Netanyahu claimed in a statement published by his office: “The Jewish people do not occupy their land, nor our capital, Jerusalem, nor the land of our fathers and grandfathers in Judea and Samaria (the name the Israelis give to the occupied West Bank). “No false decision in The Hague can distort this historical fact, and the legitimacy of Israeli settlements in all areas of our lands cannot be questioned.”
Extremist National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir also commented on the decisions of the Court of Justice in The Hague regarding “the illegality of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem.”
He said: “The Hague decision proves for the umpteenth time that this is a political and clearly anti-Semitic organization.” We will not accept moral preaching from them, as the time for rule and sovereignty has come.”
For his part, extremist Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich posted on his account on the “X” platform: “The response to The Hague will be by annexing the West Bank to Israel.”
The President of the International Court of Justice, Nawaf Salam, confirmed on Friday that the court believes that Israeli settlement activities in the Palestinian territories violate international law, and he said during a court session that “Israeli settlement policy does not comply with its obligations under international law.”
Judge Salam, who presided over the session at the beginning of its opening, indicated that the United Nations Court has the authority to issue an advisory opinion on the legal consequences of the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories, as its body has sufficient information on this issue.
He explained that the Israeli settlement policy does not comply with its obligations under international law, noting at the same time that “these settlement activities that violate international law continue to expand.”
The International Court of Justice in The Hague held hearings on February 19 and 26 on the legal consequences of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem. More than 50 countries and three international organizations – the League of Arab States, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the African Union – spoke during the meetings.
The Palestinian delegation called on the court to declare that Israel’s occupation of the territories of Palestine is illegal because it may be the last hope for a two-state solution.
Source: RT
#Netanyahu #responds #International #Justice #Departments #decision #Smotrich #calls #annexation #West #Bank
**Interview with Dr. Miriam Levy, Middle Eastern Studies Expert**
**Editor:** Thank you for joining us today, Dr. Levy. Prime Minister Netanyahu recently made strong statements regarding Israel’s claims to Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria, framing the discourse around the legitimacy of Israeli settlements. What are the implications of his remarks for the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
**Dr. Levy:** Thank you for having me. Netanyahu’s statements reflect a longstanding Israeli narrative that ties historical and ancestral claims to the land, particularly in contested areas like the West Bank. By asserting that the Jewish people do not occupy their land, he effectively challenges international norms and interpretations of occupation, which complicates peace discussions and reinforces existing divisions.
**Editor:** National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir labeled the Court of Justice in The Hague as anti-Semitic for its decisions regarding the legality of Israeli occupation. What does this say about the broader political climate within Israel?
**Dr. Levy:** Ben Gvir’s comments illustrate a shift towards a more hardline approach among certain sectors of the Israeli government, emphasizing sovereignty over legal and moral considerations. This dismissal of international law signals an increase in nationalist sentiment, which may resonate with his supporters but risks isolating Israel further on the world stage.
**Editor:** How do these statements from Israeli officials affect Israel’s relationships with other countries, particularly those in the Western sphere that have traditionally supported Israel?
**Dr. Levy:** These kinds of assertive statements can strain relationships with Western allies that uphold international law and support a two-state solution. As the discourse hardens, it may lead to increased criticism from those countries and organizations advocating for Palestinian rights, potentially resulting in diplomatic challenges for Israel moving forward.
**Editor:** Lastly, what role does international law play in this evolving narrative?
**Dr. Levy:** International law plays a crucial role in this context. The opinions of bodies like The Hague are based on legal interpretations of occupation that many countries agree with. The Israeli government’s rejection of these opinions not only challenges the legal framework but also raises questions about the future of peace negotiations. If both sides don’t acknowledge international law as a basis for resolution, finding common ground becomes significantly more difficult.
**Editor:** Thank you for your insights, Dr. Levy. It’s clear that the situation remains complex and sensitive.
