The opinion published on Friday by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) was the worst outcome officials in Jerusalem feared the most. They estimated the chances that the court would accuse Israel of apartheid, to be low and thought there may not even be a call for sanctions to be imposed on Israel.
But the opinion was the most extreme, even to the point of absurdity, in some respects and that may ultimately work in Israel's favor.
The Palestinians emerged victorious. The ICJ determined that Israel must leave the West Bank and East Jerusalem. It must remove all "settlers" from East Jerusalem, when in fact hundreds of thousands of Israelis live in what is part of the capital, as do others in other sectors of the city, in Tel Aviv or any other Israeli town – under Israel's laws.
The court asked the United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council to decide on measures to end "Israel's illegal presence' as soon as possible. But the U.S. will likely veto any such proposed resolution so the ICJ opinion would ultimately be cast aside. No American administration would accept such a resolution.
The ICJ also accused Israel of racial segregation and discrimination against the Palestinians and used the specific term "apartheid" in the opinion and asked UN member states to cooperate with the implementation of its recommendations. It said Israel must return all lands and assets in the territories to the Palestinians and even compensate them financially.
The opinion would be harmful to Israel's international standing and some UN member states may interpret it to mean they should impose sanctions on Israel. It would bolster the BDS movement and legal actions against Israel in some jurisdictions, where an embargo on weapons sales were being considered, although that was not specified in the opinion.
The ICJ also said the Palestinians must be given the right to self-determination and the UN must work toward the establishment of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel. The practical meaning is that the Oslo Accords would be annulled and there is, therefore, no need for negotiations or agreements between Israel and the Palestinians.
Since the Palestinians got everything they wanted from the court, the question is what Israel would do in response and if it would exact a price from the Palestinian Authority that was behind the entire process.
The opinion contained some absurd contentions including the claim that Israel continued to control the Gaza Strip although it withdrew its forces, dismantled its settlements and left the Gaza Strip in 2005.
The opinion also completely ignored Palestinian terrorism and even called for the partition wall, built during the second Palestinian uprising – to prevent terrorists from attacking Israeli civilians, to be taken down.
The ICJ opinion could cause Israel to adopt more extreme policies and lose any confidence it still had in the UN. The decision is the final nail in the coffin of Israel's relations with the ICJ and the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Israeli leaders are likely hoping that Republican Donald Trump will win the presidential race in November and would pass laws against the international panels including imposing sanctions on its officials.
1.
2.