Prevents the possibility of a two-state solution

This was also the message in Norway's oral submission to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) today.

Between 19 and 26 February, 50 states and three international organizations made oral submissions to the ICJ on the legal consequences arising from the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory. The Court has been asked to consider several important questions of international law and its conclusions will form a key part of the basis for future peace negotiations between the parties.

It was the UN General Assembly that in 2022 requested that the ICJ render an advisory opinion on the legal consequences related to the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories, including the question of whether the Israeli occupation itself must be considered a violation of international law.

‘Norway clearly distances itself from Israeli settlers' displacement of and violence against Palestinians on occupied land. The settlements are illegal according to international law. This has been established in several UN Security Council resolutions, including Resolution 2334 (2016), and in the previous ICJ advisory opinion on the Israeli "wall" from 2004. The injustice the Palestinians are being subjected to must stop’, Eide said.

The Foreign Minister emphasizes that while the eyes of the world are focused on the horrific war in Gaza, the situation in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, is also very serious. During 2023, 26 new so-called settler outposts were established in the West Bank, the highest number ever. In addition, Israel approved a record number of new housing units and 15 outposts that were initially illegal under Israeli law were declared "legal". In 2023, the Israeli government implemented changes to structural and administrative regulations, which have facilitated increased development and settlement activity in the West Bank. Palestinians are displaced from their homes, which are then destroyed. Last year was also the deadliest year for Palestinians in the West Bank since the UN began recording. There is a high degree of impunity for violent settlers.

‘Since the Netanyahu government came to power, settlement activity in the occupied territories has increased. Established settlements are expanding, and new plans for road construction between settlements are being presented and approved. Among other things, this helps to fortify the settlements and exclude and push away Palestinian shepherds and agricultural workers. These developments, as well as the violence from settlers against the local population, have increased significantly since October 7,’ said Eide.

In the Norwegian oral submission to the ICJ, Norway asks the Court to determine whether the occupation of the Palestinian territories may have become tantamount to de facto annexation, which would be contrary to international law.

A gradual Israeli takeover of  larger parts of the occupied Palestinian territories, the very fact that the occupation has lasted for so many years, Israeli plans for expansion of new settlements, Israeli control over water and other important natural resources, as well as statements from Israeli leaders that a de facto annexation is a goal, are among the factors that indicate that the Court ought to consider this question.

The Norwegian submission also goes into the historical and international law basis for the establishment of the State of Israel, which also rested on the assumption that a Palestinian state should be established next to the State of Israel. In its submission to the Court, Norway recalled the unequivocal obligations undertaken by Israel in connection with its application for membership in the UN and that such membership was granted in light of clear commitments made by Israel to contribute to the realization of a viable State of Palestine.

‘It is crucial to clarify how international law is to be understood. This will have a major impact on all UN member states and their actions and assessments in the time to come,’ said Eide.

This said, it should be noted that an advisory opinion from the ICJ on questions of international law is not the same as a legally binding judgment. Nevertheless, an advisory opinion from the ICJ is considered an authoritative interpretation of international law.

‘We expect all parties to respect the conclusions of what is, after all, the world's highest court. However, it remains to be seen how individual states will choose to follow up on the Court's conclusions,’ said Eide.

Translated with DeepL.com