prime minister,
who has prided himself on his vast political
experience and irreplaceable wisdom in security
matters, completely failed to identify the dangers he
was consciously leading Israel into when
establishing a government of annexation and
dispossession, when appointing Bezalel Smotrich
and Itamar Ben-Gvir to key positions, while
embracing a foreign policy that openly ignored the
existence and rights of Palestinians.141
2.54 Members of the Knesset have denounced the actions of the Israeli
government that culminated in recent events. For example, MK Ofer Cassif
highlighted repeated warnings that “everything is going to erupt and everybody is
139 UNSCO, Briefing to the Security Council on the Situation in the Middle East, Report of the
Secretary-General on the Implementation of UN SCR 2334 (As Delivered by Special Coordinator
Tor Wennesland) (27 Sept. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/5n6tc48c.
140 J. Frankel, “3 small Palestinian villages emptied out this summer. Residents blame Israeli settler
attacks,” Associated Press (24 Aug. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/yc2edmbf.
141 “Netanyahu Bears Responsibility for This Israel-Gaza War,” Haaretz (8 Oct. 2023), available
at https://tinyurl.com/5mcb8hp9.
34
going to pay a price”.142 He condemned the government as “fascist” and as
“support[ing], encourage[ing], and lead[ing] pogroms against the Palestinians”,
stressing that “[t]here is an ethnic cleansing going on.”143 For Cassif, “[i]t was
obvious the writing was on the wall, written in the blood of the Palestinians—and
unfortunately now Israelis as well”.144
2.55 The UN Secretary-General himself expressly recognized that this recent
escalation “does not come in a vacuum”.145 As the current OPT Special Rapporteur,
Francesca Albanese, recently explained, “what is happening now needs to be put
in the context of decades of oppression imposed on the Palestinians”.146 As she and
many experts have pointed out, “continuing to oppress a population with total
impunity would lead to a catastrophe”.147 The Israel and Palestine Director at
Human Rights Watch, Omar Shakir, similarly reiterated that “[i]f we’ve learned
anything through prior escalations, it is that so long as there is impunity for serious
abuses, we will continue to see more repression and shedding of civilian blood”.148
2.56 In addition to decades of colonization, violent oppression, and ethnic
cleansing of Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, the current
escalation comes in the specific context of ongoing impunity for Israel’s sustained
and brutal collective punishment of Gaza, which, as Qatar explained in its Written
142 E. Freedman, “Israeli lawmaker blames pogroms against Palestinians for ‘terrible’ attacks,” Al
Jazeera (8 Oct. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/2shsh35s.
143 Ibid.
144 Ibid.
145 UN Secretary-General, Speech: Secretary-General’s remarks to the press on the situation in the
Middle East (9 Oct. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/yurws4na.
146 “‘Necessary’ to stand with both Israelis, Palestinians, UN rapporteur says,” Al Jazeera (9 Oct.
2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/muny8fbj.
147 Ibid.
148 “Israel/Palestine: Devastating Civilian Toll as Parties Flout Legal Obligations,” Human Rights
Watch (9 Oct. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/3hmatxey.
35
Submission, amounts to a crime against humanity.149 Even before the recent
escalation, Gaza was “unliveable” or, in the words of the UN Secretary General,
“hell on earth”.150
2.57 To recall, Israel’s blockade and collective punishment of Gaza entails, inter
alia:
 Severely restricting the movement of people and goods into and out of
Gaza, including at times by employing mathematical formulas to calculate
the minimum amount of goods required for survival of the population and
modulating restrictions accordingly;151
 At least six large scale military assaults prior to October 2023, killing
thousands of civilians, including 1,189 children;152
 Policies such as the “Dahiya Doctrine”, explicitly designed to unlawfully
inflict maximum terror and suffering on the civilian population;153
 Innumerable war crimes condemned by the international community,
including intentional attacks on civilian targets without warning;154
 Brutal suppression of peaceful protests, including killing 214 unarmed
civilians, among them 46 children, during the Great March of Return in
2018-2019;155 and
149 See QWS, paras. 3.153-3.158, 3.183-3.185.
150 See ibid., paras. 2.88-2.89.
151 See ibid.., para. 2.94.
152 See ibid., para. 2.108.
153 See R. Khalidi, “The Dahiya Doctrine, Proportionality, and War Crimes,” 44(1) JOURNAL OF
PALESTINE STUDIES (2014), available at https://tinyurl.com/tamptyp8. See also, QWS, para. 2.123.
154 See QWS, para. 2.113.
155 See ibid.., para. 2.132.
36
 Total and repeated destruction of civilian infrastructure, including
hospitals, schools, and places of worship.156
2.58 Now, Israel has openly declared, in retaliation for the 7 October attacks,
that it will go even farther and carry out the most brutal campaign it has ever waged
against Gaza. Israeli officials have promised to “set Gaza back 50 years”157 and
vowed to turn it into “rubble”.158 Israel has even gone as far as to expressly state
that it will impose a “complete siege” under which “there will be no electricity, no
food, no water, no fuel”.159 In the words of Israel’s Energy Minister, “[n]o electrical
switch will be turned on, no water hydrant will be opened and no fuel truck will
enter until the Israeli abductees are returned home”.160
156 See ibid., paras. 2.124-1.125. See also OHCHR, Press Release: UN Fact Finding Mission finds
strong evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during the Gaza conflict;
calls for end to impunity (15 Sept. 2009), available at https://tinyurl.com/ykvpb3ru.
157 “Promising merciless war on Hamas, Netanyahu says Israel will ‘avenge this black day’,” The
Times of Israel (8 Oct. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/eydyj8fm.
158 “Israeli PM vows to turn parts of Gaza into ‘rubble’,” [video] PBS (9 Oct. 2023), available at
https://tinyurl.com/555mc9wc.
159 “Israeli defence minister orders ‘complete siege’ on Gaza,” [video] Al Jazeera (9 Oct. 2023),
available at https://tinyurl.com/27wx2exe.
160 Israel Katz, Tweet (12 Oct. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/2s4jrhvr.
37
Figure 2.3: A Palestinian man wades through the rubble of Gaza City on 10
October 2023161
2.59 This complete siege is leading to disastrous consequences, plunging “the
Gaza strip into darkness”.162 With no access to fuel, essential services such as
access to clean water are being depleted. And as soon as diesel for generators runs
out, hospitals will no longer be able to operate.163 The Regional Director of the
ICRC, Fabrizio Carboni, declared that without electricity, hospitals are “turning
into morgues”.164
161 Motaz Azaiza, Instagram post, “A huge area of Gaza city got demolished by the Israeli air
strikes” (10 Oct. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/52x8pffu.
162 “Israel/OPT: Israel must lift illegal and inhumane blockade on Gaza as power plant runs out of
fuel,” Amnesty International (12 Oct. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/57u2hed5.
163 Physicians for Human Rights–Israel & B’Tselem, Joint Statement: A Humanitarian Disaster in
Gaza must be Averted (13 Oct. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/5hys7n2x.
164 ICRC, Press Release by F. Carboni: Hospitals risk turning into morgues without electricity;
hostages must be released immediately (12 Oct. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/44d8wtvc.
38
2.60 While besieging Gaza, Prime Minister Netanyahu cynically called upon
Palestinian civilians to leave,165 despite knowing full well that they have nowhere
to go. Just hours after such calls, Israel started bombing the Rafah crossing as
people gathered in hope of entering Egypt.166 The Country Director at Save the
Children Palestine underscored the obvious: “People cannot be crossing, fleeing,
when there are active airstrikes.”167 He stressed that, “the population of Gaza really
have nowhere to go, they are literally trapped in Gaza, trying to escape from
airstrikes”.168 The attack also forced Egyptian trucks carrying fuel and
humanitarian goods to turn back, leading to the closure of the only path not
controlled by Israel for the delivery of humanitarian goods to Gaza.169 The OPT
Special Rapporteur denounced the bombing, stating that it “hints to an intention to
really starve and kill the people who are innocent inside the Gaza Strip”.170 The
UN Secretary-General, standing at the Rafah crossing ten days later, stressed that
allowing safe passage of humanitarian relief had become “the difference between
life and death”.171
2.61 Further escalating the crisis, on 13 October 2023, Israel ordered 1.1 million
Palestinian civilians living in northern Gaza to leave their homes and evacuate to
the southern part of Gaza within 24 hours. The UN condemned this ultimatum,
165 Benjamin Netanyahu, Tweet (7 Oct. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/2rbhz6hv.
166 “Israel bombs Gaza’s border crossing with Egypt,” [video] Al Jazeera (11 Oct. 2023), available
at https://tinyurl.com/yb65mexm.
167 Ibid.
168 Ibid.
169 G. Pacchiani, “Egyptian trucks bringing fuel, food to Gaza make U-turn after Rafah crossing
bombed,” The Times of Israel (10 Oct. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/y5mwte6y.
170 “Alarm as Israel again hits Rafah border crossing between Gaza and Egypt,” Al Jazeera (10 Oct.
2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/yhu97w26.
171 “Gaza: UN chief at Rafah crossing says aid convoy ‘the difference between life and death’,” UN
News (20 Oct. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/yjr6mk3s.
39
warning that it would be “extremely dangerous”172 if not “impossible” to
implement and would lead to “devastating humanitarian consequences”.173 The
WHO further called it a “death sentence” for patients at Gaza’s overwhelmed
hospitals.174 The head of the Norwegian Refugee Council declared that Israel’s
ultimatum is not “an evacuation opportunity” but a “forcible transfer of
populations” amounting to a “war crime”.175
2.62 Shortly after ordering all civilians to evacuate northern Gaza, Israel
bombed—in broad daylight—a convoy of civilian vehicles trying to do just that
and travelling south on one of Gaza’s “safe” roads.176 At least 70 Palestinians were
killed, among them numerous women and children.177 This was no isolated
incident, with “Israeli airstrikes pound[ing] locations across the Gaza Strip …
including parts of the south that Israel had declared as safe zones”.178
172 UN Spokesperson, Tweet (13 Oct. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/4zj7jtac.
173 UN Secretary-General, Statement by Spokesman S. Dujarric: Note to correspondents on Gaza
(12 Oct. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/y77y7snw.
174 “Moving severely ill people in Gaza amounts to ‘death sentence’, WHO says,” Reuters (13 Oct.
2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/3r6tdruh.
175 “Israel's ‘order to relocate’ is a ‘war crime’, says head of Norwegian Refugee Council,” [video]
Sky News (13 Oct. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/53hjkfs. See also Norwegian Refugee
Council et al., Joint Statement: Urgent plea to avert unprecedented humanitarian crisis amid
looming Israeli land incursion into Gaza (13 Oct. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/53s42rrd
(joint statement from the Norwegian Refugee Council and other international aid agencies
expressing alarm over Israel’s call for over one million Palestinians to leave northern Gaza in less
than 24 hours, and demanding that Israel rescind this order immediately).
176 P. Andriga et al., “Did Israel bomb a civilian evacuation route in Gaza?,” Financial Times (15
Oct. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/8h5nc9dh.
177 P. Brown & J. Herd, “Strike on civilian convoy fleeing Gaza: What we know from verified
video,” BBC (14 Oct. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/23yjccz8.
178 “As Israel’s bombing hits declared ‘safe zones’, Palestinians trapped in Gaza find danger
everywhere”, PBS (19 Oct. 2023), available at: https://tinyurl.com/4uhmua49.
40
Figure 2.4: “Nada Jarad’s son looks terrified at his mother as she enters the
emergency department in Al Aqsa Hospital after being injured by an Israeli air
strike.”179
2.63 As of 21 October 2023, Israel’s brutal assault on Gaza has already:
 Killed at least 4,385 Palestinians,180 mostly civilians, including 1,756
children181 (while hundreds more are still missing);
 Injured at least 13,162 Palestinians, mostly civilians;182
179 Motaz Azaiza, Instagram post, “Nada Jarad’s son looks terrified at his mother as she enters the
emergency department in Al Aqsa Hospital after being injured by an Israeli air strike” (16 Oct.
2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/mr2hrhfa.
180 OCHA, “Hostilities in the Gaza Strip and Israel | Flash Update #15” (21 Oct. 2023), available
at https://tinyurl.com/nhz625k4.
181 Defense for Children, Tweet (21 Oct. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/5n6wwzce.
182 UNRWA, “Situation Report #10 On The Gaza Strip And The West Bank (Including East
Jerusalem)” (21 Oct. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/4nrbvcey.
41
 Displaced approximately 1.4 million people across Gaza;183
 Destroyed more than 15,100 homes and rendered over 10,600
uninhabitable;184 and
 Attacked or damaged 205 schools and 29 medical facilities.185
2.64 As of the same date, Israel’s own casualties amount to 1,400, with 4,932
injured.186
2.65 The recent escalations have not only impacted Gaza. In the West Bank,
Israel has imposed an unprecedented lockdown on the entire civilian territory,
closing its vast network of checkpoints and thereby completely cutting off cities,
towns and villages from each other.187 Residents in the West Bank to live in fear
of a further increase of settler violence and a “new wave of killing” given the
complete lockdown of the area.188 Israel has even distributed weapons to settlers,
who have already been filmed shooting unarmed Palestinians at point blank
range.189 Between 7 and 21 October 2023, 84 Palestinians have been killed in the
183 OCHA, “Hostilities in the Gaza Strip and Israel | Flash Update #15” (21 Oct. 2023), available
at https://tinyurl.com/nhz625k4. See also UNRWA, “Situation Report #9 On The Gaza Strip And
The West Bank (Including East Jerusalem)” (20 Oct. 2023), available at
https://tinyurl.com/bdebzfny.
184 Ibid.
185 Ibid.
186 Ibid.
187 F. Shalash, “Israel-Palestine war: Violence flares in Jerusalem and the West Bank as funerals
become targets,” Middle East Eye (11 Oct. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/3u3mupfb.
188 A. Butler & M. Butt, “Palestinians fear ‘new wave of killing’ in the West Bank as Israel puts it
on lockdown,” Independent (13 Oct. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/5ee6vxdr.
189 Itamar Ben-Gvir, Tweet (10 Oct. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/yk3djvyy; B’Tselem,
Tweet (15 Oct. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/nhheevz2 (“Settlers, with the full backing of
soldiers and sometimes with their participation, have been attacking Palestinians throughout the
West Bank, as well as invading villages and initiating clashes, that often end with Palestinian
fatalities.”); B’Tselem, Tweet (13 Oct. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8ec327.
42
West Bank, including 27 children,190 even though none of the attacks on Israel
originated from the West Bank.
2.66 While Israel continues to commit more breaches of international law of the
same kind detailed in Qatar’s Written Statement,191 this latest offensive also entails
new breaches of international law of a character and gravity seldom seen before,
including:
 Declaring a siege and the complete ban of objects essential for life
entering the territory, including food, medical supplies, fuel, electricity,
and water. As multiple UN mandate holders and human rights
organizations have noted, these cruel and inhumane actions constitute
“intentional starvation”,192 which is a war crime.193
 Forcibly transferring half of Gaza’s civilian population. In a rare public
rebuke, the ICRC explicitly confirmed its assessment that “[t]he
instructions issued by the Israeli authorities for the population of Gaza City
to immediately leave their homes … are not compatible with international
humanitarian law”.194 If carried out, they also amount to the crime against
humanity of forcible transfer of a civilian population.195
190 OCHA, “Hostilities in the Gaza Strip and Israel | Flash Update #15” (21 Oct. 2023), available
at https://tinyurl.com/nhz625k4.
191 See QWS, Chapter 3, § III(B).
192 OHCHR, Press Release: Israel/occupied Palestinian territory: UN experts deplore attacks on
civilians, call for truce and urge international community to address root causes of violence (12
Oct. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/24mdmzpd.
193 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (17 July 1998), 2187 U.N.T.S. 90 (hereinafter,
“Rome Statute”), art. 8(2)(b)(xxv).
194 ICRC, News Release: Israel and the Occupied Territories: Evacuation order of Gaza triggers
catastrophic humanitarian consequences (13 Oct. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/j37wukf5.
195 Rome Statute, art. 7(1)(d).
43
 Bombing hospitals, schools and religious sites. Israel has illegally
targeted multiple hospitals,196 UNRWA schools,197 and several churches
and mosques,198 which enjoy protected status under international law.199
This includes the bombing on 20 October 2023 of St. Porphyrius Greek
Orthodox Church—one of the oldest in the world—killing at least 18
people.200
 The use of white phosphorus indiscriminately in civilian areas. For the
first time since 2009,201 Human Rights Watch has confirmed that Israel has
employed “[w]hite phosphorous [which] is unlawfully indiscriminate when
airburst in populated urban areas, where it can burn down houses and cause
egregious harm to civilians”.202
 Declaring that no quarter will be given. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu declared that “every member of Hamas is a dead man”,203 while
Israel’s Minister of Energy promised that “[t]hey will not receive a drop of
water or a single battery until they leave the world.”204 Orders or threats to
196 See, e.g., J. Johnson, “‘There Is No Safe Haven’: Israeli Bombing Rampage Hits Gaza Refugee
Camp, Homes, and More,” Common Dreams (9 Oct. 2023), available at
https://tinyurl.com/yke9brr3; UN Secretary-General, Statement attributable to the Spokesperson for
the Secretary-General: on the situation in Gaza (17 Oct. 2023), available at
https://tinyurl.com/272njhxh. See also A. Thomson, “Who was behind the Gaza hospital blast –
visual investigation,” Channel 4 (18 Oct. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/2ab34tjk.
197 See, e.g., “At least 6 people killed in Israeli air strike on UNRWA school in Gaza,” Reuters (17
Oct. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/5n8v8rtb; UN Secretary-General, Statement
attributable to the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General: on the situation in Gaza (17 Oct. 2023),
available at https://tinyurl.com/272njhxh.
198 OCHA, “Hostilities in the Gaza Strip and Israel | Flash Update #12” (18 Oct. 2023), available
at https://tinyurl.com/47y7xnpp.
199 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, art. 12. See also ICRC, J. Henckaerts & L.
Doswald-Beck (eds.), CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW – VOLUME I: RULES
(2005), available at https://tinyurl.com/ytwenx9d, pp. 91-97, 595.
200 Y. Gostoli & A. Abu Riash, “‘We were baptised here and we will die here’: Gaza’s oldest church
bombed,” Al Jazeera (20 Oct. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/45kvv6u7.
201 “Israel used white phosphorus in Gaza civilian areas,” Amnesty International (19 Jan. 2009),
available at https://tinyurl.com/bdd8femf.
202 “Israel: White Phosphorus Used In Gaza, Lebanon,” Human Rights Watch (12 Oct. 2023),
available at https://tinyurl.com/acrr94xm.
203 K. Armstrong & Y. Knell, “Every Hamas member is a dead man, Netanyahu says,” BBC (12
Oct. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/2k8anxep.
204 Israel Katz, Tweet (13 Oct. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/mryy67pa.
44
the adversary that no quarter will be given are prohibited and amount to a
war crime, whether or not the order is carried out.205
2.67 These crimes are accompanied by Israeli officials’ racist incitement against
Palestinians, which has been condemned by various mandate holders as
“appalling” and “dehumanis[ing]”.206 For example:
 Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant referred to the entire civilian
population of Gaza as “human animals”.207
 Ariel Kallner, a member of the Israeli Knesset, called for a new Nakba (the
Arabic term meaning catastrophe, used to describe the ethnic cleansing
perpetrated against the Palestinians in 1948): “Right now, one goal: Nakba!
A Nakba that will overshadow the Nakba of 48.”208
 Ezra Yachin, a 95-year-old veteran of the Israeli Army, recently deployed
by the Israeli military to “motivate” IDF troops, stated on video: “Erase
them, their families, mothers and children. These animals can no longer
live. … Every Jew with a weapon should go out and kill them. If you have
an Arab neighbour, don’t wait until he comes into your house. Enter his
house and shoot.”209
2.68 On 16 October 2023, the Prime Minister of Israel issued the tweet shown
below, which speaks for itself.
205 Rome Statute, art. 8(2)(e)(x). See also ICRC, J. Henckaerts & L. Doswald-Beck (eds.),
CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW – VOLUME I: RULES (CUP, 2005), p. 161,
available at https://tinyurl.com/ytwenx9d.
206 OHCHR, Press Release: Israel/occupied Palestinian territory: UN experts deplore attacks on
civilians, call for truce and urge international community to address root causes of violence (12
Oct. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/24mdmzpd.
207 D. Gritten, “Israel’s military says it fully controls communities on Gaza border,” BBC (9 Oct.
2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/mry7vr9x.
208 J. Krauss, “In Israel’s call for mass evacuation, Palestinians hear echoes of their original
catastrophic exodus,” Associated Press (14 Oct. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/bdepcr6h.
209 “‘These animals can no longer live’ says Israel’s oldest reservist,” [video] Al Jazeera (14 Oct.
2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/yu5yuwp5.
45
Figure 2.5: X Post by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu210
2.69 According to the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem, this policy of
revenge “is not new, but has been implemented towards Gaza for many years”,
noting that the “death, destruction, pain and horror it has wrought have led to
nothing but more horror”.211
***
2.70 It is this continuous escalation of violence, combined with the prolonged
absence of a genuine peace process, that makes it even more critical that the Court
render the advisory opinion that the General Assembly has requested of it. The socalled
peace process has reached an impasse and the prospect of a resumption of
negotiations is bleak. Since the start of the occupation in 1967, Israel has done little
other than obstruct, delay and undermine all viable avenues for a negotiated
settlement. In the meantime, capitalizing on the asymmetry of power, and in pursuit
of its settler-colonial mission, Israel continues to act unilaterally and to establish
its desired “fait accompli”212 in the OPT.
210 Benjamin Netanyahu, Tweet (16 Oct. 2023) (since deleted).
211 B’Tselem, Press Release: Revenge policy in motion; Israel committing war crimes in Gaza (10
Oct. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/yrbmxf65.
212 Wall Advisory Opinion, para. 121.
46
2.71 As the former OPT Special Rapporteur, Michael Lynk, explained, and as
Qatar previously noted in its Written Statement,213 this settler-colonial project is
the root cause of the spiralling cycle of violence we are witnessing today:
[I]t is impossible for an acquisitive occupying power
to settle hundreds of thousands of its citizens into
occupied territory, create for them attractive living
conditions equivalent to the home territory, and
expropriate and alienate huge swaths of land and
resources for their benefit and security, without also
immiserating the indigenous people and triggering
their perpetual rebellion.214
2.72 Rather than impeding the achievement of peace in the region, Qatar is of
the view that the Court’s opinion will serve as an impetus to revive the political
process necessary to achieve the end of the occupation, the end of the current cycle
of violence, and an enduring peace.215 In this sense, an advisory opinion concerning
the legal status of the occupation can only “present an additional element in the
213 QWS, para. 2.3.
214 Human Rights Council, Report of Special Rapporteur S. M. Lynk on the situation of human rights
in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, UN Doc. A/HRC/49/87 (12 Aug. 2022), paras.
35-36.
215 Written Statement of Ireland, para. 10 (“Finally, as to the argument that an advisory opinion
would impede a negotiated, political solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: in Ireland’s view it
is the prolonged absence of any prospect of such a solution for many years that makes the provision
of an advisory opinion at this moment all the more necessary. The Court’s authoritative clarification
of the important legal issues raised in the present request for an advisory opinion would, in Ireland’s
view, help to provide an essential basis for a just, lasting and comprehensive peace between Israel
and Palestine.”); Written Remarks of the Kingdom of Morocco, p. 4 (“the Kingdom of Morocco
expresses the hope that the Advisory Opinion that the Court will be willing to give will promote a
constructive peace dynamic, with a view to an applicable, equitable and lasting solution”); Written
Statement of the Government of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, para. 6 (« Il espère que l’avis
consultatif de la Cour pourra guider l’action de l’Assemblée générale et renforcer ainsi le rôle des
Nations Unies dans le processus de paix au Moyen-Orient. »); Written Statement of the African
Union, para. 215 (“Beyond clarifying what the law provides for all States and the UN, the Court’s
direction in this respect cannot but assist the peace process, by jolting all international stakeholders
into action, now with a clearer roadmap of their duties and obligations.”); Written Statement of the
Republic of The Gambia, para. 1.4 (“A clear decision from the Court regarding the illegality of the
occupation will help galvanize international action to protect the rights of the Palestinian people.”).
47
negotiations on the matter”,216 and provide Palestine, Israel and the international
community with an adequate legal framework to find a lasting solution. From the
former Yugoslavia217 to Ireland218 and Colombia,219 recent experience
demonstrates that international courts and tribunals often play key roles in
establishing the conditions for a true and lasting peace, a peace that must be built
on justice. Qatar is confident that the advisory opinion the Court will issue in these
proceedings will serve that same goal.
2.73 Beyond facilitating a negotiated solution, the Court’s advisory opinion will
enable the General Assembly and other United Nations organs to exercise their
216 Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion, para. 17.
217 The Dayton Accords were concluded after the establishment of the ICTY by the UN Security
Council, and expressly refer to the tribunal as an “entit[y] involved in implementation of this peace
settlement”. See General Framework for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, UN Doc. A/50/79C
and S/1995/999 (30 Nov. 1995), p. 23, art. X, available at https://tinyurl.com/39f9bvzb.
218 The 1998 Good Friday Agreement features the full implementation of the European Convention
on Human Rights and access to the European Court of Human Rights are “safeguards” of the
negotiated peace. See The Northern Ireland Peace Agreement (10 Apr. 1998), available at
https://tinyurl.com/ma7jffnz; Ireland, “About the Good Friday Agreement” (last accessed: 10 Oct.
2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/5n65zrnz. See also A. O’Donogue & B. Warwick, Human
Rights Reform and Northern Ireland, Durham University Law School Briefing no. 24 (2015),
available at https://tinyurl.com/525x9xb8 (“The Good Friday Agreement (a key part of the
Northern Irish peace process) enshrined a fundamental role for the ECHR in moderating the values
of plurality and equality in the ‘new’ Northern Ireland.”).
219 Colombia’s 2016 Final Peace Agreement was catalysed by the constructive role played by the
International Criminal Court and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and led to the
establishment of the Jurisdicción Especial para la Paz. See The University of Edinburgh, Peace
Agreements Database, “Final Agreement to End the Armed Conflict and Build a Stable and Lasting
Peace” (24 Nov. 2016), available at https://tinyurl.com/bd9eh9pw. See also C. Hillebrecht et al.,
“The Judicialization of Peace” 59(2) Harvard International Law Journal 279 (6 Aug. 2018),
University of Wisconsin Legal Studies Research Paper No. 1449, available at
https://tinyurl.com/38kpe4ja, Abstract (“Throughout four years of peace talks, many predicted that
the International Criminal Court and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights would impede
peace by demanding prosecution of war criminals. Instead, the 2016 Colombian peace accord opens
the way to a far less punitive peace than many of those familiar with the courts and underlying
treaties would have deemed possible. The effect of the engagement of the international courts in
Colombia has not been to impose rigid conditions from afar, but rather to allow domestic players to
reinterpret the content of Colombia’s international legal obligations: the terms of Colombia’s peace
were produced through—not despite—the international courts’ ongoing deliberative engagement
with the peace process.”).
48
functions to oversee the restoration of peace in the region. The absence of a
permanent and just solution to the question of Palestine represents an ongoing
threat to international peace and security. Recent events only make that reality more
painfully clear. Indeed, history teaches that colonial and apartheid regimes always
come to an end in one of two ways: through bloodshed or through justice. By
providing its advisory opinion, the Court will put its weight firmly behind the latter.
49
CHAPTER 3
ISRAEL’S PROLONGED OCCUPATION OF THE OPT IS ILLEGAL
3.1 In the first part of question (b) of the Request, the General Assembly asked
the Court to determine “[h]ow … the policies and practices of Israel [in the conduct
of the occupation of the OPT] … affect the legal status of the occupation …”.220 In
answering this question, the General Assembly asked the Court to apply “the rules
and principles of international law, including the Charter of the United Nations,
international humanitarian law, international human rights law, relevant resolutions
of the Security Council, the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council, and
the advisory opinion of the Court of 9 July 2004”.221
3.2 Qatar explained in its Written Statement that this question “ask[s] the Court
to make a simple but historic assessment: in light of the myriad illegalities revealed
by question (a), has the occupation itself become illegal?”222
3.3 The State of Palestine takes the view that the answer is plainly “yes”. In its
written statement, the Palestine explained that:
Because Israel’s prolonged 56-year occupation of
the OPT is structurally and existentially reliant upon
and inseparable from its egregious violations of
peremptory norms of general international law,
derogation from which is not permitted, the
occupation itself must be regarded as illegal, with all
relevant legal consequences that attach under the law
of international responsibility.223
220 Request, para. 18(b).
221 Ibid., para. 18.
222 QWS, para. 1.8.
223 Written Statement of the State of Palestine, para. 6.19.
50
3.4 Qatar agrees. As it demonstrated in Chapter 4 of its own Written Statement,
Israel’s occupation of the OPT is illegal because it indefinitely violates two
different jus cogens norms: the requirement to respect the right to selfdetermination
of the Palestinian people and the prohibition on apartheid.
3.5 In addition to Palestine and Qatar, 27 other States, as well as all three
international organizations that submitted written statements expressly conclude
that the occupation is illegal.224 In addition to the two reasons that Qatar has
identified, other written statements demonstrate that Israel’s occupation is illegal
because it violates the jus cogens prohibition on the use of force enshrined in
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, as well as its corollary, the peremptory prohibition
of the acquisition of territory by the use of force. Still other written statements also
show that the occupation is illegal because it fundamentally violates the law of
occupation insofar as it is permanent and/or is not carried out in good faith or in
the best interests of the Palestinian people.
3.6 Section I of this Chapter summarizes each of the five reasons participating
States and international organizations consider the occupation illegal. Section II
then explains why the dispositif of the Court’s advisory opinion should conclude
that the occupation is illegal for those five reasons.
I. The Reasons Underlying the Illegality of Israel’s Occupation
3.7 Qatar’s Written Statement documented the myriad of ways that Israel
violates discrete rules of international law in carrying out its occupation of the OPT.
This includes the systematic violation of multiple jus cogens norms. It is therefore
unsurprising that 29 States and all three international organizations concluded that
the occupation of the OPT itself is illegal. Five main reasons were given: Israel’s
224 See Appendix 1.
51
occupation violates (i) the jus cogens requirement to respect the right to selfdetermination;
(ii) the jus cogens prohibition on apartheid; (iii) the jus cogens
prohibition on the use of force; (iv) the jus cogens prohibition on the acquisition of
territory by force; and (v) the law of occupation, including because it is permanent
and not carried out in good faith or the best interests of the Palestinian people.
Appendices 2-6 to these Written Comments identify relevant passages of States’
written statements advocating for the illegality of the occupation based on each of
these reasons.
A. ISRAEL’S OCCUPATION VIOLATES THE RIGHT OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE
TO SELF-DETERMINATION
3.8 Qatar’s Written Statement explained that because the obligation to respect
the right to self-determination is a jus cogens norm, an occupation is illegal where
it intrinsically and indefinitely infringes that right.225
3.9 The written statements submitted by 31 other States and all three
international organizations agree that Israel’s prolonged occupation of the OPT
violates the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination in breach of
international law.226 That is also the unanimous conclusion of the various UN
bodies that have considered the issue,227 the most recent of which is the 28
225 QWS, paras. 4.10, 4.48.
226 See Appendix 7.
227 See, e.g., Human Rights Council, Resolution 49/28, Right of the Palestinian people to selfdetermination,
UN Doc. A/HRC/RES/49/28 (11 Apr. 2022), para. 7 (“Calls upon all States to ensure
their obligations of non-recognition, non-aid or assistance with regard to the serious breaches of
peremptory norms of international law by Israel, in particular of the prohibition of the acquisition
of territory by force, in order to ensure the exercise of the right to self-determination, and also calls
upon them to cooperate further to bring, through lawful means, an end to these serious breaches and
a reversal of Israel’s illegal policies and practices”); UNGA, Report of Special Rapporteur F.
Albanese on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, UN
Doc. A/77/356 (21 Sept. 2022), para. 35 (“Altogether, the imposition of settlers, settlements and
settlement infrastructure in the topography and space of the Palestinians has served to prevent the
realization of the Palestinians’ right to self-determination, violating a number of peremptory norms
52
September 2023 report by the UN Independent International Commission of
Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. That
report concluded that “the continuing violation by Israel of the right of the
Palestinian people to self-determination is unlawful under international law”.228
3.10 As Palestine’s written statement aptly put it, the violation of the Palestinian
people’s right to self-determination is an “essential structural feature[]” of Israel’s
occupation of the OPT.229
3.11 Of the 32 States and three international organizations that concluded that
the occupation violates the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination, 18
States (including Qatar) and all three international organizations derive the further
legal consequence that such a violation renders the occupation illegal as a whole.230
The following statements are illustrative:
 The Gambia: “As a peremptory norm of international law, no derogation is
permitted from respecting the right of the Palestinian people to selfof
international law, absolutely prohibited under international law.”); Request, para. 6 (Demands
that Israel, the occupying Power, cease all of its settlement activities, the construction of the wall
and any other measures aimed at altering the character, status and demographic composition of the
Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, all of which, inter alia,
gravely and detrimentally impact the human rights of the Palestinian people, including their right
to self-determination, and the prospects for achieving without delay an end to the Israeli occupation
that began in 1967 and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace settlement between the Palestinian
and Israeli sides, and calls for the full respect and implementation of all relevant General Assembly
and Security Council resolutions in this regard, including Security Council resolution 2334 (2016)
of 23 December 2016”).
228 OHCHR, Position Paper of the United Nations Independent International Commission of
Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in Israel (Sept. 2023),
available at https://tinyurl.com/yrvdrnvz, para. 6.
229 Written Statement of the State of Palestine, para. 6.18.
230 See Appendix 2. See also Written Statement of the African Union, para. 91(b) (arguing as an
independent ground of illegality as a whole that “Israel’s prolonged occupation of the Palestinian
territories deprives the State of Palestine of its full sovereignty, further depriving the Palestinian
people of their right to self-determination”).
53
determination. As such, Israel’s occupation is illegal and must
expeditiously be brought to an end.”231
 Guyana: “An occupation which involves, and is inextricably founded upon,
… serious breaches of jus cogens norms [including the right to selfdetermination]
is not – and could not ever be – a lawful occupation.”232
 Pakistan: “A breach of self-determination in its own right provides a standalone
ground for illegality of the occupation.”233
 Mauritius: “Israel’s occupation of the OPT – including through its illegal
annexation of Palestinian territory – is an enduring and comprehensive
‘impediment to the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to selfdetermination’.
Accordingly, Israel is under an obligation to immediately
end its occupation of the OPT”.234
3.12 Though the remaining fourteen written statements that concluded that
Israel’s occupation violates the right to self-determination did not expressly
conclude that this requires a finding that the occupation itself is illegal, none in any
way opposed that conclusion. Nor could they, given the jus cogens character of the
right to self-determination.
B. ISRAEL’S OCCUPATION CONSTITUTES A REGIME OF APARTHEID
3.13 As Qatar demonstrated in its Written Statement, insofar as it is
indistinguishable from an institutionalized system of racial domination and
oppression of the Palestinian people, it amounts to an illegal regime of apartheid.235
3.14 In these proceedings, 18 other States, and the League of Arab States and
the Organization of Islamic Cooperation likewise conclude that Israel is practicing
231 Written Statement of the Republic of The Gambia, para. 1.8.
232 Written Statement by the Cooperative Republic of Guyana, para. 34.
233 Written Statement of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, para. 22(ii).
234 Written Statement of the Republic of Mauritius, para. 22.
235 QWS, Chapter 4, § II(B).
54
apartheid in the OPT.236 Notably, South Africa and Namibia—two countries that
themselves experienced apartheid—are among the States confirming this
conclusion.237 South Africa minced no words: “Israeli discriminatory and inhuman
treatment of Palestinians has reached the threshold of apartheid within the meaning
ascribed to it in the Apartheid Convention.”238
3.15 Qatar also demonstrated that because the occupation constitutes a regime
of apartheid, and because the prohibition of apartheid is a peremptory norm of
international law, the occupation is, as a whole, illegal.239 Qatar was not the only
state to so conclude. At least 13 other States argued that the occupation is illegal as
a whole because it amounts to an illegal regime of apartheid.240 The following
statements reflect the consensus amongst those States:
 Kuwait: “With robust parallels to the illegal mandate rule of apartheid
South Africa over Namibia, Israel’s occupation is in fundamental breach of
its international obligations and the most fundamental rules of international
law and its presence in the occupied territory is illegal.”241
 Bangladesh: “[I]nsofar as Israel’s discriminatory measures rise to the level
of apartheid, as is increasingly apparent, the occupation would be illegal …
by violating, and indeed being contingent upon, the violation of a
peremptory norm of international law”.242
236 See Appendix 8.
237 Written Statement of the Government of the Republic of South Africa, para. 101; Written
Statement of the Republic of Namibia, para. 120. C.f. North Sea Continental Shelf, Judgment, I.C.J.
Reports 1969, p. 3, para. 73 (noting the relevance of the views “of States whose interests [are]
specially affected”).
238 Written Statement of the Government of the Republic of South Africa, para. 111.
239 QWS, para. 4.108.
240 See Appendix 3. In addition, the Republic of Cuba has stated that “the “situation [i.e., the
occupation] … is an act of low-intensity genocide that is being perpetrated with systematic and
effective cruelty”. Written Statement of the Republic of Cuba, p. 15.
241 Written Statement of the State of Kuwait, para. 34.
242 Written Statement of the Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, para. 31(ii).
55
 Djibouti: “Compte tenu de éléments développés ci-dessus, il est permis de
conclure que l’occupation du Territoire palestinien est, comme telle,
illégale au regard du droit international, et ceci dès l’origine, en ce qu’elle
implique des violations de normes impératives de droit internationale, à
savoir une entrave fondamentale a l’exercice par le peuple palestinien de
son droit à l’autodétermination, […] en ce qu’elle conduit à l’établissement
d’un régime de ségrégation voire d’apartheid”.243
3.16 A finding of apartheid requires the existence of “an institutionalized regime
of systematic racial oppression and discrimination”.244 The eight written statements
that agreed that Israel has instituted an apartheid regime in the OPT but did not
explicitly conclude that the occupation is illegal as a whole for that reason
nevertheless buttress the conclusion that Qatar and at least 13 other States have
drawn. As Jordan succinctly stated: “The occupation has become an instrument to
suppress the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, becoming
indistinguishable from unlawful regimes such as colonial domination or
apartheid.”245
C. ISRAEL’S OCCUPATION VIOLATES THE JUS COGENS PROHIBITION ON THE
USE OF FORCE
3.17 Twelve States and two international organizations (that collectively
represent 57 UN member States) take the view that Israel’s occupation is also
illegal because it violates the jus cogens prohibition on the use of force established
under the jus ad bellum.246 Qatar agrees.
243 Written Statement of the Republic of Djibouti, para. 31.
244 QWS, para. 4.70.
245 Written Statement of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, para. 5.13.
246 See Appendix 4.
56
3.18 The prohibition on the threat or use of force is, of course, a jus cogens
norm247 that is also enshrined in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter.248 Self-defence is
the only exception to the prohibition;249 any exercise of the inherent right to selfdefence
must also be necessary and proportionate to the threat against which it is
directed.250 Even if a belligerent occupation were to begin with a lawful use of
force, its continuation could only be justified by an ongoing, valid claim of selfdefence.
251 As a use of force,252 an ongoing occupation must remain necessary and
proportionate to the threat posed to the occupying Power.253
3.19 Israel’s surprise attack in June 1967 violated this fundamental prohibition
on the use of force because it was not justified by self-defence.254 Israel was plainly
the aggressor. In any event, even if the attack had been justified—which it was
not—the resulting 56-year (and counting) occupation was not necessary or
proportionate to any threat Israel may once have faced. Maintaining an occupation
for more than half a century, while annexing parts of the occupied territories de
247 ILC, Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties, with commentaries, in YEARBOOK OF THE
INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMISSION 1966 (Vol. II), p. 247, Article 50 Commentary, para. 1.
248 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of
America), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 14 (hereinafter, “Military and Paramilitary
Activities, Judgment on Merits”), paras. 187-188.
249 UN Charter, art. 51; Military and Paramilitary Activities, Judgment on Merits, para. 193.
250 Military and Paramilitary Activities, Judgment on Merits, paras. 176; Armed Activities on the
Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports
2005, p. 168 (hereinafter, “Armed Activities, Judgment on Merits”), para. 147.
251 Wall Advisory Opinion, para. 139.
252 UNGA, Resolution 3314 (XXIX), Definition of Aggression, UN Doc. A/RES/3314(XXIX) (14
Dec. 1974), art. 3(a).
253 See, e.g., Armed Activities, Judgment on Merits, para. 147; UNSC, Resolution 545 (1983), UN
Doc. S/RES/545 (20 Dec. 1983), para. 1 (condemning South Africa’s “continued military
occupation of parts of southern Angola which constitutes a flagrant violation of international law
and of the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Angola”).
254 See Prof. Rashid Khalidi, Settler Colonialism in Palestine (1917-1967) (20 July 2023), pp. 40-
41. QWS, Vol. II, Annex 1.
57
jure and de facto and subjecting the occupied population to a regime of apartheid,
is manifestly unnecessary and disproportionate.
3.20 The following passages from the written statements of other States and
international organizations reflect broad agreement on this point.
 Belize: “Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territory in June 1967
resulted from a use of force against Egypt and Jordan, which were then
occupying the Palestinian territory. … Accordingly, the occupation was
unlawful from its inception and continues to be so. Even if the Court were
not to reach a view on the legality of Israel’s initial use of force, the
occupation is in any event now unlawful: the conditions of necessity and
proportionality would have ceased to have been met a very long time ago.
At the absolute latest, those conditions would have ceased to have been met
once Israel concluded peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan, which
occurred in 1979 and 1994 respectively. Consequently, Israel has for a very
long time been obliged to end its occupation, but it has instead remained in
occupation. Its ongoing occupation, as a whole, is therefore unlawful and
an act of aggression.”255
 The Gambia: “In sum, Israel’s decades-long occupation violates the laws
on the use of force and is therefore illegal. Even if it had once been a lawful
use of force in response to an armed attack—and it was not—it could not
possibly have remained lawful for 56 years. Israel has not been facing an
ongoing armed attack and the prolonged occupation has been neither
necessary nor proportionate. As a result, Israel’s occupation is illegal as a
whole and must end.”256
 Namibia: “Israel’s use of force against Egypt and other Arab States in 1967
was a pre-emptive use of force in the absence of an armed attack, and
therefore an unlawful act of aggression in violation of Article 2(4) and
Article 51 of the UN Charter. Israel’s presence in the Palestinian territory
has been illegal from the outset in 1967 and the consequent occupation is
also illegal.”257
255 Written Statement of Belize, para. 33 (footnotes omitted).
256 Written Statement of the Republic of The Gambia, para. 1.31.
257 Written Statement of the Republic of Namibia, para. 142.
58
 League of Arab States: “In 1967 there was no actual or imminent threat of
armed attack that justified the use of force, including the occupation, in selfdefence.
Israel’s use of force then, which led to the introduction of the
occupation, had no valid basis in international law. In consequence, the
occupation has lacked a valid legal basis, as a form of self-defence, in the
law on the use of force from the outset, and has therefore been an illegal
use of force, an aggression, from the beginning.”258
3.21 In its written statement, Israel notes the national security threat posed by
non-State militant groups operating within the OPT,259 including Gaza.260 The
Court has already ruled, however, that this alleged threat does not trigger Israel’s
right to self-defence. As it stated in the Wall advisory opinion, threats from within
the occupied territory—which includes threats from militant groups that have
arisen in response to Israel’s occupation—cannot support a claim for the exercise
of the right to self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter:
Article 51 of the Charter thus recognizes the
existence of an inherent right of self-defence in the
case of armed attack by one State against another
State. However, Israel does not claim that the attacks
against it are imputable to a foreign State.261
3.22 The Court also clarified in the Wall advisory opinion that while Israel has
the right and duty to respond to acts from such non-State militant groups, it must
do so in compliance with international law:
The fact remains that Israel has to face numerous
indiscriminate and deadly acts of violence against its
civilian population. It has the right, and indeed the
258 Written Submission of the League of Arab States, para. 68.
259 Statement of the State of Israel Pursuant to the Court’s Order of 3 February 2023 Relating to the
Advisory Proceedings Initiated by UN General Assembly Resolution 77/247, pp. 1-2.
260 As discussed in Qatar’s Written Statement, Gaza is still under Israeli occupation given its neartotal
military blockade of the territory, which allows Israel full control over Gaza. QWS, p. 2, note
2.
261 Wall Advisory Opinion, para. 139.
59
duty, to respond in order to protect the life of its
citizens. The measures taken are bound nonetheless
to remain in conformity with applicable international
law.262
3.23 Even if Israel could legitimately invoke Article 51 of the Charter in relation
to threats from non-State groups within the OPT (quod non), Israel’s 56-year-long
occupation, and all of its attendant violations of international law as detailed in
Chapter 2 of Qatar’s Written Statement, are neither necessary nor proportionate to
the alleged threat faced.
3.24 Recent developments in and around Gaza—including the clear violations
of international humanitarian law since 7 October 2023 detailed in Chapter 2,
Section III above, which have been widely condemned by the international
community263—only confirm the unnecessary and disproportionate nature of
Israel’s occupation.
3.25 Lest there be any doubt about this, Israel has made clear that its actions are
not motivated by military necessity but by revenge. In an explicit confirmation that
Israel considers all Palestinians in Gaza legitimate targets, the Israeli President,
Isaac Herzog, stated that “[i]t’s an entire nation out there that is responsible. This
rhetoric about civilians not aware, not involved, it’s absolutely not true.”264 Israeli
262 Ibid., para. 141.
263 See supra Chapter 2, § III.
264 C. McGreal, “The language being used to describe Palestinians is genocidal,” The Guardian (16
Oct. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/yc8pr7ar; A. Speri, “Before they vowed to annihilate
Hamas, Israeli officials considered it an asset,” The Intercept (14 Oct. 2023), available at
https://tinyurl.com/4t5zjbr4. For the original press conference, see CNN-News18, “Israel President
Isaac Herzog Press Conference LIVE | Israel-Hamas Attack News Updates LIVE | N18L,” YouTube
(12 Oct. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/523ea72h.
60
army officials have also stated that they are focused on “damage and not on
accuracy”.265
3.26 Thus, Israel’s own representations regarding this latest escalation in
violence in Gaza conclusively indicate that its use of force is disproportionate and
unjustifiable under a claim of self-defence. This conclusion is supported by other
States266 and UN officials, including Special Rapporteur Albanese, who said:
Again, in the name of self-defence, Israel is seeking
to justify what would amount to ethnic cleansing.
Any continued military operations by Israel have
gone well beyond the limits of international law. The
international community must stop these egregious
violations of international law now, before tragic
history is repeated. Time is of the essence.
Palestinians and Israelis both deserve to live in
peace, equality of rights, dignity and freedom.267
D. ISRAEL’S OCCUPATION VIOLATES THE JUS COGENS PROHIBITION ON
ACQUISITION OF TERRITORY THROUGH THE USE OF FORCE
3.27 The acquisition of territory through the use of force is a corollary to the jus
ad bellum prohibition on the use of force codified in Article 2(4) of the UN
265 J. Johnson, “Israeli Army Official Admits Gaza Bombing Campaign Is Focused on ‘Damage and
Not on Accuracy,” Common Dreams (10 Oct. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/2jke88hf.
266 See, e.g., C. Tan, “China says Israel’s actions in Gaza are ‘beyond self defense’ as U.S. races to
avert wider conflict,” CNBC (15 Oct. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/2hzrx2bv. See also
OIC, Final Communiqué of the extraordinary open-ended meeting of the OIC Executive Committee
at the level of Foreign Ministers on the brutal Israeli military aggression against the Palestinian
people (18 Oct. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/vk2k7e9a (condemning Israel’s offensive as
contravening “all international norms and laws, and of the most basic humanitarian principles and
values”).
267 OHCHR, Press Release: UN expert warns of new instance of mass ethnic cleansing of
Palestinians, calls for immediate ceasefire (14 Oct. 2023), available at
https://tinyurl.com/4p387m2j.
61
Charter.268 As Japan observed in its written statement, this is “the most fundamental
rule of the post-war regime for peace based on the rule of law among nations”269
and it “extends to … acquiring or strengthening control over [another State’s]
territories through coercion”.270 Indeed, annexation is not compatible with the
nature of a lawful occupation, which, as the French Republic puts it, is a
“nécessairement provisoire” situation.271
3.28 In its Written Statement, Qatar demonstrated that Israel annexed East
Jerusalem de jure272 and Area C of the West Bank de facto.273 Thirty-four other
States and all three international organizations observed that Israel has annexed
Palestinian territory in their written statements.274 As Qatar explained in its Written
Statement, the expansion of the illegal settlements of Jewish Israelis in the OPT
has been one of the principal methods by which Israel pursues its goal of
annexation.275 Just in the first half of 2023 alone, Israel has approved 12,855 settler
268 UNGA, Resolution 2625 (XXV), Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning
Friendly Relations and Co-Operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United
Nations, UN Doc. A/RES/2625(XXV) (24 Oct. 1970), Annex, Preamble (a).
269 Written Statement of Japan, para. 9.
270 Ibid., para. 12.
271 Written Statement of the French Republic, para. 50. See also Written Statement of the Swiss
Confederation, para. 44 (“Les règles du droit de l’occupation reposent sur l’idée selon laquelle
l’occupation n’est qu’une situation temporaire.”); Written Statement of the Plurinational State of
Bolivia, p. 13 (“There is no such thing as ‘“permanent occupation … in international law’”).
272 QWS, Chapter 3, § I(A).
273 Ibid., Chapter 3, § I(B).
274 See Appendix 9. See also Written Statement of Spain, para 5.2 (“The EU has consistently rejected
the continued settlement expansion and all measures that may be tantamount to a de iure or de facto
annexation of the Palestinian territories.”); Written Statement of the French Republic, para. 54
(“depuis 2004, Israël a poursuivi et accentué sa politique d’implantation de colonies en territoire
palestinien occupé, en violation de ses obligations au regard du droit international”), para. 57
(“Comme l’avait indiqué la Cour dans le cadre de la construction du mur, une telle situation peut
amener à un ‘fait accompli’ et à un processus d’annexion de facto”).
275 See QWS, Chapter 2, § I.
62
housing units across the West Bank.276 Figure 3.1 below illustrates the expansion
of settlements in OPT.
Figure 3.1: Map of Settlements in the West Bank277
276 “A record number of housing units were promoted in the West Bank in only six months,” Peace
Now (13 July 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/4rdmh2h8 (“In the first half of 2023, the Israeli
government promoted 12,855 housing units in the West Bank, of which 9,805 were for deposit and
3,500 for validation. This is a record number of housing units in the West Bank, also on an annual
scale.”).
277 B’Tselem & Forensic Architecture, “Conquer and Divide” (2018), available at
https://tinyurl.com/mrxju5ht .
63
3.29 Of deep concern, Israel has now also threatened to annex portions of Gaza.
On 18 October 2023, Israel’s Foreign Minister stated that “[a]t the end of this war,
not only will Hamas no longer be in Gaza, but the territory of Gaza will also
decrease”,278 a clear indication that Israel intends to annex parts of Gaza.
3.30 In this regard, Qatar observes that, in 2016, the UN Security Council
condemned “all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition,
character and status of the [OPT] including, inter alia, the construction and
expansion of settlements”, reaffirmed “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of
territory by force”, and called upon all States “to distinguish, in their relevant
dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied
since 1967”. 279 The resolution thus made clear that Israel has no claim or right to
sovereignty over these territories.
3.31 Of the 37 statements recognizing Israel’s annexation, 24 reached the further
legal conclusion that the occupation is illegal as a whole because Israel’s
annexation of the OPT is an integral feature of the occupation.280 The following
statements are illustrative of this position:
278 J. Magid, “Foreign minister: At war’s end, not only will Hamas be gone, but Gaza’s territory
will shrink,” The Times of Israel (18 Oct. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/2p96rf3v.
279 UNSC, Resolution 2334 (2016), The Situation in the Middle East, UN Doc. S/RES/2334 (2016)
(23 Dec. 2016) (Dossier No. 1372). Just a week before this submission, two UNSC resolutions that
would have called for a humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza were vetoed. On 16 October 2023, the
United States, the UK, France, and Japan voted against a Security Council resolution proposed by
Russia. See “Security Council rejects Russian resolution on Gaza,” UN News (16 Oct. 2023),
available at https://tinyurl.com/434thf4b. On 18 October 2023, the United States vetoed a new
United Nations Security Council resolution proposed by Brazil. See Brazil, Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, Press Release: Statement by the Permanent Representative of Brazil to the United Nations
on the Draft Resolution S/2023/773, (18 Oct. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/2dk8xnte. See
also Dag Hammarskjöld Library, “Security Council Data - Vetoes Since 1946 for authoritative UN
veto dataset,” available at https://tinyurl.com/3mskrcfk.
280 See Appendix 5. In addition, though it did not conclude that Israel has indeed annexed any part
of the OPT de jure or de facto, the Kingdom of Spain observed that “[a]ny practice conducive to de
64
 African Union: “Israel’s occupation of those territories qualifies as an
internationally wrongful act of a continuing character” because of, inter
alia, “the prolonged Israeli occupation and the policies and practices
associated with it amount to the de facto and de jure annexation of the
Palestinian territories, which violates the prohibition on the acquisition of
territory by force”.281
 Guyana: “Through its acts in the OPT since 1967, Israel has systematically
violated … the jus cogens prohibition on annexation …. The violation[] of
th[at] peremptory norm[] of international law—which the evidence shows
[is] grave, longstanding and ongoing – [is] not ancillary or accidental or
[an] isolated aspect[] of an otherwise lawful temporary occupation. Rather,
[it is] an integral feature and a permanent consequence of Israel’s
continuing presence in the OPT. … An occupation which involves, and is
inextricably founded upon, such breaches of jus cogens norms is not—and
could not ever be —a lawful occupation.”282
 Egypt: “[A] protracted occupation that is coupled with measures to …
acquire territory in violation of the cardinal principle of the prohibition of
the acquisition of territory by force … is illegal per se …”.283
 Jordan: “[T]he colonization, confinement and fragmentation of the
Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, cannot be
considered to be compatible with the law of occupation. The latter, read
together with the principle of non-acquisition of territory by force, prohibits
the annexation of occupied territory, and the occupying Power must always
act in accordance with this basic tenet. Israel’s policy of settlements and
annexation is a direct and continuing affront to this.”284
3.32 Qatar agrees with and endorses all these statements.
iure or de facto annexation of the Palestinian occupied territories would render such an occupation
illegal.” Written Statement of Spain, para. 8.2.
281 Written Statement of the African Union, para. 91(c).
282 Written Statement by the Cooperative Republic of Guyana, paras. 33-34.
283 Written Statement of the Arab Republic of Egypt, para. 249.
284 Written Statement of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, para. 5.9.
65
E. ISRAEL’S OCCUPATION VIOLATES INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW
3.33 Israel’s occupation of the OPT is not temporary in character. To the
contrary, it has instituted what is now one of the longest-running military
occupations in modern history.285 Israel has also illegally annexed East Jerusalem
and Area C of the West Bank;286 established permanent settlements of Jewish
Israelis there;287 and, instead of abiding by its obligation to administer the OPT in
the best interests of the occupied population,288 it treats the OPT as a colony over
which it is permanently sovereign.289 In January 2023, Member of the Knesset,
Zvika Fogel said that the “occupation of West Bank is permanent and Israel has the
right to annex it”.290 And eight months later, Israel’s Finance Minister Bezalel
Smotrich’s actions, exercising new powers in the OPT,291 swiftly approved
thousands of new settlement homes and legalized previously unauthorized
285 See “Decisive international action needed to end Israeli occupation: UN experts,” UN News (23
Oct. 2019), available at https://tinyurl.com/btftu937.
286 QWS, Chapter 3, § I.
287 Ibid., Chapter 2, § I; Chapter 3, § I(B).
288 UNGA, Report of Special Rapporteur S. M. Lynk on the situation of human rights in the
Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, UN Doc. A/72/556 (23 Oct. 2017), para. 35 (“Th[e]
best interests principle is anchored in the underlying norms of the laws of occupation, specifically
those provisions of the Hague Regulations and the Fourth Geneva Convention that preserve the
rights of the protected people and strictly regulate the actions of the occupying power. … These
protections and prohibitions, together with the application of international human rights law,
underscore the centrality of the best interests principle and the trustee character of the occupying
power’s responsibility.”).
289 See QWS, paras. 2.3-2.5.
290 “Far-right Israeli Lawmaker Reacts to UN Vote: ‘As of Now, Israel's Occupation Is Permanent’,”
Haaretz (1 Jan. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/5n7nzrht.
291 See J. Sharon, “Netanyahu hands Smotrich full authority to expand existing settlements,” The
Times of Israel (18 June 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/yx97djr8.
66
outposts,292 thereby implementing his “victory through settlement” policy.293 Still
further, Israel has subjugated the indigenous Palestinian population by means of an
illegal discriminatory regime of apartheid,294 while denying them their right to selfdetermination.
295 In addition to breaching the jus cogens norms identified in the
preceding sections, Israel’s occupation is marred and defined by systematic,
persistent and egregious violations of international human rights law296 and IHL,297
all in open contempt of resolutions of the UN Security Council and the General
Assembly.298
3.34 All of these acts, detailed in Qatar’s Written Statement, are not the acts of
an occupying Power exercising its authority in a temporary manner, in good faith,
and in the best interests of the occupied population. Nor are Israel’s recent acts in
violation of international law in Gaza, described above.299 Rather, they evince the
wholesale disregard for Israel’s obligations as an occupying Power. Eight written
292 See Y. Kubovich & B. Samuels, “Far-right Israeli Minister Lays Groundwork for Doubling West
Bank Settler Population,” Haaretz (18 Mar. 2018), available at https://tinyurl.com/y4jkarch; I.
Debre, “Israel’s finance minister now governs the West Bank. Critics see steps toward permanent
control,” Associated Press (14 Sept. 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/4ycx4wd2.
293 B. Reiff, “Smotrich wants one million West Bank settlers. That’s not so far-fetched,” +972
Magazine (12 July 2023), available at https://tinyurl.com/4wj3eta8.
294 QWS, Chapter 4, § II.
295 Ibid., Chapter 4, § I.
296 Ibid., Chapter 3, § II.
297 Ibid., Chapter 3, § III.
298 See, e.g., Request, para. 1 (noting the existence of “measures and actions taken by Israel, the
occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, … contrary to
the relevant resolutions of the Security Council”), para. 6 (“call[ing] for the full respect and
implementation of all relevant General Assembly and Security Council resolutions in this regard,
including Security Council resolution 2334 (2016) of 23 December 2016), para. 10 (“reiterat[ing]
its demand for the full implementation of Security Council resolution 1860 (2009)) (emphasis in
original), para. 11 (“demand[ing] that Israel, the occupying Power, comply with its legal obligations
under international law, as mentioned in the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the
International Court of Justice and as demanded in General Assembly resolutions ES-10/15 of 20
July 2004 and ES-10/13 of 21 October 2003) (emphasis in original).
299 See supra Chapter 2, § III.
67
statements take the view that, for this reason alone (as distinguished from the
violations the four jus cogens norms discussed in Sections A through D, supra),
the occupation is illegal.300 The following statements are representative of this
position:
 South Africa: “Recognition that occupation is a temporary situation at the
end of which control of the territory will return to the original sovereign is
the most important principle in international humanitarian law relating to
occupation. …. However, despite this basic principle, Israel has turned the
temporary nature of its occupation in the Palestinian territories into a
permanent situation. The total disdain and disrespect for international
humanitarian law principles by Israel render its occupation in the
Palestinian territories illegal.”301
 Chile: “[T]he occupation of Palestinian territory is illegal” because, inter
alia, “Israel has violated its obligation to act in the best interest of the
population under occupation.”302
 The Maldives: “Israel’s disregard for its duties under international law as
occupying power demonstrates that it has not managed, and is not today
managing, the OPT in the best interests of the Palestine people or in good
faith.”303
 Kuwait: Israel has “breached the spectrum of legal duties and obligations
required of an occupying power when it administers another territory. … It
has consistently acted in bad faith and in conscious defiance of scores of
Security Council resolutions and hundreds of General Assembly
resolutions. … The State of Kuwait submits that the Israeli occupation of
Palestinian territory must be condemned as an ongoing illegal
situation…”.304
300 See Appendix 6.
301 Written Statement of the Government of the Republic of South Africa, para. 70.
302 Written Statement of the Republic of Chile, para. 119.
303 Written Statement of the Republic of Maldives, para. 37.
304 Written Statement of the State of Kuwait, paras. 33-34.
68
3.35 The two most recent OPT Special Rapporteurs have reached similar
conclusions. In his 2017 report, the former OPT Special Rapporteur Michael Lynk
argued that a lawful occupation must satisfy the following four requirements:
(a) the belligerent occupier cannot annex any of the
occupied territory;
(b) the belligerent occupation must be temporary
and cannot be either permanent or indefinite; and
the occupant must seek to end the occupation and
return the territory to the sovereign as soon as
reasonably possible;
(c) during the occupation, the belligerent occupier is
to act in the best interests of the people under
occupation; and
(d) the belligerent occupier must administer the
occupied territory in good faith, including acting
in full compliance with its duties and obligations
under international law and as a member of the
United Nations.305
He then found that Israel’s occupation of the OPT failed to satisfy any of those
requirements.306 In their written statements, Bangladesh, Indonesia and South
Africa expressly adopted this test and relied on it to conclude Israel’s occupation
is illegal as a whole.307
3.36 The current Special Rapporteur, Francesca Albanese, likewise endorsed
this test and similarly determined that “[t]he Israeli occupation is illegal because it
has proven not to be temporary, is deliberately administered against the best
305 UNGA, Report of Special Rapporteur S. M. Lynk on the situation of human rights in the
Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, UN Doc. A/72/556 (23 Oct. 2017), pp. 10-12.
306 Ibid., paras. 45-63.
307 Written Statement of the Government of the Republic of South Africa, paras. 138-140; Written
Statement of the Government of the Republic of Indonesia, para. 51; Written Statement of the
Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, paras. 19-25.
69
interests of the occupied population and has resulted in the annexation of occupied
territory, breaching most obligations imposed on the occupying Power.”308
3.37 Qatar agrees with these conclusions and respectfully submits that the Court
should conclude that Israel’s occupation is illegal as a whole for the additional
reason that it is fundamentally at odds with the lawful purposes of a belligerent
occupation: it is not carried out in good faith or in the best interests of the
Palestinian people, and has become permanent.309
II. The Court Should Adopt Each of the Five Reasons Discussed Above in
Answering the First Part of Question (b)
3.38 Question (a) of Request asks: “What are the legal consequences arising
from the ongoing violation by Israel of the right of the Palestinian people to selfdetermination,
from its prolonged occupation, settlement and annexation of the
Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, 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?”310 In
answering question (a), Qatar submits that the Court should determine that, among
308 UNGA, Report of Special Rapporteur F. Albanese on the situation of human rights in the
Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, UN Doc. A/77/356 (21 Sept. 2022), para. 10(b).
309 Out of an abundance of caution, Qatar emphasizes that a determination the occupation is illegal
as a whole by no means entails the non-application of international humanitarian law. See, e.g.,
Written Statement of the Swiss Confederation, para. 51 (“Le droit de l’occupation et la légalité de
l’occupation sont deux questions distinctes. Le droit de l’occupation s’applique indépendamment
de la question de la légalité de l’occupation. L’occupation est une situation qui est régie par le droit
international humanitaire alors que la légalité de celle-ci est régie par la Charte des Nations Unies.
Le caractère potentiellement illégal d’une occupation ne doit pas remettre en question la séparation
fondamentale entre le Ius ad bellum et le Ius in bello. Le droit de l’occupation continue donc de
s’appliquer dans le Territoire palestinien indépendamment de la question de la légalité de
l’occupation. Dans ce cadre, il serait opportun que la Cour se prononce sur les conséquences du
caractère permanent des mesures prises par Israël dans le Territoire palestinien occupé quant au
statut de l’occupation au regard du droit international général, en particulier de la Charte des
Nations Unies.”).
310 Request, para. 18(a).
70
other things, the policies and practices of Israel in the OPT: (i) violate the jus
cogens right to self-determination of the Palestinian people,311 (ii) establish a
regime of apartheid, a jus cogens violation,312 (iii) violate the jus cogens prohibition
on the use of force,313 (iv) violate the jus cogens prohibition on the acquisition of
territory by force,314 and (v) violate the law of occupation, including because the
occupation is permanent and not carried out in good faith or in the best interests of
the Palestinian people.315
3.39 Once it reaches those conclusions, the first part of question (b) asks the
Court to explain how its conclusions as to question (a) affects the legal status of
the occupation. For the reasons stated in its Written Statement and reiterated above,
Qatar submits that the Court should make clear in the dispositif that Israel’s
occupation is illegal in itself.
3.40 As stated, the first part of question (b) “ask[s] the Court to make a simple
but historic assessment: in light of the myriad illegalities revealed by question (a),
has the occupation itself become illegal?”316 The question is thus “clearly
formulated”, “narrow and specific”.317 It will permit the Court to “give[] a reply
311 QWS, Chapter 4, § I. See also Appendix 7.
312 QWS, Chapter 4, § II. See also Appendix 8.
313 See generally Appendix 4.
314 See generally Appendix 9.
315 See generally Appendix 6.
316 QWS, para. 1.8.
317 See Kosovo Advisory Opinion, para. 51.
71
‘based on law’”.318 There are thus no “exceptional circumstances” for it to be
reformulated in any way.319
3.41 Indeed, in rendering its answer to the first part of question (b), the Court is
not limited to any particular treaty or legal regime. The General Assembly
requested its views on the legal status of the occupation broadly applying “the rules
and principles of international law”, without limitation. There is a consensus
among States and international organizations that Israel’s occupation is illegal as a
whole as a result of the application of diverse rules of international law and multiple
jus cogens norms. To fully and adequately answer the first part of question (b), the
Court must therefore address each of the five reasons presented in the written
statements demonstrating the existential illegality of the occupation. Indeed, this is
the inevitable consequence of applying all of the legal regimes the General
Assembly identified.320
3.42 There is, moreover, no reason for an advisory opinion may not provide
multiple rationes decidendi when they are called for, as they are here. It is true that,
in contentious proceedings, the Court may consider it appropriate to decline to
decide a particular issue if doing so is not necessary to the resolution of the
dispute.321 Indeed, the Court “is free to base its decision on the ground which in its
318 Chagos Advisory Opinion, para. 135 (“Although, in exceptional circumstances, the Court may
reformulate the questions referred to it for an advisory opinion, it only does so to ensure that it gives
a reply based on law’”) (citing Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1975, p. 12, para.
15).
319 Ibid. See also Kosovo Advisory Opinion, para. 51.
320 See Request, para. 18 (identifying as applicable law “the rules and principles of international
law, including the Charter of the United Nations, international humanitarian law, international
human rights law, relevant resolutions of the Security Council, the General Assembly and the
Human Rights Council, and the advisory opinion of the Court of 9 July 2004”).
321 See, e.g., Gabčikovo/Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1997, p.
7, para. 76 (“It is not necessary for the Court to determine whether there is a principle of
international law or a general principle of law of ‘approximate application’ because, even if such a
principle existed, it could by definition only be employed within the limits of the treaty in
question.”); Right of Passage over Indian Territory (Portugal v. India), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J.
72
judgment is more direct and conclusive”.322 The same is not necessarily true in the
context of its advisory jurisdiction. As the Court observed in the Legality of the
Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons advisory opinion: “The purpose of the advisory
function is not to settle—at least directly—disputes between States, but to offer
legal advice to the organs and institutions requesting the opinion.”323 Indeed,
rendering an advisory opinion “represents [the Court’s] participation in the
activities of the Organization”.324
3.43 In the present proceedings, the General Assembly has deemed that
receiving an answer to the first part of question (b) would be “of assistance in
carrying out its functions …”.325 Moreover, the General Assembly has requested
the Court to provide advice regarding the legal status of the occupation in light of
a wide variety of discrete breaches of various areas of international law.
3.44 Against this background, Qatar recalls the Court’s recognition in the Wall
Advisory Opinion that
[t]he responsibility of the United Nations in this
matter also has its origin in the Mandate and the
Partition Resolution concerning Palestine. … This
Reports 1960, p. 6 at p. 43 (“Having arrived at the conclusion that the course of dealings between
the British and Indian authorities on the one hand and the Portuguese on the other established a
practice, well understood between the Parties, by virtue of which Portugal had acquired a right of
passage in respect of private persons, civil officials and goods in general”, the Court determined it
was not necessary “to examine whether general international custom or the general principles of
law recognized by civilized nations may lead to the same result”.).
322 Case of Certain Norwegian Loans (France v. Norway), Judgment. I.C.J. Reports 1957, p. 9 at p.
25.
323 Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion, para. 15.
324 Chagos Advisory Opinion, para. 65 (citing Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria,
Hungary and Romania, First Phase, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1950, p. 65 at p. 71;
Difference Relating to Immunity from Legal Process of a Special Rapporteur of the Commission on
Human Rights, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1999, p. 62, para. 29; Wall Advisory Opinion,
para. 44).
325 See Chagos Advisory Opinion, para. 86.
73
responsibility has been described by the General
Assembly as “a permanent responsibility towards
the question of Palestine until the question is
resolved in all its aspects in a satisfactory manner in
accordance with international legitimacy”. …
Within the institutional framework of the
Organization, this responsibility has been
manifested by the adoption of many Security
Council and General Assembly resolutions, and by
the creation of several subsidiary bodies specifically
established to assist in the realization of the
inalienable rights of the Palestinian people.326
3.45 Qatar submits that a comprehensive answer to the first part 1 of question
(b) would assist the General Assembly’s ongoing efforts to bring about a “just,
lasting and comprehensive peace settlement between the Palestinian and Israeli
sides”.327 This is all the more true in light of the recent outbreak of renewed
hostilities. As Qatar explained in Chapter 2 of these Written Comments, an
advisory opinion that thoroughly and completely resolves the question of the legal
status of the occupation from all possible angles will help to catalyse a political
resolution of the situation.
⁎
3.46 The written statements submitted in these proceedings show that Israel’s
occupation of the OPT is illegal as a whole for five reasons: it violates (i) the jus
cogens requirement to respect the right to self-determination; (ii) the jus cogens
prohibition on apartheid; (iii) the jus cogens prohibition on the use of force; (iv)
the jus cogens prohibition on the acquisition of territory by force; and (v) the law
of occupation, including because it is permanent and is not carried out in good faith
326 Wall Advisory Opinion, para. 49 (citing UNGA, Resolution 57/107, Committee on the Exercise
of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, UN Doc. A/RES/57/107 (3 Dec. 2002) (Dossier
No. 417).
327 Request, para 6.
74
or in the best interests of the Palestinian people. Each is a valid reason that
independently requires the Court to determine that the occupation is illegal. And
each should form part of the Court’s dispositif in its answer to the first part of
question (b).
75
CHAPTER 4
CONCLUSION
4.1 Qatar hereby reiterates and incorporates by reference the conclusions stated
in its Written Statement of 25 July 2023.
4.2 In addition, on the basis of the written comments set forth above, Qatar
respectfully submits the following additional conclusions to the Court:
I. There are no compelling reasons for the Court to decline to exercise its
jurisdiction to give the Advisory Opinion requested by the General
Assembly in its Resolution 77/247 of 30 December 2022.
II. In the dispositif answering the first part of question (b), the Court
should conclude that Israel’s occupation of the Occupied Palestinian
Territory is illegal because it violates (i) the jus cogens requirement to
respect the right to self-determination; (ii) the jus cogens prohibition
on apartheid; (iii) the jus cogens prohibition on the use of force; (iv)
the jus cogens prohibition on the acquisition of territory by force; and
(v) the law of occupation, including because it is permanent and is not
carried out in good faith or in the best interests of the Palestinian
people.

FIGURES
Figure 2.1 An excerpt of a map shown by the Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during
his addresses to the UN General Assembly
in New York City on 22 September 2023
p. 9
Figure 2.2 Graph showing the number of Israeli settlers
in the OPT (excluding East Jerusalem) from
1967-2021
p. 29
Figure 2.3 A Palestinian man wades through the rubble
of Gaza City on 10 October 2023
p. 37
Figure 2.4 “Nada Jarad’s son looks terrified at his
mother as she enters the emergency
department in Al Aqsa Hospital after being
injured by an Israeli air strike.”
p. 40
Figure 2.5 X Post by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu
p. 45
Figure 3.1 Map of Settlements in the West Bank p. 62

APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Written statements concluding that Israel’s occupation is illegal
Appendix 2 Written statements concluding that Israel’s occupation is illegal
because it violates the jus cogens requirement to respect the
right of the Palestinian people to self-determination
Appendix 3 Written statements concluding that Israel’s occupation is illegal
because it violates the jus cogens prohibition on apartheid
Appendix 4 Written statements concluding that Israel’s occupation is illegal
because it violates the jus cogens prohibition on the use of
force enshrined in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter
Appendix 5 Written statements concluding that Israel’s occupation is illegal
because it violates the jus cogens prohibition on the acquisition
of territory by the use of force
Appendix 6 Written statements concluding that Israel’s occupation is illegal
because it violates the laws of occupation
Appendix 7 Written statements concluding that Israel is violating
Palestinians’ right to self-determination
Appendix 8 Written statements concluding that Israel is practicing apartheid
in the Occupied Palestinian Territory
Appendix 9 Written statements concluding that Israel has violated the
prohibition on annexation

Appendix 1 — 1
Appendix 1
Written statements concluding that Israel’s occupation is illegal
African Union
 “[T]he African Union invites the Court to conclude that the prolonged
Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories is, in itself, unlawful” (para.
90).
 “[T]he Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories is an internationally
wrongful act that is distinct from the question of specific Israeli policies
and practices in the occupied territories” (para. 92).
 “The Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories is contrary to
international law” (para. 266(c)).
Bangladesh
 “The Israeli Occupation, now in its 56th year, has crossed the threshold of
illegality.” (para. 3).
 “Bangladesh submits that the Court should conclude that Israel’s
occupation is illegal.” (para. 9).
 “Bangladesh strongly urges the Court to render an advisory opinion on the
questions before the Court, and in doing so, to conclude that Israel’s
occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory is illegal.” (para. 33).
Belize
 “[T]he occupation was unlawful from its inception and continues to be so.
… Its ongoing occupation, as a whole, is … unlawful and an act of
aggression.” (para. 33).
 “Further to Israel’s policies and practices having no legal validity and
giving rise to no rights for Israel … the legal status of Israel’s occupation
of the Palestinian territory is one of illegal presence.” (para. 96).
 “Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territory is, and for a long time has
been, an unlawful use of force and an unlawful occupation.” (para. 98).
Appendix 1 — 2
 “The illegality of Israel’s presence in the Palestinian territory also follows
from the fact that Israel’s occupation is a flagrant violation of the purposes
and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.” (para. 99).
Bolivia
 “The critical issue is the illegality of the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian
territory as a whole, and not just the illegal aspects or features that comprise
it.” (p. 4).
 “There is no such thing as ‘permanent occupation’ or ‘settler occupation’
in international law. As such, Israel's policies and practices more closely
resemble those adopted by colonial powers than those of an occupying
Power.” (p. 13).
Brazil
 “Occupation is inherently temporary. This is the basic distinction between
occupation and annexation. More than 55 years have passed since the 1967
conflict, and thenceforth the occupying Power has adopted policies and
practices such as the construction and expansion of settlements with
permanent infrastructure, the construction of the wall, the demolition of
Palestinian homes, the transfer of populations, the application of
discriminatory legislation, which benefits the settlers, and legal
assimilation. The cumulative effect of these measures would render the
occupation unlawful as a whole, inasmuch as it would be tantamount to the
acquisition of territory by force.” (para. 46).
 “[T]he occupying Power is under an obligation to cease its occupation as a
whole” (Conclusion (f)).
Chile
 “[T]aking into account the policies and practices of Israel in the OPT, the
occupation of Palestinian territory is illegal” (para. 119).
Colombia
 “Colombia has expressed before and reiterates hereby that the occupation
of the Palestinian territory is a violation of international law.” (para. 4.7).
Appendix 1 — 3
Cuba
 “All Israel’s occupation acts on Palestinian territory are internationally
wrongful acts whose reiteration and duration aggravate the responsibility
of the occupying Power before the Palestinian people and the international
community.” (p. 4).
Djibouti
 “Compte tenu de[s] éléments développés ci-dessus, il est permis de
conclure que l’occupation du Territoire palestinien est, comme telle,
illégale au regard du droit international, et ceci dès l’origine, en ce qu’elle
implique des violations de normes impératives de droit international, à
savoir une entrave fondamentale à l’exercice par le peuple palestinien de
son droit à l’autodétermination …” (para. 31).
Egypt
 “The policies and practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territories
aim to ensure permanent presence and control over Palestinian lands and
resources, which are contrary to international law and renders the
occupation illegal” (para. 236(f)).
The Gambia
 “In sum, Israel’s decades-long occupation violates the laws on the use of
force and is therefore illegal. Even if it had once been a lawful use of force
in response to an armed attack—and it was not—it could not possibly have
remained lawful for 56 years. Israel has not been facing an ongoing armed
attack and the prolonged occupation has been neither necessary nor
proportionate. As a result, Israel’s occupation is illegal as a whole and must
end.” (para. 1.31).
Guyana
 “An occupation which involves, and is inextricably founded upon, such
serious breaches of jus cogens norms is not – and could not ever be – a
lawful occupation. Israel’s violation of these peremptory norms of
international law therefore irredeemably vitiates the lawfulness of its
prolonged occupation of the OPT. It follows that Israel’s prolonged
occupation of the OPT is itself unlawful in toto, and therefore Israel’s
obligation to cease its internationally wrongful acts entails an obligation to
Appendix 1 — 4
immediately and fully end that occupation. Nothing short of a complete end
to the occupation would suffice for this purpose.” (para. 34).
 “Israel’s occupation of the OPT is unlawful, and Israel is under an
obligation to immediately and fully cease that occupation.” (para. 38(3)).
Indonesia
 “Israel’s occupation of the OPT remains unlawful under international law.
In this respect, Israel’s continued illegal policies and practices, cannot alter
the legal status of the OPT, including the status of East Jerusalem.” (para.
68(d)).
Ireland
 “[I]t is clear that Israel is acting inconsistently with its legal status as the
occupying power, and in breach of many of its obligations under
international humanitarian and human rights law. Far from temporarily
administering the Occupied Palestinian Territory in accordance with the
law of military occupation, Israel is engaged in escalating unlawful
settlement activity, which amounts to a process of annexation, and is in
serious breach of its obligation to respect the right of the Palestinian people
to self-determination. Ireland regrets to conclude that Israel’s settlement
practices amount to an attempt to transform a temporary, albeit prolonged,
occupation into an exercise in permanently acquiring territory by a gradual
process of annexation.” (para. 44)
Jordan
 “The occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East
Jerusalem, is illegal as such, and Israel is under an obligation to bring the
occupation to an end as rapidly as possible.” (para. 112).
 “[T]he policies and practices of Israel … affect the status of the occupation
of the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including East Jerusalem, in such a
way that it must be regarded as unlawful as a whole.” (para. 5.6).
 “Israel’s occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East
Jerusalem, in addition to involving systematic violations of several rules of
international law, including jus cogens norms, is contrary to basic principles
of the law of occupation and therefore unlawful as a whole. The occupation
has become an instrument to suppress the right of the Palestinian people to
Appendix 1 — 5
self-determination, becoming indistinguishable from unlawful regimes
such as colonial domination or apartheid.” (para. 5.13).
 “The occupation by Israel of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including
East Jerusalem, is unlawful” (p. 110, para. 3(a)).
Kuwait
 “The State of Kuwait … stresses that Israeli occupation of Palestinian and
other Arab territories has been since its onset and to this day unlawful”
(para. 27).
 “Israeli occupation is in fundamental breach of its international obligations
and the most fundamental rules of international law and its presence in the
occupied territory is illegal.” (para. 34).
League of Arab States
 “The illegal nature of Israel’s presence and exercise of authority in the West
Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza, necessarily mean that, [as] a
general matter, everything that Israel has done and is doing there … on
whatever basis … is legally invalid.” (para. 106).
Lebanon
 “L'occupation Israélienne du Territoire Palestinien est illégale tant dans
sa conduite que dans son but. Par conséquent, Israël est dans l'obligation
de mettre un terme immédiat et inconditionnel à cette situation illégale dont
il est internationalement responsable et de fournir reparation.” (para. 59).
 “En somme, l'occupation israélienne du Territoire palestinien est illégale
et doit cesser immédiatement et sans condition.” (para. 63).
Malaysia
 “Malaysia submits that the occupation as a whole is illegal.” (para. 62).
Maldives
 Israel is obliged to cease, as soon as possible … its unlawful occupation of
the OPT” (para. 48).
 “The Report of the IICI to the HRC on 14 September 2022 unequivocally
demonstrated that the continued Israeli occupation of Palestinian land is
Appendix 1 — 6
unlawful under international law. Through its policies and practices in the
OPT, Israel has continuously and persistently breached international
humanitarian law and international human rights law. That includes a
violation of the right to water, an obligation that is owed by Israel to all
Palestinians in the OPT.” (para. 53).
Mauritius
 “[T]here is ample evidence to support the conclusion that Israel’s
occupation of the OPT – including through its illegal annexation of
Palestinian territory – is an enduring and comprehensive ‘impediment to
the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination’.
Accordingly, Israel is under an obligation to immediately end its occupation
of the OPT and ‘It is for all States … to see to it’ that the occupation ‘is
brought to an end’ without delay.” (para. 22).
Namibia
 “The continued presence of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and
Mandate Territory being illegal, Israel is under obligation to withdraw its
administration from occupied Palestine immediately and this put an end to
its occupation of the Territory.” (para. 150(a)).
Oman
 “The 57 year duration of Israeli presence in the Occupied Palestinian
Territories and the persistent policy of settlement renders the Israeli
occupation illegal and in breach of the UN Charter.” (p. 4).
Organisation of Islamic Cooperation
 “Les politiques et pratiques d’Israël dans le Territoire palestinien occupé
ont donné lieu, comme cela a été montré ci-dessus, depuis la naissance de
cet État, à une violation déterminée du droit fondamental du peuple
palestinien à disposer de lui-même, ce qui induit le droit à devenir un État
souverain dans des institutions librement choisies, le droit de garder la
maîtrise de son territoire et de disposer de ses ressources naturelles, le
droit pour les membres de ce peuple de demeurer sur son territoire, celui
d’y revenir pour ceux qui s’étaient exilés et de droit d’y faire sa capitale
dans la ville de son choix. Telle est la violation principale à laquelle s’est
livré Israël méthodiquement depuis un siècle … Ces politiques et pratiques
d’Israël ont pour incidence que l’occupation par Israël du Territoire
Appendix 1 — 7
palestinien est une occupation illégale qui doit cesser immédiatement et
dont toutes les conséquences doivent être réparées.” (para. 405).
Pakistan
 “The breaches of peremptory norms create erga omnes obligation to
cooperate … to put[] an end to Israel’s violations of jus cogens norms of
the right to self-determination and its illegal occupation through force and
acts of aggression.” (para. 114(7)(a)).
Palestine
 “[I]n view of [its] policies and practices, Israel’s occupation of the OPT is
in and of itself unlawful, rendering Israel’s continued presence in the OPT
an internationally wrongful act as it seriously breaches at least three
peremptory norms of general international law, derogation from which is
not permitted. It is impossible to distinguish between Israel’s occupation of
the OPT and its serious breaches of peremptory norms of general
international law therein, which are reciprocal in nature, organically
interrelated and mutually reinforcing.” (para. 6.4).
 “In view of Israel’s continuing, gross and systematic breach of its
obligations in respect of the OPT for over five decades, the occupation itself
is indistinguishable from the breaches of the abovementioned peremptory
norms in the context of that occupation. Indeed, the evidence demonstrates
that these violations are not merely the result of the occupation but are
rather the foundation upon which the occupation rests. They are its essential
structural features, not its incidental byproducts, all of which are rooted in
the singular unlawful goal of maintaining permanent Israeli dominion over
the OPT, pursued by Israel since 1967, and relegating the Palestinians it has
not been able to displace to inferior status in their own land, in perpetuity,
deprived of their inalienable rights, including their right to selfdetermination.”
(para. 6.18).
 “Because Israel’s prolonged 56-year occupation of the OPT is structurally
and existentially reliant upon and inseparable from its egregious violations
of peremptory norms of general international law, derogation from which
is not permitted, the occupation itself must be regarded as illegal, with all
relevant legal consequences that attach under the law of international
responsibility. This means that it must be brought to an ‘immediate,
unconditional and total’ end.” (para. 6.19).
Appendix 1 — 8
 “The conclusion is clear: the first and most indisputable consequence of
Israel’s violations of numerous rules and principles of international law –
including fundamental jus cogens norms – is that Israel must as rapidly as
possible and without further delay put an end to those violations. Most
importantly, this means that Israel must ‘immediately’ and
‘unconditionally’ withdraw from the whole of the OPT.” (para. 7.26).
Qatar
 “[T]he mere existence of the occupation—as distinct from the conduct
thereof—is itself illegal because it violates the right to self-determination
and the prohibition of apartheid, two peremptory norms of international
law. Those egregious violations of two of the most basic precepts of
international law inhere in the very existence of the occupation, rendering
it illegal as a whole or ‘existentially illegal’.” (para. 4.1).
Saudi Arabia
 “The illegality of Israel’s prolonged occupation under such multiple
grounds and the international responsibility it therefore incurs can only be
remedied, and Israel brought into compliance with its international
obligations, by its unconditional withdrawal from the Occupied Palestinian
Territory, including East Jerusalem.” (para. 32).
 “In light of these multiple, continuing and grave violations of international
law committed by Israel in illegally maintaining its prolonged occupation
over the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, over
more than five decades, that occupation is, in its entirety, wrongful under
international law and, with respect, must be declared illegal by the Court.”
(para. 77).
Senegal
 “Reiterant son appel à la fin de l’occupation illegale … ” (p. 5).
South Africa
 “South Africa submits that the cumulative effect of the aforementioned
factors must lead the Court to the conclusion that the occupation itself has
become inherently and fundamentally illegal in terms of international law
as South Africa’s prolonged presence in Namibia was found to be illegal by
the Court.” (para. 140).
Appendix 1 — 9
 “There is a mount of credible reports submitted to the United Nations
proving the illegal status of Israel’s permanent occupation in the Palestinian
territories. Against this background it is submitted that the Court should
find that the prolonged Israeli belligerent occupation of the Occupied
Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, is illegal and an
insurmountable barrier to the achievement of Palestinian selfdetermination.”
(para. 158).
Syria
 “[T]he Israeli occupation itself must be considered, in the first place and
altogether as illegal, and it should not be suffice to just simply describe its
practices and policies.” (para. 31).
Yemen
 “As a consequence of its serious breaches, the Israeli occupying Power is
bound: a. To withdraw immediately and unconditionally from all the
Occupied Palestinian Territory” (para. 42).

Appendix 2 — 1
Appendix 2
Written statements concluding that Israel’s occupation is illegal because it
violates the jus cogens requirement to respect the right of the Palestinian
people to self-determination
African Union
 “[T]he ongoing occupation of the Palestinian territory by Israel prevents the
State of Palestine from fully enjoying and exercising its statehood. The
most recent report from the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human
rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 provides evidence
that a set of Israeli policies, which includes the establishment of settlements
on Palestinian lands, is contributing to a territorial fragmentation that denies
full territorial sovereignty to the State of Palestine, and thus prevents the
Palestinian People’s exercise of its right to self-determination.” (para. 23)
 “Israel’s occupation of [the OPT] qualifies as an internationally wrongful
act of a continuing character on the following grounds:
a. First, the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories violates the
right of the Palestinian people to self-determination;
b. Second, Israel’s prolonged occupation of the Palestinian territories
deprives the State of Palestine of its full sovereignty, further depriving
the Palestinian people of their right to self-determination” (paras. 91(a)-
(b)).
 “It is the view of the African Union that Israel’s belligerent occupation of
the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem, constitutes an
internationally wrongful act of a continuing character that violates the
obligation incumbent upon Israel not to deprive the Palestinian people of
their right to self-determination. In other words, the Israeli occupation per
se, as distinct from policies or practices associated with the occupation,
such as Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, constitutes
a forcible action that continues to deprive the Palestinian people of their
right to self-determination.” (para. 101).
 “In the African Union’s view, Israel’s occupation is per se unlawful on
[these] grounds: (1) Israel’s occupation deprives the Palestinian People of
their right to self-determination; (2) Israel’s prolonged occupation deprives
the
Appendix 2 — 2
State of Palestine of its full sovereignty, thereby further depriving the
Palestinian people of their right to self-determination.” (para. 136).
 “The Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories is contrary to
international law on the following grounds … [because] [t]he Israeli
occupation violates the right of self-determination of the Palestinian
people.” (para. 266(c)).
Bangladesh
 “The Israeli Occupation, now in its 56th year, has crossed the threshold of
illegality. The repression, dispossession and control of Palestinians
continues apace, rapidly eroding any realistic prospect of a viable State for
a self-determining Palestinian people along pre-1967 borders.” (para. 3).
 “Israel’s settler colonial project … violates the right to self-determination
(i.e., a relevant peremptory norm on Albanese’s approach). Thus … the
occupation is illegal.” (para. 31).
Belize
 “The policies and practices of Israel as a whole violate the right of the
Palestinian people to self-determination in three key ways. First, Israel
denies the existence of the Palestinian people and their right to selfdetermination.
Second, Israel denies the Palestinian people their right to
territorial integrity. Third, Israel is using forcible action to deprive the
Palestinian people of their right to self-determination, freedom and
independence.” (para. 19).
 “The illegality of Israel’s presence in the Palestinian territory also follows
from the fact that Israel’s occupation is a flagrant violation of the purposes
and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. As explained … for a
long period of time: (a) Israel has been violating its obligation to respect
the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, respect for which
is reflected in the purposes of the United Nations set out in the Charter.”
(para. 99(a)).
Bolivia
 “The critical issue is the illegality of the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian
territory as a whole, and not just the illegal aspects or features that
comprise it…. The settlements and their associated regime, involving the
transfer of Israeli citizens to the settlements while forcibly displacing
Appendix 2 — 3
Palestinian families and communities, implementing a policy of
population engineering of the occupied territory, and violating and
denying the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination, including
subjugating Palestinian people through a system of foreign military
rule and Apartheid designed to persecute and discriminate against them
constitute a violation of international law” (p. 4).
 “Israel is obligated to fulfill its obligation to respect the Palestinian people's
right to self-determination. Israel must immediately put an end to the
violation of its international obligation to respect the right of the Palestinian
people to self-determination, ceasing all acts and measures that impede
and/or impede the exercise of the right to self-determination by the
Palestinian people, including immediately ending the occupation in all its
manifestations.” (p. 3).
Djibouti
 “Compte tenu de l’ensemble de ces éléments, il s’avère que l’occupation et
la colonisation du Territoire palestinien par Israël, et les mesures qui
l’accompagnent, constituent une violation flagrante du droit à
l’autodétermination du peuple palestinien et de la Charte des Nations
Unies, notamment son article 1(2).” (para. 10).
 “Compte tenu de éléments développés ci-dessus, il est permis de conclure
que l’occupation du Territoire palestinien est, comme telle, illégale au
regard du droit international, et ceci dès l’origine, en ce qu’elle implique
des violations de normes impératives de droit international, à savoir une
entrave fondamentale à l’exercice par le peuple palestinien de son droit à
l’autodétermination …” (para. 31).
Egypt
 “Israel is bound to comply with its obligation to respect the right of the
Palestinian people to self-determination, and to put an immediate end to the
violation of this obligation, including through bringing an immediate end
to the occupation.” (para. 237).
 “Egypt submits that Israel’s occupation is illegal under international
humanitarian law. Otherwise, Israel’s indefinite occupation would be
tantamount to a nullification of the right of the Palestinian people to selfdetermination.”
(para. 270).
Appendix 2 — 4
The Gambia
 “Israel’s occupation violates the right of the Palestinian people to selfdetermination
and is therefore illegal. … The obligation to respect the right
to self-determination … extends to the entirety of the OPT” (para. 1.5).
 “There is no end in sight to Israel’s occupation. Its prolonged character
indefinitely infringes on the right to self-determination of the Palestinian
people.” (para. 1.7).
 “As a peremptory norm of international law, no derogation is permitted
from respecting the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. As
such, Israel’s occupation is illegal and must expeditiously be brought to an
end.” (para. 1.8)
Guyana
 “Israel’s violation of the right of the Palestinian people to selfdetermination
is an inevitable consequence of its decades-long occupation
and annexation of Palestinian territory.” (para. 31).
 “[A]n occupation which is conducted in such a way as to deny the right to
self-determination of the people of the occupied territory (including by
annexing the territory of those people) is, inevitably and self-evidently, not
an occupation which is being carried out in accordance with the laws of
occupation” (para. 32).
 “Through it acts in the OPT since 1967, Israel has systematically violated
… the jus cogens right to self-determination of the Palestinian people. The
violation[] of [this] peremptory norm[] of international law – which the
evidence shows [is] grave, longstanding and ongoing – [is not an] ancillary
or accidental or isolated aspects of an otherwise lawful temporary
occupation. Rather, [it is] an integral feature and a permanent consequence
of Israel’s continued presence in the OPT.” (para. 33).
 “Israel has violated the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people.
… Israel’s occupation of the OPT is unlawful, and Israel is under an
obligation to immediately and fully cease that occupation.” (para. 38).
Ireland
 “[S]ettlements are the defining feature of Israel’s presence in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory.” (para. 18)
Appendix 2 — 5
 “Ireland has concluded that Israel’s settlement-related policies and
practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory are wholly inconsistent with
the temporary administration of territory in accordance with the law of
military occupation.” (para. 35)
 “[I]t is clear that Israel is acting inconsistently with its legal status as the
occupying power, and in breach of many of its obligations under
international humanitarian and human rights law. Far from temporarily
administering the Occupied Palestinian Territory in accordance with the
law of military occupation, Israel is engaged in escalating unlawful
settlement activity, which amounts to a process of annexation, and is in
serious breach of its obligation to respect the right of the Palestinian people
to self-determination. Ireland regrets to conclude that Israel’s settlement
practices amount to an attempt to transform a temporary, albeit prolonged,
occupation into an exercise in permanently acquiring territory by a gradual
process of annexation.” (para. 44)
 “In Ireland’s view, there can be no possible legal justification for this.”
(para. 45).
Jordan
 “[T]he policies and practices of Israel … affect the status of the occupation
of the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including East Jerusalem, in such a
way that it must be regarded as unlawful as a whole. Those policies and
practices contravene in the most fundamental way the basic principles of
the modern international law of occupation … The occupying Power has a
solemn duty to respect the right of self-determination of the people of the
territory, as well as other human rights applicable therein.” (para. 5.6).
 “Israel has never formally accepted the right of the Palestinian people to
self-determination, and, in practice, it constantly denies them the exercise
of this right … which constitutes a jus cogens norm …. Israel’s conduct is
thus at odds with one of the basic purposes of the law of occupation, which,
as already indicated, aims precisely at safeguarding the right of peoples to
self-determination throughout the duration of an occupation.” (para. 5.8).
 “In conclusion, Israel’s occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory,
including East Jerusalem, in addition to involving systematic violations of
several rules of international law, including jus cogens norms, is contrary
to the basic principles of the law of occupation and therefore unlawful as a
whole. The occupation has become an instrument to suppress the right of
the Palestinian people to self-determination, becoming indistinguishable
Appendix 2 — 6
from unlawful regimes such as colonial domination or apartheid.” (para.
5.13).
Lebanon
 “[L]e Liban considère qu’Israël viole tous les éléments constitutifs du droit
du peuple palestinien à l’autodétermination : qui sont (1) l’indépendance
politique et économique (2) la souveraineté permanente sur les richesses et
ressources naturelles, (3) l’intégrité territoriale.” (para. 32).
 “Les points précédents montrent qu’Israël continue de violer des normes
impératives du droit international, des normes qui créent des obligations
erga omnes. La Cour avait déjà constaté ce fait dans son avis consultatif en
2004 où elle a déclaré « qu’au rang des obligations internationales violées
par Israël, figurent des obligations erga omnes…. de telles obligations par
leur nature même, concernent tous les États et vu l’importance des droits
en cause tous les États peuvent être considérés comme ayant des intérêts à
ce que ces droits soient protégés.” (para. 53)
 “L'occupation Israélienne du Territoire Palestinien est illégale tant dans
sa conduite que dans son but. Par conséquent, Israël est dans l'obligation
de mettre un terme immédiat et inconditionnel à cette situation illégale dont
il est internationalement responsable et de fournir réparation.” (para. 59)
League of Arab States
 “As to existential legality/illegality, the occupation, simply by virtue of
exercising control over the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and
Gaza, and consequently preventing the Palestinian people from full and
effective self-governance, constitutes a fundamental impediment to the
realization of the right of self-determination of the Palestinian people
enshrined in international law.” (para. 41).
 “The impact of the existence of the occupation as a drastic impediment to
the realisation of the self-determination entitlement of the Palestinian
people renders the occupation existentially illegal as a matter of the law of
self-determination. The aggravating factors linked to the unlawful
purposes, related practices, and objectionable conduct of the occupying
Power—settler-colonialism, apartheid, annexation, prolonged duration, bad
faith, and abusive treatment of the Palestinian people—do have important
legal consequences, including for the existential legality of the occupation.
But none of them needs to be established/invoked in order for the question
of existential legality to be determined. The fundamental denial of
Appendix 2 — 7
Palestinian self-determination created by the existence of the occupation is,
by itself, sufficient as a basis for rendering the existence of the occupation
illegal.” (para. 49).
 “However, the right of the Palestinian people to be free of the occupation
on the basis of the right of self-determination includes, but goes beyond,
impediments to this which are linked to annexation. Ultimately, it is the
occupation as a general regime of control, wherever that exists, and
regardless of the purpose for it, that is at issue.” (para. 58).
Malaysia
 “Malaysia submits that Israel’s occupation as a whole, as well as Israel’s
policies and practices therein, violate the right to self-determination in
international law.” (para. 3).
 “Israel’s practices breach each of the central, substantive elements of the
right to self-determination …” (para. 61).
 “Malaysia submits that the occupation as a whole is illegal. First the
occupation as a whole is constituted by these systemic practices in relation
to territory, the unity and integrity of the people, the exploitation of
resources, and the constraint on development. These practices are, as a
matter of reality, the occupation itself. Second, the occupation as a whole
has prevented and continues to prevent the Palestinian people from freely
determining their political status, as protected by the right to selfdetermination.”
(para. 62).
Mauritius
 “Israel’s occupation of the OPT – including through its illegal annexation
of Palestinian territory – is an enduring and comprehensive ‘impediment to
the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination’.
Accordingly, Israel is under an obligation to immediately end its occupation
of the OPT” (para. 22).
 “Through its illegal occupation of the OPT, Israel has violated, and is
continuing to violate, the right of the Palestinian people to selfdetermination.”
(para. 23(a)).
Appendix 2 — 8
Namibia
 “Israel’s presence in the Palestinian territory has been illegal from the outset
in 1967 and the consequent occupation is also illegal.” (para. 142).
 “Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territory breaches the right to
external self-determination of the Palestinian people, which includes the
exercise of the right of the Palestinian people to an independent State.”
(para. 144).
 “As a continuing act of aggression and a denial of the right of the
Palestinian people to external self-determination, the occupation of the
Palestinian territory is in breach of peremptory norms of international law.
Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is
analogous to South Africa’s continued presence in Namibia at the time of
the Namibia Advisory Opinion. In this respect, the Court determined ‘that
the continued presence of South Africa in Namibia [was] illegal and
contrary to the principles of the Charter’.” (para. 147).
 “The Palestinian people have a continuing inalienable right to exercise
external self-determination, which continues as a sacred trust since the
ending of the Mandate. As a consequence, Israel is bound to cease the
imposition of its illegal occupation of the Palestinian territory and regime
of apartheid against the Palestinian people” (para. 151(f)-(g)).
Organisation of Islamic Cooperation
 “Les politiques et pratiques d’Israël dans le Territoire palestinien occupé
ont donné lieu, comme cela a été montré ci-dessus, depuis la naissance de
cet État, à une violation déterminée du droit fondamental du peuple
palestinien à disposer de lui-même, ce qui induit le droit à devenir un État
souverain dans des institutions librement choisies, le droit de garder la
maîtrise de son territoire et de disposer de ses ressources naturelles, le
droit pour les membres de ce peuple de demeurer sur son territoire, celui
d’y revenir pour ceux qui s’étaient exilés et de droit d’y faire sa capitale
dans la ville de son choix. Telle est la violation principale à laquelle s’est
livré Israël méthodiquement depuis un siècle … Ces politiques et pratiques
d’Israël ont pour incidence que l’occupation par Israël du Territoire
palestinien est une occupation illégale qui doit cesser immédiatement et
dont toutes les conséquences doivent être réparées.” (para. 405).
Appendix 2 — 9
Palestine
 “Israel has, in fact, systematically violated every component of the
Palestinian people’s right to self-determination.” (para. 5.4).
 “[T]he Palestinian people are deliberately excluded from exercising the
right to self-determination anywhere within the territory encompassed by
Mandatory Palestine, including their right to independence of their State on
the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967 …” (para. 5.39).
 “Israel’s occupation of the OPT is in and of itself unlawful … as it seriously
breaches at least three peremptory norms of international law … [including]
the obligation to respect the right of peoples to self-determination” (paras.
6.4-6.5).
Pakistan
 “(i) A prolonged occupation, with its de facto and de jure annexations and
various variations of international humanitarian law, is a breach of the right
to self-determination. (ii) A breach of self-determination in its own right
provides a stand-alone ground for illegality of the occupation. The
establishment of the ‘occupation’ breaches the right to self-determination
and renders the ‘occupation’ illegal.” (para. 22).
Qatar
 “Since the prohibition of apartheid is a jus cogens norm, a finding that the
occupation amounts to a regime of apartheid entails, ipso facto, a finding
that the maintenance of the occupation is a breach of a peremptory norm.”
(para. 4.108).
Saudi Arabia
 “Over the past almost 20 years since the Wall Advisory Opinion was issued,
Israel has ignored the Court’s opinion … by continuing the policies and
practices … which further violate the right of the Palestinian people to selfdetermination
…. These policies and practices of Israel in violation of [this]
jus cogens norm[] have rendered the occupation, viewed in its entirety, as
egregiously illegal.” (para. 38).
 “In light of these multiple, continuing and grave violations of international
law [including the violation of the right of the Palestinian people to selfdetermination]
committed by Israel in illegally maintaining its prolonged
Appendix 2 — 10
occupation over the [OPT], over more than five decades, that occupation is,
in its entirety, wrongful under international law and, with respect, must be
declared illegal by the Court.” (para. 77).
South Africa
 “No legal justification for the continued occupation exists and the
achievement of self-determination will require, as was the case in other
cases of occupation, the withdrawal of the occupying force.” (para. 63).
 “The prolonged occupation has led to the infringement of the fundamental
principle of self-determination of the Palestinian peoples, thereby depriving
the Palestinian peoples their right to decide their own political status, free
of external interference.” (para. 132).
 “South Africa submits that the cumulative effect of the aforementioned
factors [see supra, para. 132] must lead the Court to the conclusion that the
occupation itself has become inherently and fundamentally illegal in terms
of international law, as South Africa’s prolonged presence in Namibia was
found to be illegal by the court.” (para. 140).
 “There is a mount of credible reports submitted to the United Nations
proving the illegal status of Israel’s permanent occupation in the Palestinian
territories. Against this background it is submitted that the Court should
find that the prolonged Israeli belligerent occupation of the Occupied
Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, is illegal and an
insurmountable barrier to the achievement of Palestinian selfdetermination.”
(para. 158).
Appendix 3 — 1
Appendix 3
Written statements concluding that Israel’s occupation is illegal because it
violates the jus cogens prohibition on apartheid
Bangladesh
 “[I]nsofar as Israel’s discriminatory measures rise to the level of apartheid,
as is increasingly apparent, the occupation would be illegal … by violating,
and indeed being contingent upon, the violation of a peremptory norm of
international law.” (para. 31(ii)).
Belize
 “These measures manifestly prevent the Palestinian people from
participating in the political, social, economic and cultural life of Israel and
of the Palestinian territory, and from developing fully. They are not isolated
measures or discrete violations of basic human rights. Their breadth and
consistency, in the Palestinian territory and in Israel itself, demonstrate that
they form part of an institutionalised regime and are a means through which
Israel seeks to control, oppress and dominate Palestinians and to maintain
that domination. Such control, oppression and domination are also
furthered by Israel’s prolonged illegal occupation and annexation of
Palestinian territory, and operate to deny the Palestinian people their
collective right to self-determination.” (para. 69).
 “Israel is accordingly committing apartheid against the Palestinian people
in denial of their right to self-determination.” (para. 71).
 “These reports focus on Israel’s discriminatory laws, policies and practices
which, when viewed in totality, control virtually every aspect of the lives
of Palestinians, systematically violate their rights, and are intended to
maintain the oppression and domination of the Palestinian people for the
benefit of Israeli Jews. These findings rightly concern the Palestinian
people as a whole, and recognise that the treatment of Palestinians in Gaza
— where Israel has barricaded and blockaded two million Palestinians in
what is often referred to as the world’s largest ‘open-air prison’ and as
a ‘Bantustan’ — forms an integral part of this system of separation and
oppression. Israel is accordingly violating the prohibition of apartheid in
relation to the Palestinian people as a whole.” (para. 73).
 “The illegality of Israel’s presence in the Palestinian territory also follows
from the fact that Israel’s occupation is a flagrant violation of the purposes
Appendix 3 — 2
and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. … Israel has illegally
established, maintained and extended its settlement and systemic
discrimination practice.” (para. 99).
Bolivia
 “The critical issue is the illegality of the Israeli occupation of the
Palestinian territory as a whole, and not just the illegal aspects or features
that comprise it. Such persistent occupation with settlements has been
deliberately constructed with the intention of acquiring the territory by
force, through de facto and de jure annexation, including through
colonization, confinement and fragmentation of the Occupied Palestinian
Territories (OPT). The settlements and their associated regime, involving
the transfer of Israeli citizens to the settlements while forcibly displacing
Palestinian families and communities, implementing a policy of
population engineering of the occupied territory, and violating and
denying the Palestinian people's right to self-determination, including
subjugating Palestinian people through a system of foreign military
rule and Apartheid designed to persecute and discriminate against them
constitute a violation of international law.” (p. 4) (emphasis in the original).
Djibouti
 “Le régime d’occupation mis en place par la partie israélienne a pour effet
d’instaurer une discrimination systématique de la population
palestinienne, au profit de la population juive installées dans les colonies
de peuplement, en violation de l’interdiction de la ségrégation raciale et de
l’apartheid.” (para. 5).
 “Compte tenu de éléments développés ci-dessus, il est permis de conclure
que l’occupation du Territoire palestinien est, comme telle, illégale au
regard du droit international, et ceci dès l’origine, en ce qu’elle implique
des violations de normes impératives de droit internationale, à savoir une
entrave fondamentale a l’exercice par le peuple palestinien de son droit à
l’autodétermination, […] en ce qu’elle conduit à l’établissement d’un
régime de ségrégation voire d’apartheid.” (para. 31).
The Gambia
 “Israel’s occupation of the OPT is also illegal because it amounts to a
regime of apartheid.” (para. 1.9).
Appendix 3 — 3
 “As a regime of apartheid, Israel’s occupation of the OPT is illegal and must
urgently be brought to an end.” (para. 1.15).
Jordan
 “Israel’s occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East
Jerusalem, in addition to involving systematic violations of several rules of
international law, including jus cogens norms, is contrary to basic principles
of the law of occupation and therefore unlawful as a whole. The occupation
has become an instrument to suppress the right of the Palestinian people to
self-determination, becoming indistinguishable from unlawful regimes
such as colonial domination or apartheid.” (para. 5.13).
Kuwait
 “The State of Kuwait submits that the Israeli occupation of Palestinian
territory must be condemned as an ongoing illegal situation and, as such, it
must be brought to a complete, immediate and unconditional end. With
robust parallels to the illegal mandate rule of apartheid South Africa over
Namibia, Israel’s occupation is in fundamental breach of its international
obligations and the most fundamental rules of international law and its
presence in the occupied territory is illegal.” (para. 34).
Lebanon
 “La politique ségrégationniste d’Israël a atteint un tel niveau d’injustice
durable vis-à-vis des Palestiniens que plusieurs experts internationaux et
organisations non gouvernementales affirment que cette politique
constitue le crime d’apartheid, un crime qui entraîne la responsabilité
de l’État pour violation d’une norme impérative selon la conclusion de
la Commission du droit international, et implique aussi la responsabilité
pénale des personnes qui le commettent, vu qu’il est considéré l’un des
crimes contre l’humanité énoncés dans le statut de la Cour pénale
internationale.” (para. 49).
 “Les points précédents montrent qu’Israël continue de violer des normes
impératives du droit international, des normes qui créent des obligations
erga omnes. La Cour avait déjà constaté ce fait dans son avis consultatif
en 2004 où elle a déclaré « qu’au rang des obligations internationales
violées par Israël, figurent des obligations erga omnes…. de telles
obligations par leur nature même, concernent tous les États et vu
l’importance des droits en cause tous les États peuvent être considérés
comme ayant des intérêts à ce que ces droits soient protégés.” (para. 53)
Appendix 3 — 4
 “Israël viole gravement le droit international tant qu’il continue
d’appliquer des mesures discriminatoires vis-à-vis des Palestiniens, et tant
qu’il maintient un régime d’apartheid dans les Territoires palestiniens
occupés. Israël doit notamment abroger ou modifier diverses lois qui
instaurent une discrimination contre les Palestiniens, comme par exemple
la loi du retour 5710 et la loi de la propriété des absents.” (para. 57)
 “L'occupation Israélienne du Territoire Palestinien est illégale tant dans sa
conduite que dans son but. Par conséquent, Israël est dans l'obligation de
mettre un terme immédiat et inconditionnel à cette situation illégale dont il
est internationalement responsable et de fournir réparation.” (para. 59)
Namibia
 “Namibia has highlighted that Israel’s occupation is characterized by grave
violations ‘including crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution
committed by Israeli officials with the aim of prolonging the illegal
occupation, and suppressing the right to self-determination’ and that
international action is required to ‘dismantle the system of apartheid and
put an end to the illegal occupation’” (para. 143).
 “Israel’s discriminatory practices against Palestinians in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory and the Palestinian people, as a whole, breach the
prohibition of apartheid in customary international law and the obligation
in Article 3 of ICERD to prevent, prohibit and eradicate all practices of
apartheid in territories under its jurisdiction. … As a consequence, Israel is
bound to cease the imposition of its illegal occupation of the Palestinian
territory and regime of apartheid against the Palestinian people” (paras.
151(e)-(f)).
Palestine
 “More particularly, all available evidence – including as consistently and
openly furnished by generations of Israeli leaders over five decades –
establishes that Israel itself does not regard its presence in the OPT as a
temporary occupation. Its actions and its words establish that it regards its
rule over the OPT and the Palestinian people as permanent and irreversible.
This is demonstrated by … Its imposition and maintenance of systematic
racial discrimination meeting all the defining elements of apartheid, and its
denial, on the basis of race, of the fundamental rights to which the
Palestinian people are entitled under international law” (para. 6.3(b)).
Appendix 3 — 5
 “[I]n view of these policies and practices [including apartheid], Israel’s
occupation of the OPT is in and of itself unlawful, rendering Israel’s
continued presence in the OPT an internationally wrongful act as it
seriously breaches at least three peremptory norms of general international
law, derogation from which is not permitted. It is impossible to distinguish
between Israel’s occupation of the OPT and its serious breaches of
peremptory norms of general international law therein, which are reciprocal
in nature, organically interrelated and mutually reinforcing.” (para. 6.4).
 “Israel’s occupation of the OPT seriously breaches at least three peremptory
norms of general international law derogation from which is not permitted
… [including] the prohibition against racial discrimination and/or
apartheid” (para. 6.5).
 “Because Israel’s prolonged 56-year occupation of the OPT is structurally
and existentially reliant upon and inseparable from its egregious violations
of peremptory norms of general international law [including the
prohibition against racial discrimination and/or apartheid], derogation from
which is not permitted, the occupation itself must be regarded as illegal,
with all relevant legal consequences that attach under the law of
international responsibility” (para. 6.19).
Qatar
 “Since the prohibition of apartheid is a jus cogens norm, a finding that the
occupation amounts to a regime of apartheid entails, ipso facto, a finding
that the maintenance of the occupation is a breach of a peremptory norm.”
(para. 4.108).
Saudi Arabia
 “Israel has ignored the Court’s opinion, … by continuing the practices and
policies … which … violate fundamental rules and principles of
international humanitarian law and amount to racial discrimination and
segregation. These policies and practices of Israel in violation of the jus
cogens norms have rendered the occupation, viewed in its entirety, as
egregiously illegal.” (para. 38).
 “That [Israel’s] practices amount to a systematic government-inspired and
supported system of racial discrimination, tantamount to apartheid
throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory cannot be hidden or
seriously denied, and the Court should therefore recognize and condemn
those practices as such. Moreover, the reality of the apartheid-like system
Appendix 3 — 6
Israel has implemented in the Occupied Palestinian Territory demonstrates
in the clearest manner possible the need for the U.N., and the international
community at large, to unambiguously declare the occupation illegal in its
entirety and require that it be put to an end.” (para. 73).
South Africa
 “South Africa submits that Israeli apartheid must be viewed in the context
of the inherent illegality of the occupation as a whole; it being an additional
breach of peremptory norms under an illegal situation. The fragmentation
of Palestinian territory, the subjugation of its people, restrictions on
movement, racial discrimination and state-sanctioned extrajudicial killings
are all calculated to impede the right of the Palestinians to selfdetermination.”
(para. 95).
Yemen
 “It is clear from the foregoing that the policies and practices of Israel, the
occupying power, in the OPT, that when examined as a whole, involve the
gross and systematic violation of at least three peremptory norms of general
international law: … the imposition of a regime of widespread and
systematic racial discrimination amounting to Apartheid.” (para. 40).
Appendix 4 — 1
Appendix 4
Written statements concluding that Israel’s occupation is illegal because it
violates the jus cogens prohibition on the use of force enshrined in Article 2(4)
of the UN Charter
Belize
 “Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territory in June 1967 resulted from
the use of force against Egypt and Jordan … the occupation was unlawful
from its inception and continues to be so. Even if the Court were not to
reach a view on the legality of Israel’s initial use of force, the occupation is
in any event now unlawful: the conditions of necessity and proportionality
would have ceased to have been met a very long time ago. At the absolute
latest, those conditions would have ceased to have been met once Israel
concluded peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan, which occurred in
1979 and 1994 respectively. Consequently, Israel has for a very long time
been obliged to end its occupation, but it has instead remained in
occupation. Its ongoing occupation, as a whole, is therefore unlawful and
an act of aggression.” (para. 33).
 “In addition, Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza is also an unlawful use of force
and aggression. In this respect, the blockade has the same character as the
entire occupation, being an unlawful act contrary to jus ad bellum.” (para.
34).
 “As regards the prolonged occupation: it is a long-standing principle of
international law that the use of force not justified by self-defence or
Security Council authorisation — including occupation — is illegal,
continues to be illegal for so long as it continues, and cannot create title to
the territory occupied opposable to other States.” (para. 95).
 “The illegality of Israel’s presence in the Palestinian territory also follows
from the fact that Israel’s occupation is a flagrant violation of the purposes
and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. … Israel has been in
unlawful occupation of the Palestinian territory, in violation of Article 2(4)
of the Charter of the United Nations.” (para. 99).
Chile
 “[T]aking into account the policies and practices of Israel in the OPT, the
occupation of Palestinian territory is illegal [because] … it is not justified
as a measure necessary for Israel´s protection” (para. 119).
Appendix 4 — 2
Cuba
 “All Israel’s occupation acts on Palestinian territory are internationally
wrongful acts …. The prohibition to acquire territories by threat or the use
of force is a customary law statute with broad regulatory and jurisdictional
recognition. This prohibition is applicable whether or not the territory is
acquired as a result of an act of aggression or self-defense. … [F]rom the
legal point of view … States renounced war as a legitimate instrument of
national policy to settle their differences and committed to resolve them by
peaceful means.” (pp. 4-5).
The Gambia
 “Israel’s 56-year occupation of the Palestinian Territory violates the laws
on the use of force—jus ad bellum—and is illegal for that reason as well.”
(para. 1.16).
 “In sum, Israel’s decades-long occupation violates the laws on the use of
force and is therefore illegal. Even if it had once been a lawful use of force
in response to an armed attack—and it was not—it could not possibly have
remained lawful for 56 years. Israel has not been facing an ongoing armed
attack and the prolonged occupation has been neither necessary nor
proportionate. As a result, Israel’s occupation is illegal as a whole and must
end.” (para. 1.31).
Ireland
 “[S]ettlements are the defining feature of Israel’s presence in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory.” (para. 18).
 “Ireland has concluded that Israel’s settlement-related policies and
practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory are wholly inconsistent with
the temporary administration of territory in accordance with the law of
military occupation.” (para. 35).
 “[I]t is clear that Israel is acting inconsistently with its legal status as the
occupying power, and in breach of many of its obligations under
international humanitarian and human rights law. Far from temporarily
administering the Occupied Palestinian Territory in accordance with the
law of military occupation, Israel is engaged in escalating unlawful
settlement activity, which amounts to a process of annexation, and is in
serious breach of its obligation to respect the right of the Palestinian people
to self-determination. Ireland regrets to conclude that Israel’s settlement
Appendix 4 — 3
practices amount to an attempt to transform a temporary, albeit prolonged,
occupation into an exercise in permanently acquiring territory by a gradual
process of annexation.” (para. 44)
 “In Ireland’s view, there can be no possible legal justification for this. Even
if Israel were facing an armed attack entitling it to exercise the right of selfdefence,
its settlement activity could not be justified as self-defence. As
explained above, Ireland has reluctantly but unavoidably concluded that
that activity amounts to a process of annexation and a serious breach of the
right to self-determination – a peremptory norm of general international law
– which cannot bejustified as self-defence. Even if Israel’s settlement
activity did not amount to annexation or breach the right to selfdetermination,
it could not possibly be justified as self-defence because it
would not, in any event, be a necessary or proportionate measure (as
required by international law of any measure taken in the exercise of the
right to self-defence).” (para. 45).
Jordan
 “Fourth, there are no security or military concerns that Israel could
reasonably invoke to justify the measures in question. Indeed, even if Israel
has occasionally invoked terrorist threats to explain its actions, this cannot
be regarded as an objective and proportionate justification within the
framework of international humanitarian law 56 years after the
commencement of the occupation. There is no terrorist threat that could
possibly justify Israel’s ongoing violation of the right of the Palestinian
people to self-determination; the continuous expansion of Israeli
settlements on the land of Palestinians; the annexation of the Occupied
Palestinian Territory contrary to the principle of non-acquisition of territory
by force; or the adoption by Israeli authorities of an egregious policy of
racial discrimination targeting Palestinians.” (para. 5.11).
 “In conclusion, Israel’s occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory,
including East Jerusalem, in addition to involving systematic violations of
several rules of international law, including jus cogens norms, is contrary
to basic principles of the law of occupation and therefore unlawful as a
whole. The occupation has become an instrument to suppress the right of
the Palestinian people to self-determination, becoming indistinguishable
from unlawful regimes such as colonial domination or apartheid.” (para.
5.13).
Appendix 4 — 4
League of Arab States
 “Israel’s use of force against Egypt, Jordan and Syria in 1967 was not a
legally valid exercise of a right to self-defence, and the occupation of the
Palestinian Territory, under Egyptian and Jordanian administration up until
that point, was, therefore, a part of an unlawful use of force. Thus, the
occupation was itself an illegal use of force, an aggression, from the outset.
As a result, there is no valid international law basis for the existence of the
occupation.” (para. 43).
 “The only legal grounds for a State being entitled to control territory that
does not form part of its sovereign territory, and which is either the territory
of another State, or a non-State self-determination unit, through the use of
force in the foregoing way, is if one or more of the following are present:
(a) the host sovereign entity has validly given its permission; (b) the UN
Security Council has given its authority for this under Chapter VII of the
UN Charter; (c) it is a legally-valid exercise of self-defence according to
the international law on the use of force. Such grounds do not exist in
relation to Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian Territory.” (para. 62).
 “The effect of the foregoing analysis in this section is that there is no lawful
basis for Israel to maintain the occupation or, put differently, to lawfully
impede the Palestinian right of self-determination through maintaining the
occupation. In consequence, the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank
(including East Jerusalem) is existentially illegal as a breach of the
international law on the use of force and the law of self-determination.”
(para. 74).
Lebanon
 “Vu ce qui précède, le Liban considère que la Cour devrait réitérer dans
son avis consultatif la violation d’Israël du principe fondamental de
l’illicéité du recours à la force et son corollaire de l’illégalité d’annexion
des territoires par la force.” (para. 27)
 “Les points précédents montrent qu’Israël continue de violer des normes
impératives du droit international, des normes qui créent des obligations
erga omnes. La Cour avait déjà constaté ce fait dans son avis consultatif en
2004 où elle a déclaré « qu’au rang des obligations internationales violées
par Israël, figurent des obligations erga omnes…. de telles obligations par
leur nature même, concernent tous les États et vu l’importance des droits
en cause tous les États peuvent être considérés comme ayant des intérêts à
ce que ces droits soient protégés.” (para. 53)
Appendix 4 — 5
 “Concrètement, Israël est tenu dans ce cas, afin de respecter le principe du
non recours à la force et son corollaire de l’inadmissibilité de l’annexion
des territoires, de démanteler les colonies dans les Territoires palestiniens
occupés.” (para. 56)
 “L'occupation Israélienne du Territoire Palestinien est illégale tant dans sa
conduite que dans son but. Par conséquent, Israël est dans l'obligation de
mettre un terme immédiat et inconditionnel à cette situation illégale dont il
est internationalement responsable et de fournir réparation.” (para. 59)
Maldives
 “It is firmly settled in the jurisprudence of the Court that the prohibition on
the use of force, as reflected in the UN Charter, is a rule of customary
international law. Indeed, the prohibition has been acknowledged as having
the status of jus cogens, meaning that no derogation from it is permitted. …
Israel’s occupation of the OPT has been established and maintained in
violation of these fundamental rules of international law.” (paras. 14, 17).
Namibia
 “Israel’s use of force against Egypt and other Arab States in 1967 was a
pre-emptive use of force in the absence of an armed attack, and therefore
and unlawful act of aggression in violation of Article 2(4) and Article 51 of
the UN Charter. Israel’s presence in the Palestinian territory has been illegal
from the outset in 1967 and the consequent occupation is also illegal.”
(para. 142).
Organisation of Islamic Cooperation
 “La “violation de l’interdiction du recours à la force … ont pour incidence
que l’occupation par Israël du Territoire palestinien est une occupation
illégale qui doit cesser immédiatement et dont toutes les conséquences
doivent être réparées”. (para. 405).
Pakistan
 “A prolonged occupation, with its de facto and de jure annexations and
various variations of international humanitarian law, is a breach of the right
to self-determination. Moreover, these violations together indicate that the
military necessity and proportionality requirements for self-defence, are no
longer satisfied, making the occupation illegal on the basis of jus ad bellum”
(para. 22(i)).
Appendix 4 — 6
Saudi Arabia
 “Israel’s occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory has always been
illegal under international law as it was the result of the use of force in
violation of Article 2.4 of the U.N. Charter and customary international law
prohibiting the acquisition of territory through the use of force.” (para. 36).
Yemen
 “It is clear … that the policies and practices of Israel, the occupying power,
in the OPT … when examined as a whole, involve the gross and systematic
violation of [this] peremptory norm[] of general international law: … The
prohibition of aggression…” (para. 40(1)).
Appendix 5 — 1
Appendix 5
Written statements concluding that Israel’s occupation is illegal because it
violates the jus cogens prohibition on the
acquisition of territory by the use of force
African Union
 “[T]he Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories is unlawful.
Specifically, Israel’s occupation of those territories qualifies as an
internationally wrongful act of a continuing character on the following
grounds: … the prolonged Israeli occupation and the policies and practices
associated with it amount to the de facto and de jure annexation of the
Palestinian territories, which violates the prohibition on the acquisition of
territory by force.” (para. 91(c)).
 “In the African Union’s view, Israel’s occupation is per se unlawful …
Israel’s prolonged occupation, and the policies and practices associated
with the occupation amount to the de jure and de facto annexation of the
Palestinian territories.” (para. 136).
 “The Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories is contrary to
international law … The Israeli occupation amounts to the de facto and de
jure annexation of the Palestinian territories, in contravention of the
prohibition on the acquisition of territory by force.” (para. 266(c)).
Bangladesh
 Endorsing Special Rapportuer Albanese’s view that “Israel’s occupation is
illegal because of its: ‘systematic violation of at least three peremptory
norms of international law: … [including] the prohibition on the acquisition
of territory through the use of force’” (para. 26).
Belize
 “The illegality of Israel’s presence in the Palestinian territory also follows
from the fact that Israel’s occupation is a flagrant violation of the purposes
and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. … Israel has been in
violation of the prohibition of the acquisition of territory by force, reflected
in Article 2(4).” (para. 99(c)).
Appendix 5 — 2
Bolivia
 “The critical issue is the illegality of the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian
territory as a whole, and not just the illegal aspects or features that comprise
it. Such persistent occupation with settlements has been deliberately
constructed with the intention of acquiring the territory by force, through
de facto and de jure annexation, including through colonization,
confinement and fragmentation of the Occupied Palestinian Territories
(OPT).” (p. 4).
 “[T] he conclusion is inescapable that Israel has used its protracted
occupation as a pretext to pursue its illegal objective of annexing the
Occupied Palestinian Territories, in violation of the UN Charter, and that,
consequently, the Israeli occupation as a whole must be considered illegal.”
(p. 14).
Brazil
 “Occupation is inherently temporary. This is the basic distinction between
occupation and annexation. More than 55 years have passed since the 1967
conflict, and thenceforth the occupying Power has adopted policies and
practices such as the construction and expansion of settlements with
permanent infrastructure, the construction of the wall, the demolition of
Palestinian homes, the transfer of populations, the application of
discriminatory legislation, which benefits the settlers, and legal
assimilation. The cumulative effect of these measures would render the
occupation unlawful as a whole, inasmuch as it would be tantamount to the
acquisition of territory by force.” (para. 46).
 “[T]he persistent practices in the occupied Palestinian territories would be
tantamount to annexation … [and therefore] the occupying Power is under
an obligation to cease its occupation as a whole.” (Conclusion (e-f)).
Chile
 “[T]aking into account the policies and practices of Israel in the OPT, the
occupation of Palestinian territory is illegal [because] … the settlements
policy evidences that occupation is aimed at the annexation of territory by
Israel.” (para. 119).
Appendix 5 — 3
Djibouti
 “Compte tenu des éléments développés ci-dessus, il est permis de conclure
que l’occupation du Territoire palestinien est, comme telle, illégale au
regard du droit international, et ceci dès l’origine, en ce qu’elle implique
des violations de normes impératives de droit international, … en ce qu’elle
vise et aboutit à une annexion contraire au principe d’integrité territoriale
et de non acquisition du territoire par la force” (para. 31).
Egypt
 “[A] protracted occupation that is coupled with measures to permanently
change the demographic characteristics of the occupied territory, and
acquire territory in violation of the cardinal principle of the prohibition of
the acquisition of territory by force, is illegal per se and amount to de facto
annexation. It follows that the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory is
unlawful under international law owing to its permanence and to actions
undertaken by Israel to annex parts of the land de facto and de jure.” (para.
249).
 “[C]onsidering that … belligerent occupation does not allow the Occupying
Power to annex the occupied territory … violation of [this] principle[], in
addition to the violation of the specific norm that reflects [it], renders
occupation per se illegal. Belligerent occupation becomes illegal whenever
the Occupying Power takes measures aimed to appropriate the occupied
territory or portions thereof, or that are otherwise incompatible with the
duty to return such territory as soon as feasible.” (para. 268).
Guyana
 “[T]he annexation of territory is fundamentally incompatible with lawful
occupation. … An occupation which involves annexation of the occupied
territory is, in truth, not an ‘occupation’ at all: it is a military conquest. A
State cannot simultaneously be both the temporary non-sovereign occupant
and the permanent purported ‘sovereign’ of the same territory.” (para. 32).
 “Through it acts in the OPT since 1967, Israel has systematically violated
… the jus cogens prohibition on annexation …. The violation[] of [this]
peremptory norm[] of international law – which the evidence shows [is]
grave, longstanding and ongoing – [is not an] ancillary or accidental or
isolated aspects of an otherwise lawful temporary occupation. Rather, [it is]
an integral feature and a permanent consequence of Israel’s continued
presence in the OPT.” (para. 33).
Appendix 5 — 4
 “An occupation which involves, and is inextricably founded upon, such
serious breaches jus cogens norms is not – and could not ever be – a lawful
occupation.” (para. 34).
Indonesia
 “[A]n occupation can only be lawful subject to the fulfill of three
cumulative elements”, including “the occupying power cannot annex any
of the occupied territory.” (para. 51).
 “Israel consistently violated the principle of non-annexation of occupied
territory” (para. 53).
Ireland
 “[S]ettlements are the defining feature of Israel’s presence in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory.” (para. 18).
 “Ireland has concluded that Israel’s settlement-related policies and
practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory are wholly inconsistent with
the temporary administration of territory in accordance with the law of
military occupation.” (para. 35).
 “Ireland considers that the situation of annexation created by the wall is part
of a wider process of annexation by Israel of territory within the Occupied
Palestinian Territory, demonstrated in particular by the settlements and
their associated regime.” (para. 38).
 “Whether de facto or de jure, or both, this process of annexation is in clear
breach of the prohibition in international law of the acquisition of territory
by threat or use of force.” (para. 41).
 “[I]t is clear that Israel is acting inconsistently with its legal status as the
occupying power, and in breach of many of its obligations under
international humanitarian and human rights law. Far from temporarily
administering the Occupied Palestinian Territory in accordance with the
law of military occupation, Israel is engaged in escalating unlawful
settlement activity, which amounts to a process of annexation, and is in
serious breach of its obligation to respect the right of the Palestinian people
to self-determination. Ireland regrets to conclude that Israel’s settlement
practices amount to an attempt to transform a temporary, albeit prolonged,
occupation into an exercise in permanently acquiring territory by a gradual
process of annexation.” (para. 44).
Appendix 5 — 5
 “In Ireland’s view, there can be no possible legal justification for this.”
(para. 45).
Jordan
 “[O]ver an extended period of time, Israel has acted in violation of its
obligations as an occupying Power, including by taking steps that amount
to annexation of parts of the occupied territory …. Indeed, Israel has
disregarded the fundamental principle[] set out above in a sustained and
systematic manner. The occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory,
including East Jerusalem, is illegal as such, and Israel is under an obligation
to bring the occupation to an end as rapidly as possible.” (para. 1.12).
 “[T]he policies and practices of Israel described in Chapter 4 affect the
status of the occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including
East Jerusalem, in such a way that it must be regarded as unlawful as a
whole. Those policies and practices contravene in the most fundamental
way the basic principles of the modern international law of occupation. …
The occupying Power cannot acquire sovereignty over the occupied
territory, whether by annexation or in any other way. To seek to do so would
be contrary to the most fundamental principles of international law,
including the prohibition of the use of force and the corollary principle of
non-acquisition of territory by force” (para. 5.6).
 “Israel’s unlawful practice of settlements and their associated regime,
including the transfer of Israeli settlers and the forcible displacement of
Palestinian communities, evidence Israel’s manifest intention to annex
territory that belongs to the Palestinian people. As explained in Sections II
and III of Chapter 4 above, the colonization, confinement and
fragmentation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East
Jerusalem, cannot be considered to be compatible with the law of
occupation. The latter, read together with the principle of non-acquisition
of territory by force, prohibits the annexation of occupied territory, and the
occupying Power must always act in accordance with this basic tenet.
Israel’s policy of settlements and annexation is a direct and continuing
affront to this.” (para. 5.9).
 “[T]here are no security or military concerns that Israel could reasonably
invoke to justify the measures in question. Indeed, even if Israel has
occasionally invoked terrorist threats to explain its actions, this cannot be
regarded as an objective and proportionate justification within the
framework of international humanitarian law 56 years after the
commencement of the occupation. There is no terrorist threat that could
Appendix 5 — 6
possibly justify … the annexation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory
contrary to the principle of non-acquisition of territory by force” (para.
5.11).
Kuwait
 “The State of Kuwait … stresses that Israeli occupation of Palestinian and
other Arab territories has been since its onset and to this day unlawful as it
was the result of military conquest and aimed at the acquisition of territory
by force.” (para. 27).
League of Arab States
 “The existential illegality of the occupation thus arises out of the simple
fact of the occupation as a system of control and domination without a valid
legal basis. This is then compounded by the occupation’s prolonged
duration, its link to de jure and de facto annexation, and the egregious
abuses perpetrated against the Palestinian people. The use of military force
to annex territory is an independent basis for existential illegality: also a
violation of the international law on the use of force, an aggression.” (para.
44).
Lebanon
 “Vu ce qui précède, le Liban considère que la Cour devrait réitérer dans
son avis consultatif la violation d’Israël du principe fondamental de
l’illicéité du recours à la force et son corollaire de l’illégalité d’annexion
des territoires par la force.” (para. 27)
 “Les points précédents montrent qu’Israël continue de violer des normes
impératives du droit international, des normes qui créent des obligations
erga omnes. La Cour avait déjà constaté ce fait dans son avis consultatif
en 2004 où elle a déclaré ‘qu’au rang des obligations internationales
violées par Israël, figurent des obligations erga omnes…. de telles
obligations par leur nature même, concernent tous les États et vu
l’importance des droits en cause tous les États peuvent être considérés
comme ayant des intérêts à ce que ces droits soient protégés.’” (para. 53)
 “Concrètement, Israël est tenu dans ce cas, afin de respecter le principe du
non recours à la force et son corollaire de l’inadmissibilité de l’annexion
des territoires, de démanteler les colonies dans les Territoires palestiniens
occupés.” (para. 56)
Appendix 5 — 7
 “L'occupation Israélienne du Territoire Palestinien est illégale tant dans sa
conduite que dans son but. Par conséquent, Israël est dans l'obligation de
mettre un terme immédiat et inconditionnel à cette situation illégale dont il
est internationalement responsable et de fournir réparation.” (para. 59)
Maldives
 “As a corollary of the prohibition on the use of force, international law
prohibits a State from acquiring territory by the threat or use of force, with
the prohibition on such annexation stated by the Court to be a rule of
customary international law. … Israel’s occupation of the OPT has been
established and maintained in violation of these fundamental rules of
international law.” (paras. 15-17).
Namibia
 “This illegality has been further compounded by Israel’s colonization of the
Palestinian territory that started in 1967 and continue to this very day and
its purported annexation of Palestinian territory, in breach of article 2(4) of
the Charter and of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force.
Namibia reiterates its previously stated position that Israel’s occupation of
the Palestinian territory (i.e., the West Bank, including Jerusalem, and the
Gaza Strip) is illegal.” (para. 143).
Oman
 “A fundamental principle of international law as reflected in the Charter of
the United Nations is that the use of force in any form is prohibited.
Consequently acquisition of territory by use of force is illegal. The 57 year
occupation and settlement policy of the State of Israel is preventing the
establishment of a contiguous, viable Palestinian State and is an affront to
international law.” (p. 3).
 “[T]he primary legal consequence arising from Israel’s behaviour is that
there is now a de facto annexation by Israel of the Palestinian territories.”
(p. 4).
Pakistan
 “A prolonged occupation, with its de facto and de jure annexations and
various variations of international humanitarian law, is a breach of the right
to self-determination. Moreover, these violations together indicate that the
military necessity and proportionality requirements for self-defence, are no
Appendix 5 — 8
longer satisfied, making the occupation illegal on the basis of jus ad bellum”
(para. 22(i)).
Palestine
 The evidence adduced in this Written Statement demonstrates
overwhelmingly that Israel has annexed and plans to continue to annex
Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank.” (para. 6.2)
 “Israel’s occupation of the OPT is in and of itself unlawful … as it seriously
breaches at least three peremptory norms of international law … [including]
the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory through the threat or use
of force.” (paras. 6.4-6.5).
Saudi Arabia
 “Israel’s occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory has always been
illegal under international law as it was the result of the use of force in
violation of Article 2.4 of the U.N. Charter and customary international law
prohibiting the acquisition of territory through the use of force.” (para. 36).
 “Over the past almost 20 years since the Wall Advisory Opinion was issued,
Israel has ignored the Court’s opinion … by continuing the policies and
practices … which … are tantamount to de facto annexation…. These
policies and practices of Israel in violation of these jus cogens norms have
rendered the occupation, viewed in its entirety, as egregiously illegal.”
(para. 38).
Senegal
 “La thèse du droit à l'autodéfense préventive, notamment évoquée par Israël
pour justifier la construction du mur dont la réalisation s'appuie sur la
réquisition de terres privées palestiniennes ou leur annexion découlant de
l'incorporation de colonies juives installées dans des parties importantes
de la Cisjordanie ou des violations massives des droits de l'homme, aboutit
concrètement à une annexion illégale. Dans ce sens, elle tombe sous le coup
d'une interdiction par la Charte des Nations Unies et la Quatrième
Convention de Genève sur la protection des droits civils en temps de guerre,
de la même manière que l'annexion de Jérusalem-Est. … Sous ce rapport,
l'édification du mur est une extension de l'annexion de territoires
palestiniens et la cessation de toute politique d'implantation de colonies de
peuplement devient un impératif. … Réitérant son appel à la fin de
l'occupation illégale et de l'annexion des territoires palestiniens…” (p. 5).
Appendix 5 — 9
Syria
 “The prolonged Israeli occupation confirms the intention of the occupying
power to make it permanent, in flagrant violation of the principle of
inadmissibility of the seizure and acquisition of territory by force.” (para.
12).
 “It is inevitable to conclude that ‘Israel’ has used, and continues to use, its
prolonged occupation as an excuse to pursue its illegal goal of annexing the
occupied territories, in flagrant violation of the UN Charter; Therefore, the
Israeli occupation itself must be considered, in the first place and altogether
as illegal, and it should not be suffice to just simply describe its practices
and policies.” (para. 31).
 “[T]he Israeli occupation of Arab territories is fundamentally invalid, as it
is based on the acquisition of territories by force, in flagrant violation of
international law and the provision of the Charter of the United Nations,
where paragraph 4 of Article 2 of the charter prohibits the use of force.” (p.
13).
Yemen
 “It is clear … that the policies and practices of Israel, the occupying power,
in the OPT … when examined as a whole, involve the gross and systematic
violation of at least these peremptory norms of general international law:
… The prohibition of aggression, which [sic] its corollary prohibiting the
acquisition of territory through the use of force” (para. 40(1)).

Appendix 6 — 1
Appendix 6
Written statements concluding that Israel’s occupation is illegal because
it violates the laws of occupation
Chile
 “In this context, and taking into account the policies and practices of Israel
in the OPT, the occupation of Palestinian territory is illegal [because] …
Israel has violated its obligation to act in the best interests of the population
under occupation.” (para 119).
Egypt
 “[C]onsidering that … occupation must be temporary, violation of … th[is]
principle[], in addition to the violation of the specific norm that reflects
them, renders occupation per se illegal.” (para. 268).
 “Israel’s de jure annexation of Jerusalem, formalized in 1980, is clearly
contrary to international law. Israel’s intention to make its occupation
permanent is evidenced by its residential, industrial, and agricultural
settlements, and related infrastructures such as roads and water systems,
which have been established and developed in the West Bank, including
East Jerusalem, since 1967. The Wall and its associated regime have further
pursued the incorporation of major settlements, especially those located
around East Jerusalem, into Israel’s territory, giving rise to a de facto
annexation, which further violates the Palestinians’ rights to selfdetermination
and permanent sovereignty over their natural resources.
Israel has also seized and confiscated the private property of Palestinian
citizens, as well as their land, contrary to the principles of IHL. Besides
their unlawfulness, these measures contradict the principle of
temporariness.” (para. 269).
Indonesia
 “Indonesia submit that an occupation can only be lawful subject to the
fulfilment of three cumulative elements, namely (a) an occupying power
cannot annex any of the occupied territory; (b) the occupation must be
temporary; and (c) the occupying power must act in the best interests of the
people under occupation, including acting in full compliance with its duties
and obligations under international law.” (para. 51).
Appendix 6 — 2
 “Failure to fulfil even one of the abovementioned elements would result in
Israel’s prolonged occupation as unlawful and render Israel an illegal
occupant.” (para. 52).
 “Israel’s occupation over the OPT has continued for decades. The manner
in which Israel maintains its occupation is also contributory to the
unlawfulness of its prolonged occupation. Although currently there is no
test pertaining to the duration of a lawful occupation, Israel’s actions show
its intention of seeking to transform its presence from a temporary one into
a permanent one, based on three reasons.” (para. 55).
o “First, Israel treats the occupation as a permanent fixture through
continuous establishment of illegal settlements, extraterritorial
applications of its laws, including the possible application of the
Basic Law, and expropriation of lands and natural resources in the
OPT.” (para. 56).
o “Second, Israel is unfazed by constant pressure from the
international community …. Despite such persistent conveyance of
disapproval, Israel continues its measures to consolidate its hold
over the OPT.” (para. 57).
o “Third, Israel has not committed to any plan of ending its
occupation despite the recourse of the international community to
seek settlement of the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Taken
together the above reveals an indefinite occupation with no signs of
stopping.” (para. 58).
 “As an occupying power, Israel is obliged to honour and perform its duties
under IHL, but it has not done so. The obligations as prescribed under IHL
entails Israel to act for the best interests of the people under its occupation.
The substantive provisions of the Hague Regulation combined with the
Fourth Geneva Convention have outlined various occupying power
obligations under the ambit of IHL. These obligations include the
maintenance of ‘public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely
prevented, the laws in force in the country’, and to treat protected persons
humanely at all times, in particular against al acts of violence or threats
thereof. These obligations constantly apply in the occupied territory, even
when the control over such territory is short-lived.” (para. 59).
 “Indonesia submits that Israel has failed to fulfill those obligations owing
to its act of prolonged occupation, settlement and annexation, including the
imposition of discriminatory measures as well as failure to guarantee public
Appendix 6 — 3
order and safety, which have effectively deprived the Palestinians from
their human rights, particularly their right to self-determination.” (para. 60).
Jordan
 “[T]he policies and practices of Israel described in Chapter 4 affect the
status of the occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including
East Jerusalem, in such a way that it must be regarded as unlawful as a
whole. Those policies and practices contravene in the most fundamental
way the basic principles of the modern international law of occupation. …
[This includes the principle that] [o]ccupation is by its very nature a
temporary state of affairs. It must not become indefinite or permanent”
(para. 5.6).
 “Israel’s discriminatory legislation and measures, which it systematically
applies in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem,
contrary to the ICCPR, the ICESCR, the CERD and the CRC, and the
peremptory prohibition of discrimination, show that Israel does not act for
the benefit of the Palestinian people. This is not only a breach of Israel’s
obligations under the law of occupation and international human rights law,
but constitutes further evidence of Israel’s goal to progressively displace
the Palestinian population from their own land.” (para. 5.10).
 “[W]hile adopting all the abovementioned measures, Israel has failed to
constructively engage in negotiations for a final settlement in accordance
with resolutions adopted by competent UN organs and the commitments it
has undertaken on many occasions. Israel’s failure to do so further attests
of its bad faith in holding the territory in question: its intention is manifestly
to annex the Occupied Palestinian Territory, contrary to the purposes of the
law of occupation, the right of Palestinians to self-determination, and the
principle of non-acquisition of territory by force.” (para. 5.12).
 “In conclusion, Israel’s occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory,
including East Jerusalem, in addition to involving systematic violations of
several rules of international law, including jus cogens norms, is contrary
to basic principles of the law of occupation and therefore unlawful as a
whole. The occupation has become an instrument to suppress the right of
the Palestinian people to self-determination, becoming indistinguishable
from unlawful regimes such as colonial domination or apartheid.” (para.
5.13).
Appendix 6 — 4
Kuwait
 “The State of Kuwait submits that the occupying Power has breached the
spectrum of legal duties and obligations required of an occupying power
when it administers another territory. Israeli occupation is not temporary,
but intended to be permanent and irreversible, a prohibited act of conquest.
Its colonial occupation has actively engaged in the annexation of occupied
territory since the very beginning of the occupation in 1967. It has
consistently acted in bad faith and in conscious defiance of scores of
Security Council resolutions and hundreds of General Assembly
resolutions. Its has breached its legal obligations, and instead created a dual
legal, social and political system with fill political legal rights to its settler
population unlawfully transferred to the occupied territory and a denial of
all basic rights to the protected population. This dual legal system amounts
to apartheid. … The State of Kuwait submits that the Israeli occupation of
Palestinian territory must be condemned as an ongoing illegal situation…”
(paras. 33-34).
Maldives
 “In an occupation, the occupying power is required to manage the territory
which it occupies in the best interests of the people under occupation and
in good faith, observing to the fullest extent possible the human rights of
the people under occupation. In the Construction of a Wall advisory
proceedings, the Court considered that the legal frameworks applicable to
Israel’s occupation of the OPT included not only international humanitarian
law (as set out above) but also international human rights law, including
notably the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the
Convention on the Rights of the Child. It emphasised that these instruments
remain in force during armed conflicts, except in cases where a derogation
is validly brought into effect. The Court has separately confirmed that an
occupying power’s duties include a ’duty to secure respect for the
applicable rules of international human rights law and international
humanitarian law‘ within the occupied territory in question.” (para. 36).
 “Israel has engaged in serious and widespread violations of both
international humanitarian law and international human rights law over the
duration of its occupation of the OPT — and it continues to do so today.
Israel’s disregard for its duties under international law as occupying power
demonstrates that it has not managed, and is not today managing, the OPT
in the best interests of the Palestine people or in good faith.” (para. 37).
Appendix 6 — 5
 “Israel is obliged to cease … its unlawful occupation of the OPT.” (para.
48).
Oman
 “The consistent and systematic unlawful transfer of Israeli citizens to
settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory over decades is designed
to perpetuate the occupation and make it permanent. A concomitant of this
policy is the displacement of Palestinians and the establishment of a
coercive system of discriminations, zoning, planning, unlawful land
appropriation, arbitrary arrest, and arbitrary violence since 1967.” (p. 2).
 “This forcible displacement of the occupied people and the transfer of
citizens of the occupying power to the occupied territory is prohibited under
article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention” (p. 3).
 “The 57 year duration of Israeli presence in the Occupied Palestinian
Territories and the persistent policy of settlement renders the Israeli
occupation illegal and in breach of the UN Charter.” (p. 4).
South Africa
 “Recognition that occupation is a temporary situation at the end of which
control of the territory will return to the original sovereign is the most
important principle in international humanitarian law relating to
occupation. The Court confirmed the temporary nature of occupation by
highlighting that by issuing ‘settlement of titles’ Israel ‘…subverts the
principle that occupation is inherently temporary’. However, despite this
basic principle, Israel has turned the temporary nature of its occupation in
the Palestinian territories into a permanent situation. The total disdain and
disrespect for international humanitarian law principles by Israel render its
occupation in the Palestinian territories illegal.” (para. 70)

Appendix 7 — 1
Appendix 7
Written statements concluding that Israel is violating Palestinians’ right to selfdetermination
African Union
 “Israel’s policies and practices in the occupied Palestinian territories, …
taken in aggregate, constitute elements of a composite breach of Israel’s
obligation not to deprive the Palestinian people of their right to selfdetermination.”
(para. 102).
 “[I]t is the view of the African Union that Israel’s prolonged and continuing
occupation of the Palestinian territories is preventing the State of Palestine
from completely exercising its sovereignty over the entire territory in
relation to which the Palestinian people are entitled to exercise their right
of self-determination.” (para. 118).
Algeria
 “L’Algérie entend souligner qu’en réalité l’installation forcée de colons, de
zones de peuplement sur le terrain et l’espace des Palestiniens a servi à
empêcher les Palestiniens de jouir de leur droit à l’autodétermination et
constitue une violation de plusieurs normes impératives du droit
international.” (p. 41).
Bangladesh
 “The General Assembly’s request is made against a backdrop of grave and
tragically deteriorating conditions in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
The Israeli Occupation, now in its 56th year, has crossed the threshold of
illegality. The repression, dispossession and control of Palestinians
continues apace, rapidly eroding any realistic prospect of a viable State for
a self-determining Palestinian people along pre-1967 borders.” (para. 3).
 “Albanese [whose ‘approach[] … should be adopted by the Court’ (para.
19)] contends that Israel’s “de-Palestinianization” of the Occupied
Palestinian Territory violates the right of self-determination by:
i. settling its civilian population in the Occupied Territory;
ii. strategically fragmenting the Occupied Territory enabling Israel
to variably contain, control, and deploy differing administrative and
Appendix 7 — 2
military regimes across the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza
Strip;
iii. exploiting Palestine’s natural resources;
iv. erasing Palestinian cultural and civil rights; and
v. preventing the formation and expression of a functioning,
cohesive Palestinian body politic.” (para. 28).
Belize
 “The complete encirclement, enclosure, and cutting off from the outside
world of part of another State, including through control and closure of its
maritime areas, is unheard of in the modern world and, as noted above, is
unlawful. It renders Gaza the world’s largest prison, and is an integral part
of Israel’s policy of permanent domination and subjugation of the
Palestinian people in denial of their fundamental human rights and right to
self-determination.” (para. 56).
Bolivia
 “In addition, the expansion acts legitimized by Israel through its internal
legislation constitute a flagrant disregard and contempt for the resolutions
approved by the United Nations Security Council, to the detriment of the
two-State solution, and of the independence, sovereignty and selfdetermination
of the Palestinian people.” (p. 6).
 “These violations have not diminished despite repeated condemnations
from the international community. The rights of the Palestinian people that
are being constantly and daily violated include the ‘freedom of selfdetermination,
non-discrimination, freedom of movement, equality, due
process, a fair trial, not to be arbitrarily detained, the freedom and security
of the person, freedom of expression, freedom of access to places of
worship, education, water, housing, adequate standard of living, property,
access to natural resources and effective reparation’. These violations are
factual and are committed during the continuous and permanent occupation
of Palestinian territory” (p. 7).
Brazil
 “As acknowledged by the Court in the Wall opinion and reaffirmed by the
UN General Assembly and the Human Rights Council, the existence of a
Palestinian people with right to self-determination is no ‘longer in issue’.
Appendix 7 — 3
The Court asserted that the construction of the wall severely impedes the
exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination.” (para.
24).
Chile
 “It is the position of Chile that the Court has sufficient evidence before it to
conclude that Israel has violated and continues to violate: … the right of the
Palestinian people to self- determination” (para. 29).
 “Israel has violated the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,
through its prolonged occupation, the establishment of illegal settlements,
de facto annexation of the Palestinian territory since 1967, and all the
measures taken with the purpose to deprive the Palestinian people of the
right to determine their own political status and to be free to pursue their
economic, social, and cultural development without external interference.”
(para. 95).
China
 “The prolonged Israeli occupation, the establishment of settlements, the
annexation of East Jerusalem and relevant discriminatory legislation,
among other measures taken by Israel, have seriously impeded the
realization of the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people,
including, inter alia, the full exercise of the right to establish an independent
State, the right to freely pursue economic, social and cultural development
and the right to freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources.” (para.
45).
 “The policies and practices of Israel have violated international
humanitarian law and international human rights law, and severely impeded
the realization of the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people.”
(para. 47).
Cuba
 “Publicly available records clearly indicate the continued and flagrant
violations of International Law in the aforementioned occupied territories
and against the Palestinian people, particularly those related to the
disrespect for the principles and purposes of the United Nations Charter,
the Right of the Palestinian People to Self-Determination and its
independence, territorial integrity and sovereignty, International
Humanitarian Law and human rights.” (pp. 1-2).
Appendix 7 — 4
 “Article 1.2 of the Charter recognizes, among its purposes, ‘the respect for
the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples’, which is
being systematically and flagrantly denied to the Palestinian people.” (p. 5).
 “The Palestinian people have been deprived of their fundamental rights,
including the right to life, freedom and self-determination. The Israeli
occupation of the Palestinian territories, particularly the West Bank and
Eastern Jerusalem, as well as the blockade on Gaza, is a violation of
International Humanitarian Law.” (p. 6).
Djibouti
 “Compte tenu de l’ensemble de ces éléments, il s’avère que l’occupation et
la colonisation du Territoire palestinien par Israël, et les mesures qui
l’accompagnent, constituent une violation flagrante du droit
à l’autodétermination du peuple palestinien et de la Charte des Nations
Unies, notamment son article 1(2).” (para. 10).
Egypt
 “Israel continues to obstruct the realization of the Palestinian people’s
inalienable rights, including their right to self-determination and their right
of return.” (p. 236).
 “Because the settlement policy has been established in breach of
international humanitarian law, Israel had and continues to have an
obligation to put an end to it. Population transfers also clearly constitute
breaches of international human rights law, including the right to freedom
of movement, the principle of non-discrimination and the right to selfdetermination.”
(para. 263).
 “Israel has violated the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.
… The prolonged and continuing occupation of the territory of Palestine,
and the practices and policies of annexation and settlements, constitute a
breach of international obligations, including: … the right of the Palestinian
people to self-determination” (para. 326(b)-(c)).
France
 “La France considère qu’il existe une violation continue du droit du peuple
palestinien à l’autodétermination notamment à deux égards. D’une part, en
raison de l’occupation prolongée du territoire palestinien par Israël.
D’autre part, du fait de la politique menée par Israël dans les territoires
Appendix 7 — 5
occupés dans la mesure où cela affecte la possibilité pour le peuple
palestinien d’exercer son droit à l’autodétermination, y compris dans la
perspective d’un État de Palestine viable et indépendant. Ces politiques et
pratiques incluent le développement de colonies de peuplement, la
démolition d’habitations palestiniennes, les atteintes aux ressources
naturelles et à l’environnement, la dégradation d’infrastructures
essentielles.” (para. 81).
The Gambia
 “In the almost twenty years since the Wall Advisory Opinion, the
occupation has only deepened. … The Palestinian people continue to be
deprived of their right to self-determination, indefinitely.” (para. 1.3).
 “There is no end in sight to Israel’s occupation. Its prolonged character
indefinitely infringes on the right to self-determination of the Palestinian
people.” (para. 1.7).
Guyana
 “There is no doubt that the right to self-determination applies to the
Palestinian people. Nor is there any doubt that Israel has systematically
violated this right through its conduct in the OPT.” (para. 29).
 “[T]he Co-Operative Republic of Guyana submits that: … Israel has
violated the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people.” (para.
38(2)).
Indonesia
 “Indonesia submits that Israel continues to violate (a) the right to selfdetermination
of the Palestinian people which is well-established under
international law; through its continuous (b) discriminatory policies and
measures; and (c) annexation in the OPT.” (para. 24).
 “[T]hrough the imposition of military orders, Israel has significantly
impeded the freedom of the Palestinian people in their own lands, which
contravenes the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people.” (para.
36).
 “[T]he intensity and the systematic discrimination of Palestinians through
policies and oppression amount to apartheid, which ultimately deprives the
Palestinian people from the enjoyment of their economic, social, and
Appendix 7 — 6
cultural development, as the very basic tenets of the right to selfdetermination
of the Palestinian people.” (para. 39).
 “Violations committed by Israel are manifested through the following
policies and practices, including but not limited to: … breach of its
obligations to respect the right of the Palestinian people to selfdetermination”
(para. 68(c)(5)).
Ireland
 “Today, Israel continues ever more seriously to breach its obligation to
respect the right of the Palestinians to self-determination, through its
maintenance and extension of the wall (now in existence for over twenty
years), its formal annexation of East Jerusalem and its escalating settlement
activity, as described above, regardless of whether that activity is deemed
to amount to a process of annexation. That escalating settlement activity
increasingly fragments Palestinian presence on – and restricts Palestinian
use of – land and natural resources in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,
and its nature and scale is such that it completely prevents the Palestinian
people from exercising their right to self-determination; the Palestinian
people cannot exercise that right unless and until that settlement activity is
reversed.” (para. 43).
 “Far from temporarily administering the Occupied Palestinian Territory in
accordance with the law of military occupation, Israel is engaged in
escalating unlawful settlement activity, which amounts to a process of
annexation, and is in serious breach of its obligation to respect the right of
the Palestinian people to self-determination.” (para. 44).
Jordan
 “In particular, the existence and ongoing expansion of settlements in the
Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, has deprived the
Palestinian people of any prospect of realizing their right to selfdetermination
under the current occupation.” (para. 4.20).
 “In short, Israel’s practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including
East Jerusalem, constitute a serious and ongoing violation of the Palestinian
people’s right to self-determination.” (para. 4.25).
 “In the present case, the extraordinary duration of Israel’s occupation of the
Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, reflects Israel’s
intention to make its presence in the occupied territory permanent, in
Appendix 7 — 7
violation of the prohibition of acquisition of territory by force and the right
of the Palestinian people to self-determination.” (para. 4.38).
 “In sum, the Israeli settlements and outposts in the Occupied Palestinian
Territory, including East Jerusalem, in addition to breaching the right of the
Palestinian people to self-determination, constitute a violation of the law of
occupation.” (para. 4.76).
Kuwait
 “Israeli actions in the Palestinian territory constitute the illegal use of force
to perpetuate the occupation and undermine the right of the Palestinian
people to self-determination” (para. 3).
 “The Israeli occupying Power illegal use of force in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory violates the right of the Palestinian people to selfdetermination”
(para. 6).
League of Arab States
 “As to the illegality of the conduct of the occupation, there are multiple,
egregious breaches of the relevant areas of applicable international law:
[among those] self-determination including the right to return” (para. 45).
 “There have been and continues to be widespread violations of selfdetermination,
… by Israel in its conduct of the occupation in the West
Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. … Thus, the conduct
of the occupation involves violations of the following norms of
international law that have jus cogens and erga omnes status: [including]
[t]he right of self-determination.” (para. 76).
Lebanon
 “Dans la présente affaire, on peut dire qu’Israël viole au moins quatre des
huit normes citées par la CDI, à savoir … le droit à l’autodétermination.”
(para. 19).
 “Le droit à l’autodétermination est une norme impérative de droit
international consacrée dans divers textes y compris la Charte des Nations
Unies, qui établit ce droit comme un des fondements des relations amicales
entre les nations. Or ce socle du droit international moderne comporte
plusieurs facettes, toutes violées par Israël.” (para. 29).
Appendix 7 — 8
 “Comme il a été mentionné plus haut, le Liban considère qu’Israël viole
tous les éléments constitutifs du droit du peuple palestinien à
l’autodétermination : qui sont (1) l’indépendance politique et économique
(2) la souveraineté permanente sur les richesses et ressources naturelles,
(3) l’intégrité territoriale.” (para. 32).
Malaysia
 “Malaysia is particularly concerned by Israel’s egregious violations of the
right [to self-determination] in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.” (para.
4(b)).
 “Malaysia submits that Israel’s prolonged occupation, settlement, and
annexation of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, as well as other
practices and measures infringing the rights of Palestinians, breach the right
to self-determination of the Palestinian people.” (para. 38).
 “Israel’s practices of de jure and de facto annexation, as well as the
connected creation of enclaves dividing the Occupied Palestinian Territory,
violate the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people.” (para. 45).
 “Israel’s ongoing practices …infringe the right of the Palestinian people to
permanent sovereignty over their natural wealth and resources, and
therefore violate the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.”
(para. 55).
 “Israel’s policies and practices unjustifiably infringe the right of the
Palestinian people to freely pursue their economic, social and cultural
development. As such, they violate the right of the Palestinian people to
self-determination.” (para. 60).
 “Israel’s practices breach each of the central, substantive elements of the
right to self-determination …. These concern the rights of the Palestinian
people: to territorial integrity, to national unity and the protection of their
integrity as a people; to permanent sovereignty over their natural wealth
and resources; and to the free pursuit of their economic, social and cultural
development.” (para. 61).
Maldives
 “Israel’s ongoing occupation of the OPT violates the right of the Palestinian
people to self-determination” (para. 2(e)).
Appendix 7 — 9
 “The Maldives firmly believes that Israel’s prolonged occupation,
settlement and annexation of the Palestinian territory entail grave breaches
of international law, especially international humanitarian law and
international human rights law, giving rise to serious humanitarian
consequences. Israel’s flagrant violations of international law are
detrimental to the peaceful resolution of the conflict and the selfdetermination
of the Palestinian people.” (para. 11).
 “It is undeniable that the Palestinian people possess a right to selfdetermination
and that Israel is bound under international law to respect
that right. Israel’s ongoing occupation of the OPT continues to entail gross
violations of this right.” (para. 34).
 “There is no prospect of the Palestinian people exercising their right to selfdetermination
for as long as Israel maintains its de facto annexation of the
OPT.” (para. 35).
Mauritius
 “It is widely recognised that Israel is engaged in an ‘ongoing violation’ of
the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people.” (para. 13).
 “Yet, the decades between 1967 and the present have been characterized by
increased incursions into the OPT, the implantation of hundreds of Israeli
settlements and hundreds of thousands of Israeli settlers – in what amounts
to the colonization of Palestinian territory by Israel – and the denial of
Palestinian people’s right to self-determination throughout their own
ancestral homeland.” (para. 17).
 “[T]here is ample evidence to support the conclusion that Israel’s
occupation of the OPT – including through its illegal annexation of
Palestinian territory – is an enduring and comprehensive ‘impediment to
the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination’.”
(para. 22).
Namibia
 “The denial of family unification for Palestinians with different status is
part and parcel of the denial of their right to self-determination and amounts
to an inhuman act of apartheid.” (para. 85).
 “Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territory breaches the right to
external self-determination of the Palestinian people, which includes the
Appendix 7 — 10
exercise of the right of the Palestinian people to an independent State.”
(para. 144).
 “The exercise of Palestinian self-determination and Statehood has also been
severely impaired by the imposition of unlawful measures (including the
expansion of settlements and the construction of the wall and its associate
regime in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem). The inalienable and
collective right to self-determination as a result of decades of imposed
strategic fragmentation, placing them in different legal and administrative
domains and across spatial geographies in Palestine and exile, by virtue of
Israel’s regime of racial discrimination and domination. The right selfdetermination
encompasses sovereignty over natural resources and wealth,
most of which has been unlawfully appropriated, exploited, depleted and
pillaged by the Occupying Power – oftentimes together with Israeli and
multinational private and corporate actors.” (para. 149).
Oman
 “[T]he occupation, settlement, and annexation of Palestinian Territory
occupied since 1967 by Israel obstructs the realisation of the Palestinian
people’s inalienable rights, including their right to self-determination and
right to return. There is an overwhelming international agreement on the
existence of the right to self-determination and its continued denial in the
Occupied Palestinian Territories.” (para. 1).
Organisation of Islamic Cooperation
 “Mais il ne s’agit pas de violations des droits humains comme d’autres
peuples peuvent malheureusement en connaître. Il s’agit plus gravement
avec le projet de l’État d’Israël d’entraver et de rendre à terme impossible
la réalisation du droit fondamental des Palestiniens à
l’autodétermination.” (para. 9)
 “[L]’occupation militaire du Territoire palestinien à laquelle Israël s’est
livrée en 1967, et sans interruption de cette date jusqu’à nos jours, ainsi
que tous les actes qui ont accompagné cette occupation, n’ont été qu’une
nouvelle étape dans un processus continu et commencé antérieurement,
celui de la violation persistante et organisée de la norme centrale du droit
international du droit du peuple palestinien à l’autodétermination. Toutes
les violations commises à l’occasion du conflit israélo-palestinien, ont été
ou sont de nos jours, des violations secondaires inspirées par cette violation
principale.” (para. 241).
Appendix 7 — 11
Pakistan
 “The prolonged occupation by a State of foreign territory and peoples is by
that very fact a violation of the right to self-determination. In situations of
occupation, the occupied people are unable to determine their own political
status and unable to pursue their economic, social and cultural
development.” (para. 29).
 “Israel’s practice regarding … denial of the right to self-determination …
[is] contrary to … peremptory and jus cogens norms of international law.”
(para. 86).
Palestine
 “Taken alone, each of the actions by, or attributable to, Israel as described
above is sufficient to establish a serious breach by Israel of the Palestinian
people’s right to self-determination. Collectively, in the form of Israel’s
seizure and annexation of Palestinian land and displacement and
subjugation of the Palestinian people through racial discrimination,
persecution and apartheid – of which all of these actions form an integral
and indissoluble part – they amount to a manifest, grave, longstanding and
ongoing violation of the right to self-determination, one of the most
egregious such violations in contemporary history.” (para. 5.86).
 “The evidence adduced in this Written Statement demonstrates
overwhelmingly that Israel … denied [the Palestinian people] their right to
self-determination in their own land in an attempt to extinguish that
inalienable right permanently.” (para. 6.2).
 “More particularly, all available evidence – including as consistently and
openly furnished by generations of Israeli leaders over five decades –
establishes that Israel itself does not regard its presence in the OPT as a
temporary occupation. Its actions and its words establish that it regards its
rule over the OPT and the Palestinian people as permanent and irreversible.
This is demonstrated by: … Its denial, and attempted extinction, of the right
of the Palestinian people to self-determination, inter alia, by denying that
there is a ‘Palestinian people’ and by declaring publicly that only one group
has the right to exercise self- determination in the land between the Jordan
river and the Mediterranean sea – Jewish Israelis – and that no Palestinian
State will ever be allowed to exist there” (para. 6.3(c)).
 “Israel’s prolonged occupation of the OPT, its annexation of Palestinian
territory, and its subjugation of the Palestinian people by its racial
Appendix 7 — 12
discrimination against them tantamount to apartheid and denial of their
fundamental rights amount to the gravest of violations to their right to selfdetermination,
guaranteed to them under international law.” (para. 6.11).
 “Over the last century, the Palestinian people have endured forcible
displacement and replacement, and the systematic denial of their
fundamental rights, including to life, liberty, dignity and security, in
addition to their inalienable right to self-determination.” (“Submissions”).
Qatar
 “[T]he Palestinian people are entitled to exercise their right to selfdetermination
on the entirety of the OPT …. Among other effects, Israel’s
prolonged occupation has deprived the Palestinian people of a permanent
population …; of a territory on which to realize their self-determination …;
of the ability to exercise their collective will and determine their internal
political status …; and of their right to freely pursue their economic, social
and cultural development …. As such, the prolonged occupation
indefinitely violates the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination
and is thus existentially illegal.” (para. 4.12).
Russian Federation
 “Israel has been persistently denying the Palestinian people its right to selfdetermination.”
(para. 67).
 “[Israeli settlements] are thus also violating the right of the Palestinian
people to self-determination.” (para. 73).
Saudi Arabia
 “[T]he Court has found [the construction of the separation wall] to be in
violation of various international law obligations, including Israel’s
obligation to respect the right of the Palestinian people to selfdetermination.”
(para. 23).
 “[I]n light of the jus cogens and erga omnes character of the right of the
Palestinian people to self-determination, all States, including Israel, are
obligated not to impose any impediment to the exercise of the Palestinian
people of that right, and to see to it that any impediment in the exercise of
the Palestinian people of that right which may exist is brought to an end. …
Israel has been found to be in flagrant violation of this obligation, including
by the Court in the Wall Advisory Opinion.” (para. 25).
Appendix 7 — 13
 “The policies and practices of Israel referred to in the questions from the
General Assembly, including prolonged and oppressive occupation of more
than five decades, resulting in the acquisition of territory by force through
annexing some parts of territory de jure and others de facto and by seizing
of land resources for Israeli settlements, have served to systematically
deprive the Palestinian people of their right to self-determination in clear
violation of fundamental norms of international law, and constitute clear
evidence of Israel’s colonization purposes.” (para. 46).
Senegal
 “[I]l convient de souligner l’importance de faire cesser, sans délai, tous les
actes et mesures qui empêchent et/ou entravent l’exercice du droit à
l’autodétermination du peuple palestinien” (p. 3).
South Africa
 “The Court noted that the existence of the “Palestinian people” is no longer
in issue and has been recognised by Israel, which has a duty to respect this
right, but has taken measures that ‘severely impeded the exercise by the
Palestinian people of its right to self-determination, and is therefore in
breach of Israel’s obligation to respect that right’.” (para. 50).
 “It is therefore clear that the annexation of, and incorporation into Israel, of
East Jerusalem and parts of the West Bank, are in violation of international
law. The principle of self-determination is inextricably linked to the
principle of territorial integrity.” (para. 60).
 “Israel’s failure to recognise the Palestinians’ right to self-determination,
independence and sovereignty in the territory, is clear evidence of its
underlying intention to pursue the permanent acquisition of Palestinian
territory.” (para. 64).
 “The prolonged occupation has led to the infringement of the fundamental
principle of self-determination of the Palestinian peoples, thereby depriving
the Palestinian peoples their right to decide their own political status, free
of external interference.” (para. 132).
Syria
 “The dispossession and displacement of the Palestinian people, the denial
of their rights and the discrimination against them by ‘Israel’ continue to
impede the realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people,
Appendix 7 — 14
including their right to self-determination and the right of return to their
homeland.” (para. 1).
United Arab Emirates
 “By altering or purporting to alter the status and the demographic
composition of occupied East Jerusalem, Israel has breached its obligations
under the Fourth Geneva Convention, and its obligation to respect the right
to self-determination of the Palestinian people.” (para. 37).
 “This Court has previously determined that the construction of the wall and
the establishment of Israeli settlements ‘severely impede[s] the exercise by
the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination’, result in
‘alterations to the demographic composition of the [OPT]’, and
‘contravene[s] Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention
and the Security Council resolutions [446 (1979) of 22 March 1979, 452
(1979) of 20 July 1979 and 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980]’. …
Notwithstanding the Wall Advisory Opinion, Israel’s illegal practices have
not stopped in the years since; and have, in fact, escalated.” (paras. 46-47).
 “Israel’s conduct relating to the construction, establishment, support and
expansion of Israeli settlements in the OPT also constitutes a violation of
Israel’s obligations vis-à-vis the right to self-determination of the
Palestinian people.” (para. 71).
Appendix 8 — 1
Appendix 8
Written statements concluding that Israel is practicing apartheid in the
Occupied Palestinian Territory
Algeria
 “Cette politique vise la création d’enclaves coloniales dans une stratégie
dynamique de démembrement de la Palestine afin de rendre impossible la
naissance d’un État Palestinien viable ou de créer une entité sans continuité
et contiguïté territoriale ni capacite de défense et de sécurité dépendante
organiquement d’Israël. Cette stratégie vise l’imposition, en dernier lieu, de
la solution a un seul état, ou les Palestiniens deviendront des sujets dans un
système d’apartheid” (p. 47).
Bangladesh
 “Israel’s creation and maintenance of a dual legal and political system,
which on the one hand secures the rights, freedoms and living conditions of
Jewish Israeli settlers, and on the other subjects Palestinians to military rule
and control devoid of the basic protections under international law, can only
be understood as violating Lynk’s four-part test. Further, insofar as Israel’s
discriminatory measures rise to the level of apartheid, as is increasingly
apparent, the occupation would be illegal on Albanese’s approach by
violating, and indeed being contingent upon, the violation of a peremptory
norm of international law.” (para. 31(ii)).
Belize
 “Israel has imposed a system of institutionalised discrimination against
Palestinians in clear violation of international human rights and
humanitarian law in order to maintain and further its illegal occupation,
settlement and annexation practices and policies, and its denial of the right
of the Palestinian people to self-determination.” (para. 54).
 “The evidence that Israel is committing apartheid is compelling.” (para.
66).
Bolivia
 “The settlements and their associated regime, involving the transfer of
Israeli citizens to the settlements while forcibly displacing Palestinian
families and communities, implementing a policy of population
Appendix 8 — 2
engineering of the occupied territory, and violating and denying the
Palestinian people's right to self-determination, including subjugating
Palestinian people through a system of foreign military rule and Apartheid
designed to persecute and discriminate against them constitute a violation
of international law.” (p. 4).
Chile
 “In its End of Mission Statement of 16 June 2023, the Special Committee
stated that: ‘This year, the Special Committee was presented with the
clearest evidence it has seen in its 55-year history of Israeli policies that
systematically violate the human rights of the Palestinian people in a
manner many interlocutors see as akin to apartheid.’” (para. 34).
Cuba
 “The State of Israel implements a segregationist and racist policy against
the Palestinian people living in the occupied Palestinian territories.
Repeatedly, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has
denounced that the existence of two legal systems and two totally separated
series of institutions, as well as the establishment of separate institutions for
the Jewish communities gathered in illegal settlements, on the one hand,
and the Palestinian populations living in Palestinian towns and cities, on the
other, is segregationist.” (p. 10).
 “The forced changes to the Palestinian demography are the direct result of
the territorial dispossession, forced displacement and the apartheid and
genocide regime flagrantly and systematically applied against the rights of
the Palestinian people.” (p. 22).
Djibouti
 “La politique d’occupation et de colonisation menée par la partie
israélienne s’accompagne de l’instauration d’un régime de discrimination
systématique envers la population palestinienne, visant à favoriser les
colons juifs israéliens installés en Cisjordanie y compris Jérusalem-Est.”
(para. 20).
 “Il est … permis de conclure que la politique menee par la partie
israélienne evners la population palestinienne constitue une violation
manifeste d’enormes imperatives, à savoir l’interdiction de discriminiation
raciale d’une part et de la segregation raciale et l’apartheid d’autre part.”
(para. 26).
Appendix 8 — 3
 “En vertu de l’aggravation observée ces dernières années, il apparaît que
la politique israélienne d’occupation et de colonisation, en ce qu’elle
établit un système de domination de la population de colons juifs israéliens,
implantés illégalement sur le territoire, sur la population palestinienne en
Territoire palestinien, est susceptible d’être qualifiée de régime
d’apartheid, dont les pratiques font l’objet d’une interdiction par le droit
coutumier” (para. 28).
The Gambia
 “In the almost twenty years since the Wall Advisory Opinion, the
occupation has only deepened. … An institutionalized system of
discrimination, with dual legal and political systems for Israeli settlers and
Palestinians—otherwise known as apartheid—has become entrenched.”
(para. 1.3).
Indonesia
 “Indonesia submits that Israel’s discriminatory policies have evolved into
an apartheid policy.” (para. 37).
 “[T]he intensity and the systematic discrimination of Palestinians through
policies and oppression amount to apartheid, which ultimately deprives the
Palestinian people from the enjoyment of their economic, social, and
cultural development, as the very basic tenets of the right to selfdetermination
of the Palestinian people.” (para. 39).
Kuwait
 “Israel has breached its legal obligations, and instead created a dual legal,
social and political system with fill political legal rights to its settler
population unlawfully transferred to the occupied territory and a denial of
all basic rights to the protected population. This dual legal system amounts
to apartheid.” (para. 33).
League of Arab States
 “As to the illegality of the conduct of the occupation, there are multiple,
egregious breaches of the relevant areas of applicable international law: …
[including] international human rights law generally, and, within this, the
prohibition of racial discrimination generally and the prohibition of
apartheid in particular” (para. 45).
Appendix 8 — 4
 “There have been and continues to be widespread violations of selfdetermination,
other areas of international human rights law, and IHL,
including occupation law, by Israel in its conduct of the occupation in the
West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. These have
included violations of the core/basic protective norms of IHL, torture and
cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment, racial
discrimination generally, and apartheid in particular. Thus, the conduct of
the occupation involves violations of the following norm[] of international
law that ha[s] jus cogens and erga omnes status: … The prohibition of
apartheid.” (para. 76(2)).
 “Israel is in violation of the international law prohibition of apartheid
through the creation and perpetuation of discriminatory policies and
practices that are systematically applied to the Palestinian people, with the
intention of creating a regime of Jewish supremacy over the Palestinian
people.” (para. 89).
Lebanon
 “Dans la présente affaire, on peut dire qu’Israël viole au moins quatre des
huit normes citées par la CDI, à savoir l’interdiction de l’agression, les
règles fondamentales du droit international humanitaire, l’interdiction de
la discrimination raciale et de l’apartheid, et surtout le droit à
l’autodétermination.” (para. 19).
 “La politique ségrégationniste d’Israël a atteint un tel niveau d’injustice
durable vis-à- vis des Palestiniens que plusieurs experts internationaux et
organisations non gouvernementales affirment que cette politique constitue
le crime d’apartheid, un crime qui entraîne la responsabilité de l’État pour
violation d’une norme impérative selon la conclusion de la Commission du
droit international, et implique aussi la responsabilité pénale des personnes
qui le commettent, vu qu’il est considéré l’un des crimes contre l’humanité
énoncés dans le statut de la Cour pénale internationale.” (para. 49).
 “Les dirigeants politiques israéliens d’hier et d’aujourd’hui ont à maintes
reprises répété qu’ils avaient l’intention de conserver le contrôle de
l’ensemble du territoire occupé afin d’étendre l'assise territoriale des
parcelles de colonies juives actuelles et futures tout en maintenant les
Palestiniens confinés dans des réserves de population (….) ce système de
discrimination institutionnalisée visant à exercer une domination
permanente a été imposée en recourant régulièrement à des actes cruels et
inhumains, des exécutions arbitraires et extrajudiciaires et des actes de
tortures, en acceptant que des enfants meurent de mort violente, en privant
Appendix 8 — 5
des personnes de leurs droits humains fondamentaux, en mettant en place
un système de tribunaux militaires fondamentalement défectueux, et en ne
respectant pas les garanties d’une procédure pénale régulière, en
procédant à des détentions arbitraires, et en imposant des punitions
collectives. La répétition de tels actes sur de longues périodes et le fait que
la Knesset et le système judiciaire israélien les cautionnent, montrent qu’ils
ne sont pas le fruit du hasard et n’ont rien de faits isolés mais font partie
intégrante du système de domination mis en place par Israël. Ces actes
relèvent de l’apartheid.” (para. 50).
Namibia
 “Namibia submits that Israel is in breach of its obligations under the
customary prohibition of apartheid and Article 3 of ICERD. It has imposed
a system of apartheid on (i) Palestinians within the Occupied Palestinian
Territory, specifically, and (ii) the Palestinian people, as a whole.” (para.
55).
 “The denial of family unification for Palestinians with different status is
part and parcel of the denial of their right to self-determination and amounts
to an inhuman act of apartheid.” (para. 85).
Organisation of Islamic Cooperation
 “Les Palestiniens vivant dans le Territoire occupé par Israël ont un statut
différent de celui des colons israéliens. Cette discrimination a des origines
lointaines car elle était en germe dans les termes mêmes de la Déclaration
Balfour. Celle-ci en parlant seulement des droits civils et religieux des
communautés autres que les Juifs, sans mentionner leurs droits politiques,
alors que se développait un « Foyer national juif » les rendaient étrangers
dans leur propre pays. À partir de l’occupation de 1967, Israël a imposé
l’application de sa législation à tout le territoire, mais avec la coexistence
de deux législations : la législation militaire qui s’applique à la population
palestinienne et la législation interne israélienne qui est appliquée extraterritorialement
aux seuls colons israéliens. Le droit est ainsi différencié en
matière pénale fiscale, électorale, ou dans le domaine de l’assurancemaladie.
Il existe également des systèmes juridiques distincts pour ce qui
est du Code de la route et aussi en matière d’aménagement et de
construction. Ainsi s’est constituée par étapes, une situation d’apartheid
comme cela a été constaté par le rapport d’Amnesty international après un
travail d’observation et de documentation de plusieurs années.” (para.
334).
Appendix 8 — 6
Pakistan
 “Israel’s deployment of a dual legal system in the OPT, and the resulting
systematic discrimination against Palestinians and subordination of
Palestinians’ civil and political rights to the rights of Jewish Israeli citizens
settled in the OPT, amount to a breach of the prohibition of apartheid under
international law.” (para. 57).
 “An examination of relevant Israeli law and practice, suggests that Israeli
officials are responsible for committing several inhuman acts as defined in
Article 2 of the Apartheid Convention, particularly Articles under 2(a),
2(c), and 2(f).” (para. 58).
 “Israel’s practices and procedures of deployment of a dual legal system,
forced evictions, demolitions in the OPT, and the resulting systematic
discrimination against Palestinians and subordination of Palestinians’ civil
and political rights to the rights of Jewish Israeli citizens settled in the OPT,
including East Jerusalem, amount to a breach of the prohibition of apartheid
under international law.” (para. 114(5)).
Palestine
 “The evidence adduced in this Written Statement demonstrates
overwhelmingly that Israel has annexed and plans to continue to annex
Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank; that it has imposed systematic and
comprehensive racial discrimination tantamount to apartheid against the
Palestinian people based on their race; and that it has denied their right to
self-determination in their own land in an attempt to extinguish that
inalienable right permanently.” (para. 2).
 “The regime which Israel has established in the OPT is thus purposefully
imbued with widespread and systematic violations of the prohibition of
racial discrimination, in gross violation of customary international law of a
jus cogens character, in addition to innumerable other human rights
violations. It is, in fact, indistinguishable from apartheid, as discussed in
the next Section of this Chapter, and is in many ways even worse than that
which was practiced by South Africa between 1948 and the early 1990s, as
observed by many who lived and witnessed apartheid in South Africa and
Namibia.” (para. 4.222).
 “Israel’s occupation of the OPT is characterized by a system of apartheid
in which an institutionalized military regime directed by a political
leadership systematically persecutes and aims to colonize and annex
Appendix 8 — 7
Palestinian territory. More broadly, Israel discriminates against all
Palestinians, on both sides of the Green Line and Palestinian refugees and
diaspora, on grounds of their race, in order to establish, promote and
perpetuate the supremacy of Jewish Israelis and their permanent dominion
over all the territory between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River.
Israel’s policy towards the Palestinian people has become a textbook
illustration of apartheid. It is no less malign in its aim, and no less pervasive
in its devastating consequences for the Palestinian people, than the
apartheid regime which existed in South Africa – and in Namibia under
South African occupation prior to its independence – until the 1990s.
Accordingly, based on the abundant evidence that has been brought before
the Court as set out in this Chapter, it is well established that Israel is
committing the internationally wrongful act of apartheid.” (para. 4.253).
 “Israel has established a deeply entrenched system of racial discrimination
in the OPT. This system openly and unapologetically distinguishes along
racial lines between the Palestinian population and the Israeli settler
population that has been transferred to the OPT in violation of international
law. It has also been demonstrated that this regime of racial discrimination
has assumed an apartheid character as laid out in relevant customary and
conventional international law.” (para. 6.10).
 “Israel’s prolonged occupation of the OPT, its annexation of Palestinian
territory, and its subjugation of the Palestinian people by its racial
discrimination against them tantamount to apartheid and denial of their
fundamental rights amount to the gravest of violations to their right to selfdetermination,
guaranteed to them under international law.” (para. 6.11).
Qatar
 “…Israel’s occupation of the OPT amounts to a regime of apartheid. What
may have once been a temporary military occupation within the meaning
of that term under international law is today an institutionalized regime of
systematic racial oppression and discrimination, established with the intent
to maintain the domination of Jewish Israelis over Palestinians, and which
features inhumane acts committed as an integral part of that regime.” (para.
4.71).
Saudi Arabia
 “The prohibition against racial discrimination generally and the prohibition
of apartheid in particular are also jus cogens norms generating erga omnes
Appendix 8 — 8
obligations. Through its policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian
Territory, Israel is in grave violation of those obligations.” (para. 30).
 “Israel’s discriminatory practices against the Palestinian people in general
violate Israel’s obligations under the CERD prohibiting racial
discrimination, which is a jus cogens norm. That these practices amount to
a systematic government-inspired and supported system of racial
discrimination tantamount to apartheid throughout the Occupied
Palestinian Territory cannot be hidden or seriously denied, and the Court
should therefore recognize and condemn those practices as such.” (para.
73).
South Africa
 “There exists in the Occupied Palestinian Territory an institutionalized and
oppressive system of Israeli domination over Palestinians as a group.”
(para. 91).
 “It is South Africa’s submission that not only does Israel continue to fail to
provide adequate protection of a protected population with international
status under international law, but that it in fact continues to impose an
institutionalised regime of systematic racial oppression and discrimination
against the people of Palestine which satisfies the prevailing evidentiary
standard of the international crime of apartheid.” (para. 101).
 “Israeli discriminatory and inhuman treatment of Palestinians has reached
the threshold of apartheid within the meaning ascribed to it in the Apartheid
Convention.” (para. 111).
 “Israel’s discriminatory treatment of Palestinians must be viewed in its
totality: it has created and maintained an institutionalised regime of
systematic oppression wherever it controls territory, fuelled by
demographic considerations that continue to shape its policies towards
Palestinians. These manifest in the different sets of discriminatory and
exclusionary laws, policies, and practices which intentionally serve to
oppress and dominate Palestinians, to maximise the benefit to Jewish
Israelis and to create a Jewish majority which is privileged in every
respect.” (para. 117).
Appendix 8 — 9
Syria
 “The practices of the occupation authorities against civilians in the
occupied Arab territories in Palestine … expressed the most heinous forms
of apartheid and racial discrimination.” (para. 20).
 “The actions of ‘Israel’ do not occur in a random nor in a vacuum or in
isolation, but are part of a large-scale, repressive, organized and systematic
regime. Those practices have been identified as apartheid after a thorough
factual and legal study by the UN special procedures and by various
international organizations.” (para. 26).
Yemen
 “All three [CERD and Apartheid Convention] elements of the governing
test for the presence of apartheid are found in the occupying Power’s rule
over the Palestinian people in the OPT.” (para. 35).
 “The existence of a systematic regime of racial discrimination amounting
to apartheid is clear on both sides of the Green Line.” (para. 38).
 “It is clear … that the policies and practices of Israel, the occupying power,
in the OPT, that when examined as a whole, involve the gross and
systematic violation of at least these peremptory norms of general
international law … [including] the imposition of a regime of widespread
and systematic racial discrimination amounting to Apartheid.” (para.
40(2)).

Appendix 9 — 1
Appendix 9
Written statements concluding that Israel has violated the jus cogens
prohibition on annexation
Algeria
 “[L]a Cour a toutes les raisons de considérer que non seulement la
situation créée par la barrière, mais aussi l’emprise d’Israël, sont devenues
équivalentes a une annexation de facto¸ du mois dans toute la partie du
territoire palestinien qui est sous administration territoriale israélienne
directe” (p. 24).
 “Vingt ans plus tard, la Cour a toutes les raisons de considérer que non
seulement la situation créée par la barrière, mais aussi l’emprise d’Israël,
sont devenues équivalentes à une annexion de facto, du moins dans toute la
partie du territoire palestinien qui est sous administration territoriale
israélienne discrète (Zone C en vertu des Accords d’Oslo).” (p. 24).
 “L’annexion de jure par Israël de Jérusalem-Est et de certaines parties de
la Cisjordanie en 1967 (par une décision du Cabinet) et en 1980 (par un
vote de la Knesset) constitue ipso facto une violation du principe de nonannexion,
tel qu’il est reflété par le droit pertinent en matière
d’occupation.” (p. 25).
African Union
 “As for Jerusalem, its de facto and de jure annexation has continued
unabated.” (para. 29).
 “Israel’s policies and practices in the occupied Palestinian territories further
violate the prohibition on the acquisition of territory by force. These
policies and practices demonstrate that Israel is intent on holding the
territory permanently through a process that involves both the de jure and
de facto annexation of these areas.” (para. 125).
 “Likewise, as relates to East Jerusalem, Israel has undertaken policies and
practices that amount to both de jure and de facto annexation.” (para. 126).
 “In addition to de jure measures through which Israel has formally annexed
parts of the occupied Palestinian territories, other Israeli policies and
Appendix 9 — 2
practices in the occupied territories, including in East Jerusalem,
demonstrate that Israel is implementing a strategy of de facto annexation of
significant areas of the territories.” (para. 130).
Bangladesh
 “It is in the context of increasing Palestinian fatalities, increasing Statesanctioned
violence, increasing evictions and land annexation, increasing
exploitation of Palestinian resources, open declarations by successive
Israeli Prime Ministers on the permanence of Israel’s occupation, and the
entrenchment of irreversible facts on the ground, that the General Assembly
has seized the Court of its advisory jurisdiction.” (para. 4).
 “Israel’s settlement and de facto annexation of the Occupied Territory has
been pursued by way of a twin strategy which leads inexorably to the
conclusion that Israel’s occupation is illegal. On the one hand, Israel has
forcibly confined and displaced Palestinians, while appropriating their land.
On the other, it has built and expanded settlements on that appropriated
land, and transferred Israeli citizens into the Occupied Territory. Israel has
no intention of reversing the facts on the ground that it has established by
way of those strategies.” (para. 31).
Belize
 “By annexing the Palestinian territory Israel has violated the right of the
Palestinian people to territorial integrity.” (para. 22(a)).
 “It is clear that Israel subsequently annexed East Jerusalem in violation of
international law. In June 1967, Israel extended its law, jurisdiction and
administration to East Jerusalem and surrounding villages, and extended
the boundaries of its Jerusalem municipality to include those areas.” (para.
47).
 “Given the maintenance of the wall and its associated regime in the ensuing
20 years, these measures have become permanent and, thus, there has been
de facto annexation of the part of the West Bank between the Green Line
and the wall.” (para. 49).
 “Israel has manifested the intention to permanently hold the whole of the
West Bank.” (para. 51).
 “Israel has also manifested the intention permanently to exercise control
over Gaza akin to the control it exercises over any part of its own territory,
Appendix 9 — 3
and in that way hold the territory of Gaza indefinitely under its dominion,
which constitutes de facto annexation.” (para. 53).
Bolivia
 “Likewise, Bolivia considers that the acquisition of territory by force, the
transgression of the territorial delimitations made by the United Nations
and accepted by both parties; and the consequent forced displacement of
the Palestinian population from their lands, homes and properties to
encourage the settlement of settlers backed by military forces using
disproportionate force and committing violations of human rights, which
could constitute crimes against humanity, are manifestly illegal acts that
also constitute violations of international humanitarian law.” (p. 6).
 “The de facto annexation of territory imposes restrictions on where
Palestinians can live and travel, and imposition of a racially discriminatory
legal and administrative regime that favors Israeli settlers and deprives
Palestinians of their fundamental rights. The occupying Power is bound by
international law to administer the territory for the benefit of the people
under its occupation. Israel has set out to exercise effective sovereignty over
Jerusalem and the Occupied Palestinian Territory as a whole, annexing
some parts of it de jure and other parts de facto.” (p. 14).
Brazil
 “Brazil considers that the prolonged occupation, settlements and
annexation of the Palestinian territory, including measures aimed at altering
the demographic composition, character and status of these territories,
including East Jerusalem, violate relevant rules of international law.” (para.
38).
Chile
 “These rules and prohibitions [including the UN Charter’s prohibition on
annexation through the use force] are relevant when examining Israel’s
attempt to annex, both de jure and de facto, parts of Palestinian territory.
The rules are also crucial for evaluating the legality of the prolonged
occupation itself. As noted by Special Rapporteur Lynk, ‘the inexorable
Israeli occupation has become indistinguishable from annexation’.” (para.
72).
 “The Israeli Government has pursued a policy of establishing settlements
in the OPT and de facto annexation for decades, and has been operating in
Appendix 9 — 4
full knowledge of the illegality of its settlements, and the international
obligations that compel it. Therefore, the relevance of this increasingly
growing body of law should not be understated in the legal analysis of the
situation in the OPT.” (para. 93).
 “The previous sections show that Israel has violated the right of the
Palestinian people to self-determination, through its prolonged occupation,
the establishment of illegal settlements, de facto annexation of the
Palestinian territory since 1967, and all the measures taken with the purpose
to deprive the Palestinian people of the right to determine their own political
status and to be free to pursue their economic, social, and cultural
development without external interference.” (para. 95).
China
 “As repeatedly stressed by the UN Security Council resolutions, Israel must
not annex the Occupied Palestinian Territory. For example, Security
Council Resolution 242, adopted unanimously after the 1967 armed
conflict, explicitly emphasizes the ‘inadmissibility of the acquisition of
territory by war’.” (para. 26).
 “The prolonged Israeli occupation, the establishment of settlements, the
annexation of East Jerusalem and relevant discriminatory legislation,
among other measures taken by Israel, have seriously impeded the
realization of the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people”
(para. 45).
Cuba
 “The Government of the Republic of Cuba reiterates its condemnation of
the continued acts of annexation” (p. 3).
 “The occupation of the Palestinian territories is also classified as an
unlawful act of annexation in accordance with the provisions of Security
Council Resolutions 478 (1980) and 497 (1981), which state that the Israeli
actions oriented to the annexation of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights
were ‘null and void’ and should not be recognized by States.” (p. 5).
 “The Law on Jerusalem of 1980 is another clearly internationally wrongful
act, whereby Israel unilaterally, unlawfully and illegally declared the city
as a unified whole and a single district and proclaimed the city as its “eternal
and undivided” capital. This annexation has brought about strong rejection
among the international community, materialized in Resolution 478 of the
Appendix 9 — 5
United Nations Security Council which regarded it as contrary to
International Law.” (p. 23).
Djibouti
 “[L]’occupation prolongee du Territoire palestinien s’accompagne de
mesures d’annexation de jure et de facto d’importantes portions de ce
territoire. La partie israélienne a procede à l’annexion de Jerusalem …. Le
reste de Cisjordanie fait aussi l’object d’une annexion de facto.” (paras. 11-
12).
Egypt
 “Israel’s de jure annexation of Jerusalem, formalized in 1980, is clearly
contrary to international law. Israel’s intention to make its occupation
permanent is evidenced by its residential, industrial, and agricultural
settlements, and related infrastructures such as roads and water systems,
which have been established and developed in the West Bank, including
East Jerusalem, since 1967. The Wall and its associated regime have further
pursued the incorporation of major settlements, especially those located
around East Jerusalem, into Israel’s territory, giving rise to a de facto
annexation, which further violates the Palestinians’ rights to selfdetermination
and permanent sovereignty over their natural resources.”
(para. 269).
 “The prolonged and continuing occupation of the territory of Palestine, and
the practices and policies of annexation and settlements, constitute a breach
of international obligations, including: … the inadmissibility of the
acquisition of territory through the use of force” (para. 326(c)(iv)).
France
 “Ce constat d’illicéité demeure aujourd’hui d’autant plus fondé que, depuis
2004, Israël a poursuivi et accentué sa politique d’implantation de colonies
en territoire palestinien occupé, en violation de ses obligations au regard
du droit international.” (para. 54).
 “Comme l’avait indiqué la Cour dans le cadre de la construction du mur,
une telle situation peut amener à un ‘fait accompli’ et à un processus
d’annexion de facto” (para. 57).
 “Le statut de puissance occupante ne confère rigoureusement aucun titre
juridique justifiant une annexion. A cet égard, le fait que l’occupation soit
Appendix 9 — 6
d’une durée particulièrement longue ne saurait, en tout état de cause,
permettre de légitimer des prétentions d’annexion. Le passage du temps ne
suffit pas, en matière d’acquisition de territoires par la force, à rendre licite
une situation gravement illicite.” (para 58).
 “Il ne fait donc aucun doute que le statut unilatéral imposé par Israël à
Jérusalem est nul et non avenu au regard du droit international, et que les
mesures protectrices prévues par la quatrième convention de Genève s’y
appliquent, comme dans le reste des territoires palestiniens occupés” (para
72).
The Gambia
 “In the almost twenty years since the Wall Advisory Opinion, the
occupation has only deepened. Israel has annexed more territory and
expanded its illegal settlements.” (para. 1.3).
Guyana
 “The evidence clearly establishes that, through the acts it has committed
during the course of [its] prolonged occupation, Israel has annexed East
Jerusalem and the West Bank.” (para. 13).
Indonesia
 “Since 1967, Israel has manifestly exhibited the intention to effectively
annex the OPT as Israel’s territory in contravention to international law.”
(para. 40).
 “Israel is continuously encroaching the territory of Palestine, specifically
subsequent to the Six Day War of 1967, by illegally occupying beyond what
was intended under the UN Partition Plan, including but not limited to the
OPT and East Jerusalem. Such act of occupation, including the associated
regime of establishment of settlement and imposition of discriminatory
measures and policies, shows Israel’s intention to illegally annex the
aforementioned territories.” (para. 42).
 “Violations committed by Israel are manifested through the following
policies and practices, including but not limited to: … settlement and
annexation policies of the OPT since 1967” (para. 68(c)(2)).
Appendix 9 — 7
Ireland
 “[T]he Secretary-General has reported that the Israeli Parliament also has a
‘practice’ of ‘enacting laws with direct applicability in the West Bank’,
which he has described as ‘raising concerns about ‘de facto annexation’’,
concerns that Ireland shares.” (para. 29).
 “Ireland’s assessment is that the situation envisaged by the Court has,
therefore, come to pass through the evident permanence of the wall almost
two decades later: the wall and its associated regime have created a situation
of de facto annexation over those parts of the Occupied Palestinian
Territory that lie between the wall and Israel.” (para. 37).
 “Ireland considers that the situation of annexation created by the wall is part
of a wider process of annexation by Israel of territory within the Occupied
Palestinian Territory, demonstrated in particular by the settlements and
their associated regime. As described above, the settlements – the
expansion of which is intensifying – appear clearly to be intended as
permanent.” (para. 38).
 “Israel’s de jure annexation of East Jerusalem through its 1980 Basic
Law89 followed a process over many years of de facto annexation of that
territory. In Ireland’s opinion the information set out above, in addition to
the extensive additional material provided in the numerous reports of the
Secretary-General, the High Commissioner and others, furnished to the
Court, demonstrate that a process of annexation is now also at an advanced
stage in the Occupied Palestinian Territory more broadly.” (para. 39).
 “In Ireland’s view Israel is, nevertheless, already in the process of annexing
Palestinian territory. It is doing so de facto, through its policy of
encouraging demographic change in the Occupied Palestinian Territory by
population transfer and the continuous development and maintenance of
permanent settlements and infrastructure. Ireland is concerned that it may
also be doing so, to some extent, de jure, by increasingly extending the
application of domestic Israeli law and civilian administration to the
settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, thereby integrating them
into its own territory and erasing the differences in law between the two
territories.” (para. 40).
 “Whether de facto or de jure, or both, this process of annexation is in clear
breach of the prohibition in international law of the acquisition of territory
by threat or use of force.” (para. 41).
Appendix 9 — 8
 “Far from temporarily administering the Occupied Palestinian Territory in
accordance with the law of military occupation, Israel is engaged in
escalating unlawful settlement activity, which amounts to a process of
annexation, and is in serious breach of its obligation to respect the right of
the Palestinian people to self-determination. Ireland regrets to conclude that
Israel’s settlement practices amount to an attempt to transform a temporary,
albeit prolonged, occupation into an exercise in permanently acquiring
territory by a gradual process of annexation.” (para. 44).
Jordan
 “In the present case, the extraordinary duration of Israel’s occupation of the
Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, reflects Israel’s
intention to make its presence in the occupied territory permanent, in
violation of the prohibition of acquisition of territory by force and the right
of the Palestinian people to self-determination.” (para. 4.38).
 “In sum, the Israeli settlements and outposts in the Occupied Palestinian
Territory, including East Jerusalem, in addition to breaching the right of the
Palestinian people to self-determination, constitute a violation of the law of
occupation. The Israeli policy of settlements is also contrary to the
prohibition of acquisition of territory by force, as further explained below.”
(para. 4.76).
 “The annexation of an occupied territory by the occupying Power, in whole
or in part, de jure or de facto, is absolutely prohibited. This constitutes a
fundamental principle of the law of occupation which applies to Israel’s
occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem.
Any measure adopted by Israel to annex that territory therefore constitutes
a serious violation of international humanitarian law, as well as of the
prohibition of acquisition of territory by force.” (para. 4.79).
Kuwait
 “The State of Kuwait considers that the Israeli occupation has sought to
consolidate and make permanent its long-term occupation of Palestinian
territory through illegal means, including through colonization and
annexation of Palestinian territory it has occupied since 1967” (para. 2).
 “In the years since [Israel’s illegal annexation of Jerusalem], it has
intensified its efforts to deepen the illegal annexation of the City and to
attempt to make permanent its illegal claim of sovereignty.” (para. 9).
Appendix 9 — 9
 “The State of Kuwait affirms the position of the United Nations and the
international community that Israeli colonization of East Jerusalem and the
rest of the West Bank by means of its transfer to these parts of the OPT of
more than 700,000 Israeli settlers, and its establishment of hundreds of
settlements constitute a flagrant violation of international law and a
principal means by which it is exercising its objective to annex this territory
and exercise permanent sovereignty over it. The Israeli settlements are the
engine of the occupation, and its locomotive for achieving annexation of
the Palestinian territory.” (para. 13).
League of Arab States
 “The existential illegality of the occupation thus arises out of the simple
fact of the occupation as a system of control and domination without a valid
legal basis. This is then compounded by the occupation’s prolonged
duration, its link to de jure and de facto annexation, and the egregious
abuses perpetrated against the Palestinian people. The use of military force
to annex territory is an independent basis for existential illegality: also a
violation of the international law on the use of force, an aggression.” (para.
44).
Lebanon
 “Israël continue malgré les résolutions successives du Conseil de sécurité,
à commencer par la résolution 242, son occupation et ses politiques qui
visent clairement à annexer les Territoires palestiniens. Il encourage la
colonisation, la confiscation des terres, la destruction des bâtiments publics
et privés afin de rendre sa présence un fait accompli et irréversible.” (para.
26).
 “Vu ce qui précède, le Liban considère que la Cour devrait réitérer dans son
avis consultatif la violation d’Israël du principe fondamental de l’illicéité
du recours à la force et son corollaire de l’illégalité d’annexion des
territoires par la force.” (para. 27).
Malaysia
 “Israel’s continued establishment and facilitation of settlements, as well as
their associated infrastructure and regimes, amount to acts of de facto
annexation.” (para. 42).
Appendix 9 — 10
 “Israel’s practices of de jure and de facto annexation, as well as the
connected creation of enclaves dividing the Occupied Palestinian Territory,
violate the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people.” (para. 45)
Maldives
 “Israel has engaged in unlawful uses of force against, and has in violation
of international law taken steps to annex, the OPT” (para. 2(c)).
 “In June 1967, Israel unilaterally used force in order to incorporate 70,000
dunams of Palestinian land into the municipal area of Jerusalem. This is an
act which violated Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and customary
international law.” (para. 18).
 “In 1980, Israel enacted a ‘basic law’ declaring Jerusalem as its capital,
solidifying the de facto (and purported de jure) annexation of East
Jerusalem.” (para. 20).
 “[I]n violation of the requirement that an occupation must be temporary,
Israel has sought to create a permanent state of affairs that is tantamount to
annexation.” (para. 28).
 “There is no prospect of the Palestinian people exercising their right to selfdetermination
for as long as Israel maintains its de facto annexation of the
OPT.” (para. 35).
Mauritius
 “For the reasons summarized above, there is ample evidence to support the
conclusion that Israel’s occupation of the OPT – including through its
illegal annexation of Palestinian territory – is an enduring and
comprehensive “impediment to the exercise by the Palestinian people of its
right to self-determination”. Accordingly, Israel is under an obligation to
immediately end its occupation of the OPT and “It is for all States … to see
to it” that the occupation “is brought to an end” without delay.” (para. 22).
Namibia
 “Israel’s presence in the Palestinian territory has been illegal from the outset
in 1967 and the consequent occupation is also illegal. … This illegality has
been further compounded by Israel’s colonization of the Palestinian
territory that started in 1967 and continue to this very day and its purported
annexation of Palestinian territory, in breach of article 2(4) of the Charter
Appendix 9 — 11
and the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force.” (paras. 142-
143).
Norway
 “Norway has consistently emphasized its principled stand that any
acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible and constitutes a serious
violation of international law. In this regard, Norway also refers to Security
Council 2334 (2016), which also underlines that no changes to the 4 June
1967 lines other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations will
be recognized.” (p. 2).
 “Norway has … expressed serious concerns regarding developments on the
ground in the occupied Palestinian territory, including further plans for the
expansion of Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, as
well as possible measures for the further annexation of territory occupied
since 1967. Norway has made it clear that measures taken towards further
settlements expansion and annexation, including in East Jerusalem, are in
contravention of international law, and will undermine the possibility of
achieving a negotiated two-state solution.” (p. 3).
Oman
 “[T]he primary legal consequence arising from Israel’s behaviour is that
there is now a de facto annexation by Israel of the Palestinian territories.”
(p. 4).
Organisation of Islamic Cooperation
 “Il ne manque pas de déclarations politiques indiquant l’intention de
personnalités politiques israéliennes de ne jamais faire cesser l’occupation.
… Le déploiement illimité de colonies de peuplement israéliennes et la
ferme volonté de l’État hébreu de les intégrer à son territoire sont la preuve
d’une volonté d’annexion illégale.” (para. 298).
 “Pour ce qui est de Jérusalem, la situation est à la fois plus claire et plus
grave. Israël, après s’être emparé par la force de la partie Ouest de la ville
lors de ses conquêtes illégales de 1948, l’a alors déclarée capitale éternelle
d’Israël. Mais en 1980, allant plus loin, Israël a adopté la Loi fondamentale
par laquelle Jérusalem toute entière est désignée comme capitale réunifiée
d’Israël. La présumée annexion de jure de Jérusalem est ainsi confirmée.”
(para. 302).
Appendix 9 — 12
 “La conclusion de la Commission internationale indépendante chargée
d’enquêter dans le Territoire palestinien occupé, y compris Jérusalem-Est
et en Israël, confirme qu’il y a de la part d’Israël annexion de jure (sur
Jérusalem) et annexion de facto (sur la Cisjordanie)” (para. 303).
Pakistan
 “Israel use of force to prolong the occupation of OPT is illegal, amounting
to annexation, and is contrary to the principles of international law.” (para.
114(4)).
Palestine
 “The evidence adduced in this Written Statement demonstrates
overwhelmingly that Israel has annexed and plans to continue to annex
Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank” (para. 6.2).
 “[T]he facts presented in this Written Statement indisputably point only in
one direction: that of Israel’s annexation of Palestinian territory in violation
of one of the most fundamental norms of international law, the
inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force, with the intention of
permanent colonization and control.” (para. 6.8).
 “Israel’s prolonged occupation of the OPT, its annexation of Palestinian
territory, and its subjugation of the Palestinian people by its racial
discrimination against them tantamount to apartheid and denial of their
fundamental rights amount to the gravest of violations to their right to selfdetermination,
guaranteed to them under international law.” (para. 6.11).
Qatar
 “Israel has annexed East Jerusalem de jure” (para. 3.6).
 “In the Wall Advisory Opinion, the Court warned that the establishment of
Jewish Israeli settlements in the West Bank, combined with the
construction of a barrier wall in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and its
associated regime, could ‘be tantamount to de facto annexation’. Whether
or not Israel’s actions amounted to a de facto annexation then, they
unmistakably do now. In the nearly 20 years since 2004, Israel has created
additional ‘irreversible facts on the ground’ that evidence its de facto
annexation of Area C of the West Bank in violation of international law, as
well as its intent eventually to annex all of the West Bank, excluding East
Jerusalem.” (para. 3.9).
Appendix 9 — 13
Russian Federation
 “As explained by the Court, settlements are contrary to the principle of
inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by force” (Section IX, para. 9).
Saudi Arabia
 “Israel’s actions with respect to the de facto annexation and seizure of
Palestinian land violate its obligations as the Occupying Power under
Articles 47, 49, 53 and 55 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and customary
international law as reflected in Articles 46, 47 and 55 of the [Hague
Regulations].” (para. 53).
 “Israel’s de facto annexations are not only illegal in and of themselves, but
they also effectively deprive the Palestinian people of the exercise of their
right to self-determination over that territory.” (para. 56).
Senegal
 “[L]’occupation israélienne, qui n’est plus plus temporaire, s’est
transformee de facto en une annexion rampante …” (p. 3).
 “Il convient de signaler que l’acquisition par la force d’un territoire est
interdite par la Charte des Nations Unies.” (p. 4).
 “La plupart des motifs juridiques évoqués, pour demander a Israël de
respecter ses engagements, trouvent leur fondement dans l’effectivité de
violations graves de règles et principes bien établis du droit international,
touchant les modes d’acquisition de territoire” (p. 4).
 “La thèse du droit à l’autodéfense préventive … aboutit concrètement à une
annexation illégale.” (p. 5).
South Africa
 “It is not disputed that annexation resulting from the use of force has taken
place since 1967 and is in clear violation of the principles of international
law.” (para. 54).
 “Israel’s failure to recognise the Palestinians’ right to self-determination,
independence and sovereignty in the territory, is clear evidence of its
underlying intention to pursue the permanent acquisition of Palestinian
territory.” (para. 64).
Appendix 9 — 14
 “Israel’s annexation of Palestinian territory has been viewed as an extension
of its sovereignty, and an unlawful act in international law. Israel further
started adopting legislation which governs Palestinian territory as if it
belongs to Israel. This act was regarded by Boutruche and Sassòli as an
“aspect of de jure annexation”. Of concern to the two scholars was the fact
that “certain legislative changes adopted by an Occupying Power, may not
only constitute violations of the law of belligerent occupation, but also
amount to a certain form of annexation, prohibited by the jus ad bellum, the
international law on the use of force.” (para. 79).
Syria
 “The actual annexation of parts of the Occupied Palestinian Land is
embodied through a continuous gradual process involving the
implementation of measures and actions on the ground that demonstrate the
determination of ‘Israel’, the occupying power, to remain permanently
present and to illegally claim sovereignty over the occupied territories or
parts thereof” (para. 14).
Türkiye
 “While Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territory turned into annexation
in reality, there is growing frustration not only on the Palestinian side but
also among the international community. … As a matter of fact, unlawful
settlement activity has intensified to the extent that it is now extremely
difficult to mention the contiguity of the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
Transfer of Israeli population in the form of settlements has been changing
the demographic composition of the Occupied Palestinian Territory each
day. Demolitions of houses of Palestinian people as well as forcible
evacuations accompany unlawful settlements. These acts continue with the
support of the Israeli security forces.” (p. 2).
Yemen
 “In 1967, Israeli forces proceeded to unlawfully acquire more territory,
occupying the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.
Israeli authorities unlawfully annexed the Holy City of Jerusalem and its
environs.” (para. 18).
 “The Israeli occupation unlawfully colonized and attempted to annex as
much territory for the exclusive benefit of its Jewish Israeli settlers.” (para.
23).
Appendix 9 — 15
 “[T]he Israeli occupation has undertaken a series of legislative and
administrative measures to annex, both de jure and de facto, the West Bank,
including East Jerusalem.” (para. 25).
 “It is clear … that the policies and practices of Israel, the occupying power,
in the OPT … when examined as a whole, involve the gross and systematic
violation of at least these peremptory norms of general international law:
… The prohibition of aggression, which its corollary prohibiting the
acquisition of territory through the use of force” (para. 40(1)).