By Prof. Dr. Taimoor ul Hassan
The recent verdict by the International Court of Justice declaring Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories as illegal under international law marks a defining moment in one of the most protracted conflicts of the modern world.
The court’s advisory opinion calls on the United Nations General Assembly and all member states not to recognize Israel’s sovereignty over occupied lands. It also urges nations to take steps to ensure compliance with international law. This judgment reasserts the global legal consensus on Palestinian rights and delivers a moral censure to the legacy of imperialism and selective memory that enabled the creation of the Israeli state at the cost of Palestinian displacement.
The origins of this conflict are rooted in the 1917 Balfour Declaration issued by the British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour. The letter expressed support for the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine while claiming that nothing would be done to prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities. At that time, Palestine had an overwhelming Arab Muslim and Christian population with a small Jewish minority. The declaration, however, paved the way for systematic migration, settlement, and political mobilization by Zionist groups during the British Mandate period from 1920 to 1948. The indigenous Palestinians, whose future was never consulted, soon found themselves transformed from a majority into a marginalized and dispossessed population.
The momentum for the Zionist project accelerated after World War Two, particularly following the Holocaust perpetrated by Nazi Germany. Six million Jews were exterminated in one of the most horrific genocides in history. In response, Europe and the United States felt a deep moral obligation to provide Jewish survivors with a safe homeland. But instead of offering asylum in the West, they supported the relocation of Jews to Palestine, disregarding the demographic, cultural, and political rights of the native Arab population. The West’s guilt over its own antisemitism led to the displacement of another people. The newly formed United Nations in 1947 proposed the partition of Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states. This was accepted by Jewish leaders but rejected by the Arab League and Palestinians who saw it as a colonial imposition with no regard for the will of the majority.
In 1948, the state of Israel was declared unilaterally, triggering the first Arab-Israeli war. As a result, Israel expanded its territorial control far beyond what had been allocated in the UN partition plan, occupying 78 percent of historic Palestine. Over 750,000 Palestinians were expelled or fled from their homes in what is known as the Nakba, or catastrophe. Their homes, land, and properties were confiscated, and their right of return has been denied ever since.
The war of 1967 further entrenched Israel’s control when it occupied the West Bank, Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, and Golan Heights. These areas are still considered occupied under international law, yet Israel has continued to expand illegal settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Despite repeated UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions declaring these settlements void, the occupation has deepened, protected by powerful backers in the West. The United States has vetoed numerous resolutions aimed at holding Israel accountable, effectively enabling the status quo.
The peace process that began in the late 1970s with the Camp David Accords between Egypt and Israel was hailed as a breakthrough, but it marked the beginning of Arab political recognition of Israel without a comprehensive settlement for the Palestinians. In the 1990s, the Oslo Accords between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization promised a path to a two-state solution. Yet this framework failed to achieve its goals due to persistent Israeli expansionism, internal Palestinian divisions, and the asymmetry of power between the occupier and the occupied. The death of Yasser Arafat in 2004 left a vacuum in Palestinian leadership, and the resistance movement fragmented.
While Egypt and Jordan signed peace treaties with Israel, other Arab regimes remained ambivalent. The Gulf monarchies, under pressure from the United States, gradually moved toward normalization, culminating in the Abraham Accords signed by the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan in 2020. These agreements effectively sidelined the Palestinian issue in exchange for economic and military cooperation with Israel. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation largely remained confined to issuing statements of condemnation, unable to forge a unified strategy.
In parallel, Israeli military operations against Gaza intensified. Large-scale attacks in 2008, 2012, 2014, and 2023 killed thousands of Palestinians, mostly civilians, and destroyed critical infrastructure. The 1982 invasion of Lebanon, including the Sabra and Shatila massacres, and recurrent assaults on refugee camps exposed the extent of Israeli aggression and the failure of international mechanisms to provide protection. The most recent Gaza war resulted in global outrage and was widely condemned by human rights organizations. In the wake of that conflict, escalating tensions between Israel and Iran have further destabilized the region. Missile attacks, sabotage of Iranian nuclear installations, and retaliatory strikes have brought the region close to a broader confrontation, with the United States again siding with Israel.
This long and painful history makes the ICJ ruling a moment of reckoning. While advisory in nature, the court’s judgment affirms that the occupation violates international law, including the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions. It emphasizes that all states have a duty not to recognize illegal situations resulting from aggression or occupation and must actively work to end such violations. The ruling challenges the legal and moral justifications offered for Israel’s policies and settlements. It reasserts the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, dignity, and sovereignty.
The court’s findings also carry implications for states that have recently normalized ties with Israel or are contemplating doing so. Recognition of a state that practices systematic occupation and demographic engineering against a native population may constitute complicity. States are now morally and legally obligated to reconsider their engagement with Israel until it complies with international norms.
Despite its small size, Israel has become a powerful player in the global economy. It dominates sectors such as defense technology, cybersecurity, pharmaceuticals, and venture capital. This integration into Western economic structures provides it insulation from accountability. However, the rise of civil society campaigns such as Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions and growing academic support for Palestinian rights have chipped away at Israel’s international legitimacy.
What the ICJ ruling underscores is that the issue is not simply a geopolitical dispute but a fundamental question of justice. The dispossession of an indigenous people, sustained by military might and international impunity, cannot be normalized. The court’s judgment offers clarity and should catalyze renewed commitment to international law. It should also be a wake-up call for the Muslim world to move beyond symbolic gestures and press for real diplomatic, economic, and legal action.
For over a century, the Palestinian people have suffered under a system of colonialism, apartheid, and occupation. The international community, including former colonial powers, has a responsibility to redress this historical injustice. The ICJ ruling provides the legal and ethical framework for such redress. It is time for the world to translate principles into practice, rhetoric into resistance, and legality into liberation.
Prof. Dr. Taimoor ul Hassan is a senior academic, researcher, and media scholar based in Lahore. He has served as Dean of Mass Communication at multiple universities and writes on geopolitics, media, and international law.
