[9]

Volgens artikel 8, Statuut van Rome, is

het nemen van gijzelaars [taking of hostages] een

oorlogsmisdaad

ARTICLE 8, STATUTE OF ROME

Article 8

 War crimes 1. The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes. 2. For the purpose of this Statute, “war crimes” means:

(a) Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:

(i) Wilful killing;

  (ii) Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;

(iii) Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;

(iv) Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;

(v) Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power;

(vi) Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial;

(vii) Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement;

(viii) Taking of hostages.

….

…..

(ii) Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;

(iii) Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health; (iv) Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly; (v) Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power;

[8]

The Chamber found that the alleged conduct of Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant concerned the activities of Israeli government bodies and the armed forces against the civilian population in Palestine, more specifically civilians in Gaza. It therefore concerned the relationship between two parties to an international armed conflict, as well as the relationship between an occupying power and the population in occupied territory. For these reasons, with regards to war crimes, the Chamber found it appropriate to issue the arrest warrants pursuant to the law of international armed conflict. The Chamber also found that the alleged crimes against humanity were part of a widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population of Gaza.

ZIE VOOR GEHELE TEKST, NOOT 7

[7]

ZIE NOOT 6

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT [ICC]

Situation in the State of Palestine: ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I rejects the State of Israel’s challenges to jurisdiction and issues warrants of arrest for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant

21 NOVEMBER 2024

Today, on 21 November 2024, Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (‘Court’), in its composition for the Situation in the State of Palestine, unanimously issued two decisions rejecting challenges by the State of Israel (‘Israel’) brought under articles 18 and 19 of the Rome Statute (the ‘Statute’). It also issued warrants of arrest for Mr Benjamin Netanyahu and Mr Yoav Gallant.

Decisions on requests by the State of Israel

The Chamber ruled on two requests submitted by the Israel on 26 September 2024. In the first request, Israel challenged the Court’s jurisdiction over the Situation in the State of Palestine in general, and over Israeli nationals more specifically, on the basis of article 19(2) of the Statute. In the second request, Israel requested that the Chamber order the Prosecution to provide a new notification of the initiation of an investigation to its authorities under article 18(1) of the Statute. Israel also requested the Chamber to halt any proceedings before the Court in the relevant situation, including the consideration of the applications for warrants of arrest for Mr Benjamin Netanyahu and Mr Yoav Gallant, submitted by the Prosecution on 20 May 2024.

As to the first challenge, the Chamber noted that the acceptance by Israel of the Court’s jurisdiction is not required, as the Court can exercise its jurisdiction on the basis of territorial jurisdiction of Palestine, as determined by Pre-Trial Chamber I in a previous composition. Furthermore, the Chamber considered that pursuant to article 19(1) of the Statute, States are not entitled to challenge the Court’s jurisdiction under article 19(2) prior to the issuance of a warrant of arrest. Thus Israel’s challenge is premature. This is without prejudice to any future possible challenges to the Court’s jurisdiction and/or admissibility of any particular case.

Decision on Israel’s challenge to the jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to article 19(2) of the Rome Statute

The Chamber also rejected Israel’s request under article 18(1) of the Statute. The Chamber recalled that the Prosecution notified Israel of the initiation of an investigation in 2021. At that time, despite a clarification request by the Prosecution, Israel elected not to pursue any request for deferral of the investigation. Further, the Chamber considered that the parameters of the investigation in the situation have remained the same and, as a consequence, no new notification to the State of Israel was required. In light of this, the judges found that there was no reason to halt the consideration of the applications for warrants of arrest.

Decision on Israel’s request for an order to the Prosecution to give an Article 18(1) notice

Warrants of arrest

The Chamber issued warrants of arrest for two individuals, Mr Benjamin Netanyahu and Mr Yoav Gallant, for crimes against humanity and war crimes committed from at least 8 October 2023 until at least 20 May 2024, the day the Prosecution filed the applications for warrants of arrest.

The arrest warrants are classified as ‘secret’, in order to protect witnesses and to safeguard the conduct of the investigations. However, the Chamber decided to release the information below since conduct similar to that addressed in the warrant of arrest appears to be ongoing. Moreover, the Chamber considers it to be in the interest of victims and their families that they are made aware of the warrants’ existence.

At the outset, the Chamber considered that the alleged conduct of Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant falls within the jurisdiction of the Court. The Chamber recalled that, in a previous composition, it already decided that the Court’s jurisdiction in the situation extended to Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. Furthermore, the Chamber declined to use its discretionary proprio motu powers to determine the admissibility of the two cases at this stage. This is without prejudice to any determination as to the jurisdiction and admissibility of the cases at a later stage.

With regard to the crimes, the Chamber found reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Netanyahu, born on 21 October 1949, Prime Minister of Israel at the time of the relevant conduct, and Mr Gallant, born on 8 November 1958, Minister of Defence of Israel at the time of the alleged conduct, each bear criminal responsibility for the following crimes as co-perpetrators for committing the acts jointly with others: the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare; and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts.

The Chamber also found reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant each bear criminal responsibility as civilian superiors for the war crime of intentionally directing an attack against the civilian population.

Alleged crimes

The Chamber found reasonable grounds to believe that during the relevant time, international humanitarian law related to international armed conflict between Israel and Palestine applied. This is because they are two High Contracting Parties to the 1949 Geneva Conventions and because Israel occupies at least parts of Palestine. The Chamber also found that the law related to non-international armed conflict applied to the fighting between Israel and Hamas. The Chamber found that the alleged conduct of Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant concerned the activities of Israeli government bodies and the armed forces against the civilian population in Palestine, more specifically civilians in Gaza. It therefore concerned the relationship between two parties to an international armed conflict, as well as the relationship between an occupying power and the population in occupied territory. For these reasons, with regards to war crimes, the Chamber found it appropriate to issue the arrest warrants pursuant to the law of international armed conflict. The Chamber also found that the alleged crimes against humanity were part of a widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population of Gaza.

The Chamber considered that there are reasonable grounds to believe that both individuals intentionally and knowingly deprived the civilian population in Gaza of objects indispensable to their survival, including food, water, and medicine and medical supplies, as well as fuel and electricity, from at least 8 October 2023 to 20 May 2024. This finding is based on the role of Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant in impeding humanitarian aid in violation of international humanitarian law and their failure to facilitate relief by all means at its disposal. The Chamber found that their conduct led to the disruption of the ability of humanitarian organisations to provide food and other essential goods to the population in need in Gaza. The aforementioned restrictions together with cutting off electricity and reducing fuel supply also had a severe impact on the availability of water in Gaza and the ability of hospitals to provide medical care.

The Chamber also noted that decisions allowing or increasing humanitarian assistance into Gaza were often conditional. They were not made to fulfil Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law or to ensure that the civilian population in Gaza would be adequately supplied with goods in need. In fact, they were a response to the pressure of the international community or requests by the United States of America. In any event, the increases in humanitarian assistance were not sufficient to improve the population’s access to essential goods.

Furthermore, the Chamber found reasonable grounds to believe that no clear military need or other justification under international humanitarian law could be identified for the restrictions placed on access for humanitarian relief operations. Despite warnings and appeals made by, inter alia, the UN Security Council, UN Secretary General, States, and governmental and civil society organisations about the humanitarian situation in Gaza, only minimal humanitarian assistance was authorised. In this regard, the Chamber considered the prolonged period of deprivation and Mr Netanyahu’s statement connecting the halt in the essential goods and humanitarian aid with the goals of war.

The Chamber therefore found reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant bear criminal responsibility for the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare.

The Chamber found that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the lack of food, water, electricity and fuel, and specific medical supplies, created conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of part of the civilian population in Gaza, which resulted in the death of civilians, including children due to malnutrition and dehydration. On the basis of material presented by the Prosecution covering the period until 20 May 2024, the Chamber could not determine that all elements of the crime against humanity of extermination were met. However, the Chamber did find that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the crime against humanity of murder was committed in relation to these victims.

In addition, by intentionally limiting or preventing medical supplies and medicine from getting into Gaza, in particular anaesthetics and anaesthesia machines, the two individuals are also responsible for inflicting great suffering by means of inhumane acts on persons in need of treatment. Doctors were forced to operate on wounded persons and carry out amputations, including on children, without anaesthetics, and/or were forced to use inadequate and unsafe means to sedate patients, causing these persons extreme pain and suffering. This amounts to the crime against humanity of other inhumane acts.

The Chamber also found reasonable grounds to believe that the abovementioned conduct deprived a significant portion of the civilian population in Gaza of their fundamental rights, including the rights to life and health, and that the population was targeted based on political and/or national grounds. It therefore found that the crime against humanity of persecution was committed.

Finally, the Chamber assessed that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant bear criminal responsibility as civilian superiors for the war crime of intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population of Gaza. In this regard, the Chamber found that the material provided by the Prosecution only allowed it to make findings on two incidents that qualified as attacks that were intentionally directed against civilians. Reasonable grounds to believe exist that Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant, despite having measures available to them to prevent or repress the commission of crimes or ensure the submittal of the matter to the competent authorities, failed to do so.

Background

On 1 January 2015, The State of Palestine lodged a declaration under article 12(3) of the Rome Statute accepting jurisdiction of the Court since 13 June 2014.

On 2 January 2015, The State of Palestine acceded to the Rome Statute by depositing its instrument of accession with the UN Secretary-General. The Rome Statute entered into force for The State of Palestine on 1 April 2015.

On 22 May 2018, pursuant to articles 13(a) and 14 of the Rome Statute, The State of Palestine referred to the Prosecutor the Situation since 13 June 2014, with no end date.

On 3 March 2021, the Prosecutor announced the opening of the investigation into the Situation in the State of Palestine. This followed Pre-Trial Chamber I’s decision on 5 February 2021 that the Court could exercise its criminal jurisdiction in the Situation and, by majority, that the territorial scope of this jurisdiction extends to Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.

On 17 November 2023, the Office of the Prosecutor received a further referral of the Situation in the State of Palestine, from South Africa, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Comoros, and Djibouti, and on 18 January 2024, the Republic of Chile and the United Mexican State additionally submitted a referral to the Prosecutor with respect to the situation in The State of Palestine.

---

For further information, please contact Fadi El Abdallah, Spokesperson and Head of Public Affairs Unit, International Criminal Court, by telephone at: +31 (0)70 515-9152 or +31 (0)6 46448938 or by e-mail at: fadi.el-abdallah@icc-cpi.int

You can also follow the Court’s activities on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, YouTube, Instagram and Flickr

[6]

ZIE OOK NOOT 2

WIKIPEDIA

BLOCKADE OF THE GAZA STRIP

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip

RAPPORT BTSELEM

BTSELEM.ORG

OUR GENOCIDE

JULY 2025

https://www.btselem.org/sites/default/files/publications/202507_our_genocide_eng.pdf

BTSELEM.ORG

OUR GENOCIDE

https://www.btselem.org/publications/202507_our_genocide

Since October 2023, Israel has shifted its policy toward the Palestinians. Its military onslaught on Gaza, underway for more than 21 months, has included mass killing, both directly and through creating unlivable conditions, serious bodily or mental harm to an entire population, decimation of basic infrastructure throughout the Strip, and forcible displacement on a huge scale, with ethnic cleansing added to the list of official war objectives.

This is compounded by mass arrests and abuse of Palestinians in Israeli prisons, which have effectively become torture camps, and tearing apart the social fabric of Gaza, including the destruction of Palestinian educational and cultural institutions. The campaign is also an assault on Palestinian identity itself, through the deliberate destruction of refugee camps and attempts to undermine the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA).

An examination of Israel’s policy in the Gaza Strip and its horrific outcomes, together with statements by senior Israeli politicians and military commanders about the goals of the attack, leads to the unequivocal conclusion that Israel is taking coordinated, deliberate action to destroy Palestinian society in the Gaza Strip. In other words: Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. 

The term genocide refers to a socio-historical and political phenomenon involving acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. Both morally and legally, genocide cannot be justified under any circumstance, including as an act of self-defense.

Genocide always occurs within a context: there are conditions that enable it, triggering events, and a guiding ideology. The current onslaught on the Palestinian people, including in the Gaza Strip, must be understood in the context of more than seventy years in which Israel has imposed a violent and discriminatory regime on the Palestinians, taking its most extreme form against those living in the Gaza Strip. Since the State of Israel was established, the apartheid and occupation regime has institutionalized and systematically employed mechanisms of violent control, demographic engineering, discrimination, and fragmentation of the Palestinian collective. These foundations laid by the regime are what made it possible to launch a genocidal attack on the Palestinians immediately after the Hamas-led attack on 7 October 2023.

The assault on Palestinians in Gaza cannot be separated from the escalating violence being inflicted, at varying levels and in different forms, on Palestinians living under Israeli rule in the West Bank and within Israel. The violence and destruction in these areas is intensifying over time, with no effective domestic or international mechanism acting to halt them. We warn of the clear and present danger that the genocide will not remain confined to the Gaza Strip, and that the actions and underlying mindset driving it may be extended to other areas as well. 

The recognition that the Israeli regime is committing genocide in the Gaza Strip, and the deep concern that it may expand to other areas where Palestinians live under Israeli rule, demand urgent and unequivocal action from both Israeli society and the international community, and use of every means available under international law to stop Israel’s genocide against the Palestinian people. 

END

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL INVESTIGATION CONCLUDES ISRAEL

IS COMMITTING GENOCIDE AGAINST PALESTINIANS IN GAZA

 

5 DECEMBER 2024

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/12/amnesty-international-concludes-israel-is-committing-genocide-against-palestinians-in-gaza/

Amnesty International’s research has found sufficient basis to conclude that Israel has committed and is continuing to commit genocide against Palestinians in the occupied Gaza Strip, the organization said in a landmark new report published today.

The report, ‘You Feel Like You Are Subhuman’: Israel’s Genocide Against Palestinians in Gaza, documents how, during its military offensive launched in the wake of the deadly Hamas-led attacks in southern Israel on 7 October 2023, Israel has unleashed hell and destruction on Palestinians in Gaza brazenly, continuously and with total impunity.

“Amnesty International’s report demonstrates that Israel has carried out acts prohibited under the Genocide Convention, with the specific intent to destroy Palestinians in Gaza. These acts include killings, causing serious bodily or mental harm and deliberately inflicting on Palestinians in Gaza conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction. Month after month, Israel has treated Palestinians in Gaza as a subhuman group unworthy of human rights and dignity, demonstrating its intent to physically destroy them,” said Agnès Callamard, Secretary General of Amnesty International.

“Our damning findings must serve as a wake-up call to the international community: this is genocide. It must stop now.

“States that continue to transfer arms to Israel at this time must know they are violating their obligation to prevent genocide and are at risk of becoming complicit in genocide. All states with influence over Israel, particularly key arms suppliers like the USA and Germany, but also other EU member states, the UK and others, must act now to bring Israel’s atrocities against Palestinians in Gaza to an immediate end.”

Over the past two months the crisis has grown particularly acute in the North Gaza governorate, where a besieged population is facing starvation, displacement and annihilation amid relentless bombardment and suffocating restrictions on life-saving humanitarian aid.

“Our research reveals that, for months, Israel has persisted in committing genocidal acts, fully aware of the irreparable harm it was inflicting on Palestinians in Gaza. It continued to do so in defiance of countless warnings about the catastrophic humanitarian situation and of legally binding decisions from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ordering Israel to take immediate measures to enable the provision of humanitarian assistance to civilians in Gaza,” said Agnès Callamard.

“Israel has repeatedly argued that its actions in Gaza are lawful and can be justified by its military goal to eradicate Hamas. But genocidal intent can co-exist alongside military goals and does not need to be Israel’s sole intent.”

Amnesty International examined Israel’s acts in Gaza closely and in their totality, taking into account their recurrence and simultaneous occurrence, and both their immediate impact and their cumulative and mutually reinforcing consequences. The organization considered the scale and severity of the casualties and destruction over time. It also analysed public statements by officials, finding that prohibited acts were often announced or called for in the first place by high-level officials in charge of the war efforts.

“Taking into account the pre-existing context of dispossession, apartheid and unlawful military occupation in which these acts have been committed, we could find only one reasonable conclusion: Israel’s intent is the physical destruction of Palestinians in Gaza, whether in parallel with, or as a means to achieve, its military goal of destroying Hamas,” said Agnès Callamard.

“The atrocity crimes committed on 7 October 2023 by Hamas and other armed groups against Israelis and victims of other nationalities, including deliberate mass killings and hostage-taking, can never justify Israel’s genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.”

International jurisprudence recognizes that the perpetrator does not need to succeed in their attempts to destroy the protected group, either in whole or in part, for genocide to have been committed. The commission of prohibited acts with the intent to destroy the group, as such, is sufficient.

Amnesty International’s report examines in detail Israel’s violations in Gaza over nine months between 7 October 2023 and early July 2024. The organization interviewed 212 people, including Palestinian victims and witnesses, local authorities in Gaza, healthcare workers, conducted fieldwork and analysed an extensive range of visual and digital evidence, including satellite imagery. It also analysed statements by senior Israeli government and military officials, and official Israeli bodies. On multiple occasions, the organization shared its findings with the Israeli authorities but had received no substantive response at the time of publication.

Unprecedented scale and magnitude

Israel’s actions following Hamas’s deadly attacks on 7 October 2023 have brought Gaza’s population to the brink of collapse. Its brutal military offensive had killed more than 42,000 Palestinians, including over 13,300 children, and injured over 97,000 more, by 7 October 2024, many of them in direct or deliberately indiscriminate attacks, often wiping out entire multigenerational families. It has caused unprecedented destruction, which experts say occurred at a level and speed not seen in any other conflict in the 21st century, levelling entire cities and destroying critical infrastructure, agricultural land and cultural and religious sites. It thereby rendered large swathes of Gaza uninhabitable.

Mohammed, who fled with his family from Gaza City to Rafah in March 2024 and was displaced again in May 2024, described their struggle to survive in horrifying conditions:

“Here in Deir al-Balah, it’s like an apocalypse… You have to protect your children from insects, from the heat, and there is no clean water, no toilets, all while the bombing never stops. You feel like you are subhuman here.”

Israel imposed conditions of life in Gaza that created a deadly mixture of malnutrition, hunger and diseases, and exposed Palestinians to a slow, calculated death. Israel also subjected hundreds of Palestinians from Gaza to incommunicado detention, torture and other ill-treatment.

Viewed in isolation, some of the acts investigated by Amnesty International constitute serious violations of international humanitarian law or international human rights law. But in looking at the broader picture of Israel’s military campaign and the cumulative impact of its policies and acts, genocidal intent is the only reasonable conclusion.

Intent to destroy

To establish Israel’s specific intent to physically destroy Palestinians in Gaza, as such, Amnesty International analysed the overall pattern of Israel’s conduct in Gaza, reviewed dehumanizing and genocidal statements by Israeli government and military officials, particularly those at the highest levels, and considered the context of Israel’s system of apartheid, its inhumane blockade of Gaza and the unlawful 57-year-old military occupation of the Palestinian territory.

Before reaching its conclusion, Amnesty International examined Israel’s claims that its military lawfully targeted Hamas and other armed groups throughout Gaza, and that the resulting unprecedented destruction and denial of aid were the outcome of unlawful conduct by Hamas and other armed groups, such as locating fighters among the civilian population or the diversion of aid. The organization concluded these claims are not credible. The presence of Hamas fighters near or within a densely populated area does not absolve Israel from its obligations to take all feasible precautions to spare civilians and avoid indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks. Its research found Israel repeatedly failed to do so, committing multiple crimes under international law for which there can be no justification based on Hamas’s actions. Amnesty International also found no evidence that the diversion of aid could explain Israel’s extreme and deliberate restrictions on life-saving humanitarian aid.

In its analysis, the organization also considered alternative arguments such as ones that Israel was acting recklessly or that it simply wanted to destroy Hamas and did not care if it needed to destroy Palestinians in the process, demonstrating a callous disregard for their lives rather than genocidal intent.

However, regardless of whether Israel sees the destruction of Palestinians as instrumental to destroying Hamas or as an acceptable by-product of this goal, this view of Palestinians as disposable and not worthy of consideration is in itself evidence of genocidal intent.

Many of the unlawful acts documented by Amnesty International were preceded by officials urging their implementation. The organization reviewed 102 statements that were issued by Israeli government and military officials and others between 7 October 2023 and 30 June 2024 and dehumanized Palestinians, called for or justified genocidal acts or other crimes against them.

Of these, Amnesty International identified 22 statements made by senior officials in charge of managing the offensive that appeared to call for, or justify, genocidal acts, providing direct evidence of genocidal intent. This language was frequently replicated, including by Israeli soldiers on the ground, as evidenced by audiovisual content verified by Amnesty International showing soldiers making calls to “erase” Gaza or to make it uninhabitable, and celebrating the destruction of Palestinian homes, mosques, schools and universities.

Killing and causing serious bodily or mental harm

Amnesty International documented the genocidal acts of killing and causing serious mental and bodily harm to Palestinians in Gaza by reviewing the results of investigations it conducted into 15 air strikes between 7 October 2023 and 20 April 2024 that killed at least 334 civilians, including 141 children, and wounded hundreds of others. Amnesty International found no evidence that any of these strikes were directed at a military objective.

In one illustrative case, on 20 April 2024, an Israeli air strike destroyed the Abdelal family house in the Al-Jneinah neighbourhood in eastern Rafah, killing three generations of Palestinians, including 16 children, while they were sleeping.

While these represent just a fraction of Israel’s aerial attacks, they are indicative of a broader pattern of repeated direct attacks on civilians and civilian objects or deliberately indiscriminate attacks. The attacks were also conducted in ways designed to cause a very high number of fatalities and injuries among the civilian population.

Inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction

The report documents how Israel deliberately inflicted conditions of life on Palestinians in Gaza intended to lead, over time, to their destruction. These conditions were imposed through three simultaneous patterns that repeatedly compounded the effect of each other’s devastating impacts: damage to and destruction of life-sustaining infrastructure and other objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population; the repeated use of sweeping, arbitrary and confusing mass “evacuation” orders to forcibly displace almost all of Gaza’s population; and the denial and obstruction of the delivery of essential services, humanitarian assistance and other life-saving supplies into and within Gaza.

After 7 October 2023, Israel imposed a total siege on Gaza cutting off electricity, water and fuel. In the nine months reviewed for this report, Israel maintained a suffocating, unlawful blockade, tightly controlled access to energy sources, failed to facilitate meaningful humanitarian access within Gaza,  and obstructed the import and delivery of life-saving goods and humanitarian aid, particularly to areas north of Wadi Gaza. They thereby exacerbated an already existing humanitarian crisis. This, combined with the extensive damage to Gaza’s homes, hospitals, water and sanitation facilities and agricultural land, and mass forced displacement, caused catastrophic levels of hunger and led to the spread of diseases at alarming rates. The impact was especially harsh on young children and pregnant or breastfeeding women, with anticipated long-term consequences for their health.

Time and again, Israel had the chance to improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza, yet for over a year it has repeatedly refused to take steps blatantly within its power to do so, such as opening sufficient access points to Gaza or lifting tight restrictions on what could enter the Strip  or their obstruction of aid deliveries within Gaza while the situation has grown progressively worse.

Through its repeated “evacuation” orders Israel displaced nearly 1.9 million Palestinians – 90% of Gaza’s population – into ever-shrinking, unsafe pockets of land under inhumane conditions, some of them up to 10 times. These multiple waves of forced displacement left many jobless and deeply traumatized, especially since some 70% of Gaza’s residents are refugees or descendants of refugees whose towns and villages were ethnically cleansed by Israel during the 1948 Nakba.

Despite conditions quickly becoming unfit for human life, Israeli authorities refused to consider measures that would have protected displaced civilians and ensured their basic needs were met, showing that their actions were deliberate.

They refused to allow those displaced to return to their homes in northern Gaza or relocate temporarily to other parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territory or Israel, continuing to deny many Palestinians their right to return under international law to areas they were displaced from in 1948. They did so knowing that there was nowhere safe for Palestinians in Gaza to flee to.

Accountability for genocide

“The international community’s seismic, shameful failure for over a year to press Israel to end its atrocities in Gaza, by first delaying calls for a ceasefire and then continuing arms transfers, is and will remain a stain on our collective conscience,” said Agnès Callamard.

“Governments must stop pretending they are powerless to end this genocide, which was enabled by decades of impunity for Israel’s violations of international law. States need to move beyond mere expressions of regret or dismay and take strong and sustained international action, however uncomfortable a finding of genocide may be for some of Israel’s allies.

“The International Criminal Court’s (ICC) arrest warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity issued last month offer real hope of long-overdue justice for victims. States must demonstrate their respect for the court’s decision and for universal international law principles by arresting and handing over those wanted by the ICC.

“We are calling on the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to urgently consider adding genocide to the list of crimes it is investigating and for all states to use every legal avenue to bring perpetrators to justice. No one should be allowed to commit genocide and remain unpunished.”

Amnesty International is also calling for all civilian hostages to be released unconditionally and for Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups responsible for the crimes committed on 7 October to be held to account.

The organization is also calling for the UN Security Council to impose targeted sanctions against Israeli and Hamas officials most implicated in crimes under international law.

Background

On 7 October 2023 Hamas and other armed groups indiscriminately fired rockets into southern Israel and carried out deliberate mass killings and hostage-taking there, killing 1,200 people, including over 800 civilians, and abducted 223 civilians and captured 27 soldiers. The crimes perpetrated by Hamas and other armed groups during this attack will be the focus of a forthcoming Amnesty International report.

Since October 2023, Amnesty International has conducted in-depth investigations into the multiple violations and crimes under international law committed by Israeli forces, including direct attacks on civilians and civilian objects and deliberately indiscriminate attacks killing hundreds of civilians, as well as other unlawful attacks on and collective punishment of the civilian population. The organization has called on the Office of the ICC Prosecutor to expedite its investigation into the situation in the State of Palestine and is campaigning for an immediate ceasefire.

END

RAPPORT

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

ISRAEL/OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY:

”YOU FEEL YOU ARE SUBHUMAN”:

ISRAEL’S GENOCIDE AGAINST PALESTINIANS IN GAZA

5 DECEMBER 2024

https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde15/8668/2024/en/

[5A]

KONTAKT

Ruim 70 jaar zweeg iedereen, ook Maarten Schakel, over de liquidatie door het verzet van een man en zijn hoogzwangere vrouw in Hoornaar

10 JANUARI 2025

HOORNAAR • De liquidatie tijdens de Tweede Wereldoorlog in Hoornaar van een van verraad verdacht echtpaar, waarvan de vrouw hoogzwanger was, werd meer dan zeventig jaar verzwegen. Dankzij jarenlang onderzoek van oud-geschiedenisleraar Niels de Bruin uit Heemstede komt dit verhaal nu alsnog aan het licht. NOS-verslaggever Lex Runderkamp maakte er een documentaire over, die begin januari werd uitgezonden.

Schoten weerklinken aan de Lage Giessen in Hoornaar. Het is zaterdagochtend 24 maart 1945, rond kwart over negen. Leden van het verzet maken een einde aan het leven van de 23-jarige Cor Klap.

Later op de dag wordt er bij de boerderij – waar nu veevoerbedrijf Verveka is gevestigd – weer geschoten. De 24-jarige hoogzwangere vrouw van Cor, Margje Ladru, ondergaat hetzelfde lot als haar man. Hun lichamen krijgen de daaropvolgende nacht een tot op de dag van vandaag onbekend graf in de polder.

De reden? Het verzet verdenkt hen ervan verraad te willen plegen. Aanwezig bij de liquidaties is verzetscommandant Maarten Schakel, later de burgemeester van Hoogblokland, Hoornaar en Noordeloos en nationaal bekend als prominent Tweede Kamerlid.

Het verhaal van de liquidatie van een Duitse soldaat

Een gruwelijk verhaal van verraad en verzet. Maar ook een verhaal dat vele tientallen jaren hardnekkig verzwegen werd. Tot Niels de Bruin in 2018 aan het klussen gaat in de Hoornaarse vakantiewoning van de familie van zijn vrouw Annelies van Manen. “Vanwege stank in de kamer braken we het plafond open. Daar bleek een onderdeel van de uitrusting van een Duitse soldaat te liggen.”

De combinatie van zijn historische nieuwsgierigheid en het feit dat hij net met pensioen is gegaan, vormen de drijfveer voor de start van een intensieve reis. “In de familie kwam desgevraagd een verhaal bovendrijven van de liquidatie van een Duitse soldaat. Mijn buurman Meine Mollema vroeg dit vervolgens na bij de Historische Vereniging Hoogblokland, Hoornaar en Noordeloos.”

Arie Wallaard: ‘Geen soldaat, maar een zwangere vrouw’

Niemand weet iets van de liquidatie van een Duitse soldaat. “Wat ik bizar van mezelf vind, is dat ik het nog een keer en daarna nog een keer gevraagd heb. Zonder resultaat. Driekwart jaar later, het was inmiddels 2019, liep Meine langs. Het was druilerig weer, ik was het hekje aan het repareren. ‘Niels’, zei Meine, ‘ik werd gisteren op mijn schouders getikt door Arie Wallaard.’”

De inwoner van Noordeloos, wereldberoemd in zijn woonplaats als de baanveger bij het Nationale Knikkerkampioenschap, doet een onthutsende onthulling. “Het ging volgens hem niet om de liquidatie van een Duitse soldaat, maar van een zwangere Nederlandse vrouw uit Brabant. Ze werd door het verzet verdacht van verraad en ligt begraven op jullie landje. Ik stond letterlijk te trillen bij het hekje.”

Claas van Kuilenburg is één van de weinigen die het heeft opgemerkt’

De geschiedenisboeken leveren geen aanvullende informatie op. Met een kanttekening: “Ere wie ere toekomt, Claas van Kuilenburg heeft in een boek over Hoogblokland een paar regels geschreven over de man van deze vrouw. Hij is één van de weinigen die het heeft opgemerkt.”

Hij vervolgt: “Bij mijn onderzoek heb ik trouwens veel met hem samengewerkt. Ook in een boekje uit Leerdam wordt kort iets gezegd over dit echtpaar. Beide passages heb ik pas jaren later ontdekt.”

De doorbraak komt: Maarten Schakel was aanwezig bij liquidatie vrouw en haar man

Niels de Bruin is bang op een doodlopende weg te zitten. De enige uitweg is het archief van Maarten Schakel. Als verzetscommandant in de Alblasserwaard had hij er wellicht iets over opgeschreven.

Dan volgt de doorbraak. In een rapport van Schakel aan zijn commandant in Dordrecht staat de vermelding van de liquidatie van C. Klap en zijn vrouw. De verzetscommandant was er zelf bij, schrijft hij: ‘Bij de definitieve liquidatie en het verhoor waren van de zesde compagnie aanwezig M. W. Schakel en W. van den Berg.’

Samen met Jaap Wieringa, verzetscommandant in Leerdam, ondertekent hij het doodvonnis. De Bruin vindt daarna dit vonnis en het proces-verbaal. Ze leveren de naam van de vrouw op: Margje Ladru. “Tot mijn stomme verbazing bleken ze vlakbij mij vandaan te komen, uit Haarlem.”

‘Hier praten wij niet over’

Het archief geeft zijn geheimen prijs, maar mensen blijken terughoudender te zijn om te praten over wat de liquidaties. Zo krijgt De Bruin contact met een nichtje van Margje, die in Australië woont.

“Daar stuitte ik op een muur van zwijgen. ‘This is a no go-area in the family. Hier praten wij niet over’, liet zij weten. Wel laat ze in haar laatste mail los: ‘Ik weet alleen nog dat mijn tante Margje zwanger was toen ze werd doodgeschoten.’”

Voor Niels de Bruin is dat dé bevestiging van het verhaal van Arie Wallaard. “Hoeveel zwangere vrouwen zullen er geliquideerd zijn in de Alblasserwaard? Het moest om dezelfde persoon gaan.”

Maarten Schakel weigert over de liquidaties te praten

In het Nationaal Archief vindt hij in de winter van 2021 dossiers van Cor en Margje. Daarin bevond zich onder meer een verslag van het verhoor van Maarten Schakel na de oorlog over deze zaak.

“Schakel zegt, samengevat: ‘Ik ga er niets over zeggen, dat schaadt het beeld van de illegaliteit.’ Het heeft mij zeer verbaasd dat de rechercheur hem hiermee weg liet komen. Maar hij was commandant van de Binnenlandse Strijdkrachten, prins Bernhard was hoofd van die club en men was op het absurde af bezig met de beeldvorming van het verzet. Daarin paste een eventuele foute liquidatie niet.”

‘Ik ben niet de rechter’

Een klein zijpad: Niels de Bruin is niet een koele, afstandelijke historicus. Hij benoemt nadrukkelijk de emoties die hij voelde tijdens het onderzoek, de ontroering en de boosheid. Maar oordelen? Dat niet, al kost het hem moeite. “Ik ben niet de rechter. Op geen enkele manier kunnen we ons voorstellen hoe het er in die jaren aan toeging.”

“Ik ben door dit verhaal nog nooit zo dichtbij oorlog geweest. De complexiteit, de mentale last die mensen droegen, het verraad en de voortdurende doodsangst; in die context werden zij beladen met enorme verantwoordelijkheden, voor hun gezin, voor hun medestrijders. Zij moesten in die onvoorstelbare omstandigheden keuzes over dood en leven maken.”

Zoon Margje en Cor hoort na meer dan zeventig jaar dat zijn ouders zijn geliquideerd

Het onderzoek zorgt voor een nieuwe verrassing. Het echtpaar had een zoontje van 1,5. “Hij leeft nog en runde ooit een winkel in surfbenodigdheden in Scheveningen. Ik heb gepiekerd, gepiekerd en nog eens gepiekerd, voor ik de moed had om contact met hem op te nemen. Het bleek een stille, introverte man. Uit alle macht heb ik geprobeerd zijn vertrouwen te winnen. Dat lukte na meerdere telefoontjes.”

Tegelijkertijd kreeg Niels de Bruin via het Nationaal Archief de vraag of hij mee wilde werken aan een documentaire van de NOS, in verband met de openstelling van de archieven van ‘foute’ Nederlanders in 2025.

Het feit dat verslaggever Lex Runderkamp dit ging doen, trok De Bruin over de streep. “Ik had van jongs af aan bewondering voor hem. Van zijn integere instelling was ik overtuigd.”

Go Klap dacht tot zijn 12e dat zijn oma zijn moeder was

De camera is er de daaropvolgende jaren dus steeds bij. Ook bij het gesprek met de zoon van Margje en Cor, Go. “Ik vond het zeer moeilijk om te vragen of het gefi lmd mocht worden. Maar hij zei acuut ja. Ik viel bijna letterlijk van mijn stoel.”

Go Klap groeit na de oorlog op bij zijn oma in Zandvoort. “Tot zijn 12e dacht hij dat zijn oma zijn moeder was en zijn tantes zijn zusjes. Hij kreeg daarna over zijn ouders te horen dat zij waren verdwenen uit Hoogblokland en dat ze nooit meer wat van hen hadden gehoord.”

Bevroren en verbijsterd

Hoe hij reageerde op het verhaal van de liquidatie van zijn ouders? “Bevroren en verbijsterd, hij bleef er heel stil onder. Maar als je goed kijkt naar de beelden, zie je de pijn op zijn gezicht. Nee, ik heb geen bedankje van hem gekregen. Maar na afloop van de voorvertoning van de documentaire stond hij te huilen en werd hij getroost door een nichtje. Dat vond ik zeer ontroerend. Voor mij was dat genoeg.”

Het zwijgen blijft niet beperkt tot de families van Cor en Margje. Ook van de zijde van het verzet en andere betrokkenen valt er een sluier over de liquidaties. Neem Maarten Schakel. Terughoudend over zijn rol als verzetsstrijder was hij zeker niet. Maar in al zijn uitgave en uitingen zegt hij geen woord over deze liquidaties.

‘Overal stuitte ik op het feit dat er al die jaren over gezwegen is’

Of het kostersechtpaar Visser uit Hoogblokland, waar Cor en Margje woonden toen ze werden opgepakt. Ook van hun kant niets dan een levenslange stilte. De Bruin: “Een kleindochter van mevrouw Visser had een nauwe band met haar, logeerde er vaak. Maar nooit hoorde ze er iets over. Ik vermoed dat het verzet hen heeft opgedragen te zwijgen.”

Hij vervolgt: “Ik ben de wereld bijna letterlijk over geweest, heb talloze mensen gesproken, en steeds had ik dezelfde ervaring. Verzetsstrijders en hun nakomelingen, mensen uit de streek, familie van de geliquideerden, overal stuitte ik op het feit dat er al die jaren over gezwegen is.”

Het monster van de oorlog in de bek kijken

Wat voor hem als een paal boven water staat: dat is geen goede zaak. “De schrijver Arnon Grunberg heeft in een 4 mei-lezing gezegd dat we de moed moeten hebben om het monster van de oorlog in de bek te kijken, om ermee in het reine te komen. Daar ben ik voor honderd procent mee eens.

De familie van één van de verzetsmannen die deel uitmaakte van het liquidatieteam, Henk Stravers, erkent wat hij gedaan heeft in de documentaire. “Zij wisten ervan. Op zijn sterfbed heeft hij verteld: ‘Ik heb een zwangere vrouw doodgeschoten. Daar heb ik spijt van. Elke avond zie ik de ogen van die vrouw nog voor mij.’ Natuurlijk worstelen zij ermee, maar zij willen het niet verzwijgen. Ik vind dat bijzonder indrukwekkend.”

Familie Schakel zegt afspraak af

Vanzelfsprekend hebben Niels de Bruin en Lex Runderkamp eveneens contact opgenomen met de familie Schakel. Voor hen was dit verhaal ook nieuw. Maar ondanks meerdere nadrukkelijke pogingen om hen te laten reageren, is dit niet gelukt. “We hadden een afspraak, maar die is op het laatste moment afgezegd.”

‘Een enorm beroep op de kijker om niet te makkelijk conclusies te trekken’

De documentaire is afgelopen vrijdag op televisie geweest. De Bruin is daar blij mee, maar heeft wel zijn zorgen. “Lex en ik hadden allebei het uitgangspunt om op geen enkele manier mensen te beschuldigen. Nogmaals, met oordelen willen we zeer terughoudend zijn. Het is aan de kijker om een mening te vormen. Dat is niet eenvoudig op basis van een documentaire. Een jarenlang onderzoek waarin we ettelijke meters archief doorzochten en vele tientallen mensen spraken samenvatten in een documentaire van bijna een uur en tóch genuanceerd blijven, dat is gewoon lastig. Het doet een enorm beroep op de kijker om toch het evenwicht te zoeken en niet te makkelijk conclusies te trekken.”

Hij vervolgt: “Ik kijk zeer uit naar de reacties. Al die jaren ben ik in ons vakantiehuis te gast geweest in deze streek. Wat het doet met de mensen? Ik denk dat in zekere zin nazorg nodig is. Laten mensen er vooral over praten. In mijn onderzoek ben ik zoveel uitgesproken en onuitgesproken leed en open wonden tegengekomen. Ik hoop daarnaast dat er misschien toch meer mensen zich melden met informatie om dit verhaal verder aan te vullen, om zo rekenschap te geven van de geschiedenis. Ook, of misschien wel juist, als daar nare kanten aan zitten.”

[5]

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

LEGAL CONSEQUENCES ARISING FROM THE POLITICS AND PRACTICES

OF ISRAEL IN THE OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY, INCLUDING EAST

JERUSALEM

https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/186/186-20240719-pre-01-00-en.pdf

SEE FOR THE WHOLE REPORT

https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/186/186-20240719-adv-01-00-en.pdf

EXTRACT FROM

https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/186/186-20240719-pre-01-00-en.pdf

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

Peace Palace,

Carnegieplein 2,

2517 KJ The Hague,

Netherlands

Tel.: +31 (0)70 302 2323

Fax: +31 (0)70 364 9928

Website X YouTube LinkedIn

Press Release

Unofficial

No. 2024/57

July 2024

Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem

The Court gives its Advisory Opinion and responds to the questions posed by the General Assembly

THE HAGUE, 19 July 2024.

The International Court of Justice has today given its Advisory Opinion in respect of the Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem.

It is recalled that, on 30 December 2022, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted resolution A/RES/77/247 in which, referring to Article 65 of the Statute of the Court, it requested the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on the following questions:

(a)

What are the legal consequences arising from the ongoing violation by Israel of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, 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?

(b) How do the policies and practices of Israel referred to . . . above affect the legal status of the occupation, and what are the legal consequences that arise for all States and the United Nations from this status?”

In its Advisory Opinion, the Court responds to the questions posed by the General Assembly by concluding that:

 the State of Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is unlawful;

 the State of Israel is under an obligation to bring to an end its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as rapidly as possible;

 the State of Israel is under an obligation to cease immediately all new settlement activities, and to evacuate all settlers from the Occupied Palestinian Territory;

 the State of Israel has the obligation to make reparation for the damage caused to all the natural or legal persons concerned in the Occupied Palestinian Territory;

PAGE 2

– 2 –

 all States are under an obligation not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by the continued presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory;

international organizations, including the United Nations, are under an obligation not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory; and

the United Nations, and especially the General Assembly, which requested the opinion, and the Security Council, should consider the precise modalities and further action required to bring to an end as rapidly as possible the unlawful presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

Reasoning of the Court

After concluding that it has jurisdiction to render the requested opinion and that there are no compelling reasons for it to decline to give an opinion (paras. 22-50), the Court recalls the general context of the case (paras. 51-71) and addresses the scope and meaning of the two questions posed by the General Assembly (paras. 72-83).

The Court then assesses the conformity of Israel’s policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, as identified in question (a), with its obligations under international law. In particular, the Court’s analysis examines, in turn, the questions of the prolonged occupation, Israel’s policy of settlement, the question of the annexation of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, and Israel’s adoption of related legislation and measures that are allegedly discriminatory (paras. 103-243).

With regard to the question of the prolonged occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, which has lasted for more than 57 years (paras. 104-110), the Court observes that, by virtue of its status as an occupying Power, a State assumes a set of powers and duties with respect to the territory over which it exercises effective control.

The nature and scope of these powers and duties are always premised on the same assumption: that occupation is a temporary situation to respond to military necessity, and it cannot transfer title of sovereignty to the occupying Power.

In the Court’s view, the fact that an occupation is prolonged does not in itself change its legal status under international humanitarian law.

Although premised on the temporary character of the occupation, the law of occupation does not set temporal limits that would, as such, alter the legal status of the occupation

Occupation consists of the exercise by a State of effective control in foreign territory.

In order to be permissible, therefore, such exercise of effective control must at all times be consistent with the rules concerning the prohibition of the threat or use of force, including the prohibition of territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force, as well as with the right to self‑determination.

Therefore, the fact that an occupation is prolonged may have a bearing on the justification under international law of the occupying Power’s continued presence in the occupied territory.

As regards Israel’s settlement policy (paras. 111-156), the Court reaffirms what it stated in its Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory of 9 July 2004, that the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the régime associated with them, have been established and are being maintained in violation of international law. The Court notes with grave concern reports that Israel’s settlement policy has been expanding since the Court’s 2004 Advisory Opinion.

PAGE 3

– 3 –

As regards the question of the annexation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (paras. 157-179), it is the view of the Court that to seek to acquire sovereignty over an occupied territory, as shown by the policies and practices adopted by Israel in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, is contrary to the prohibition of the use of force in international relations and its corollary principle of the non-acquisition of territory by force.

The Court then examines the question of the legal consequences arising from Israel’s adoption of related discriminatory legislation and measures (paras. 180-229).

It concludes that a broad array of legislation adopted and measures taken by Israel in its capacity as an occupying Power treat Palestinians differently on grounds specified by international law.

The Court notes that this differentiation of treatment cannot be justified with reference to reasonable and objective criteria nor to a legitimate public aim.

Accordingly, the Court is of the view that the régime of comprehensive restrictions imposed by Israel on Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory constitutes systemic discrimination based on, inter alia, race, religion or ethnic origin, in violation of Articles 2, paragraph 1, and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 2, paragraph 2, of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and Article 2 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

The Court then turns to the aspect of question (a) that enquires as to the effects of Israel’s policies and practices on the exercise of the Palestinian people’s right to self‑determination (paras. 230-243).

In this regard, the Court is of the view that, as a consequence of Israel’s policies and practices, which span decades, the Palestinian people has been deprived of its right to self‑determination over a long period, and further prolongation of these policies and practices undermines the exercise of this right in the future.

For these reasons, the Court considers that Israel’s unlawful policies and practices are in breach of Israel’s obligation to respect the right of the Palestinian people to self‑determination.

Turning to the first part of question (b), the Court examines whether and, if so, how the policies and practices of Israel have affected the legal status of the occupation in light of the relevant rules and principles of international law (paras. 244-264).

In this respect, the Court first considers that the first part of question (b) is not whether the policies and practices of Israel affect the legal status of the occupation as such.

Rather, the Court is of the view that the scope of the first part of the second question concerns the manner in which Israel’s policies and practices affect the legal status of the occupation, and thereby the legality of the continued presence of Israel, as an occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

This legality is to be determined under the rules and principles of general international law, including those of the Charter of the United Nations.

In this context, the Court is of the view that Israel’s assertion of sovereignty and its annexation of certain parts of the territory constitute a violation of the prohibition of the acquisition of territory by force

This violation has a direct impact on the legality of Israel’s continued presence, as an occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

The Court considers that Israel is not entitled to sovereignty over or to exercise sovereign powers in any part of the Occupied Palestinian Territory on account of its occupation.

Nor can Israel’s security concerns override the principle of the prohibition of the acquisition of territory by force.

The Court further observes that the effects of Israel’s policies and practices, and its exercise of sovereignty over certain parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, constitute an obstruction to the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination.

The effects of these policies and practices include Israel’s annexation of parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the fragmentation of this territory, undermining its integrity, the deprivation of the Palestinian people of the enjoyment of the natural resources of the territory and its impairment of the Palestinian people’s right to pursue its economic, social and cultural development.

PAGE 4

– 4 –

The Court is of the view that the above-described effects of Israel’s policies and practices, resulting, inter alia, in the prolonged deprivation of the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination, constitute a breach of this fundamental right.

This breach has a direct impact on the legality of Israel’s presence, as an occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

The Court is of the view that occupation cannot be used in such a manner as to leave indefinitely the occupied population in a state of suspension and uncertainty, denying them their right to selfdetermination while integrating parts of their territory into the occupying Power’s own territory

In light of the foregoing, the Court turns to the examination of the legality of the continued presence of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (paras. 259-264).

The Court considers that the violations by Israel of the prohibition of the acquisition of territory by force and of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination have a direct impact on the legality of the continued presence of Israel, as an occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

The sustained abuse by Israel of its position as an occupying Power, through annexation and an assertion of permanent control over the Occupied Palestinian Territory and continued frustration of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, violates fundamental principles of international law and renders Israel’s presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory unlawful.

This illegality relates to the entirety of the Palestinian territory occupied by Israel in 1967.

This is the territorial unit across which Israel has imposed policies and practices to fragment and frustrate the ability of the Palestinian people to exercise its right to self‑determination, and over large swathes of which it has extended Israeli sovereignty in violation of international law The entirety of the Occupied Palestinian Territory is also the territory in relation to which the Palestinian people should be able to exercise its right to self-determination, the integrity of which must be respected.

* The Court has found that Israel’s policies and practices referred to in question (a) are in breach of international law.

The maintenance of these policies and practices is an unlawful act of a continuing character entailing Israel’s international responsibility.

The Court has also found in reply to the first part of question (b) that the continued presence of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is illegal

The Court therefore addresses the legal consequences arising from Israel’s policies and practices referred to in question (a) for Israel, together with those arising from the illegality of Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory under question (b), for Israel, for other States and for the United Nations (paras. 267-281).

President SALAM appends a declaration to the Advisory Opinion of the Court; VicePresident SEBUTINDE appends a dissenting opinion to the Advisory Opinion of the Court;

Judge TOMKA appends a declaration to the Advisory Opinion of the Court;

Judges TOMKA, ABRAHAM and AURESCU append a joint opinion to the Advisory Opinion of the Court;

Judge YUSUF appends a separate opinion to the Advisory Opinion of the Court;

Judge XUE appends a declaration to the Advisory Opinion of the Court;

Judges IWASAWA and NOLTE append separate opinions to the Advisory Opinion of the Court;

Judges NOLTE and CLEVELAND append a joint declaration to the Advisory Opinion of the Court;

Judges CHARLESWORTH and BRANT append declarations to the

PAGE 5

– 5 –

Advisory Opinion of the Court; Judges GÓMEZ ROBLEDO and CLEVELAND append separate opinions to the Advisory Opinion of the Court; Judge TLADI appends a declaration to the Advisory Opinion of the Court.

___________

A full summary of the Advisory Opinion appears in the document entitled “Summary 2024/8”, to which summaries of the declarations and opinions are annexed. This summary and the full text of the Advisory Opinion are available on the case page on the Court’s website.

___________

Earlier press releases relating to this case are also available on the website.

___________

Note: The Court’s press releases are prepared by its Registry for information purposes only and do not constitute official documents.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations.

It was established by the United Nations Charter in June 1945 and began its activities in April 1946.

The Court is composed of 15 judges elected for a nine-year term by the General Assembly and the Security Council of the United Nations.

The seat of the Court is at the Peace Palace in The Hague (Netherlands). The Court has a twofold role: first, to settle, in accordance with international law, legal disputes submitted to it by States; and, second, to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by duly authorized United Nations organs and agencies of the system.

Information Department:

Ms Monique Legerman, First Secretary of the Court, Head of Department: +31 (0)70 302 2336

Ms Joanne Moore, Information Officer: +31 (0)70 302 2337

ZIE OOK

https://www.astridessed.nl/international-court-of-justice-press-release-19-july-2024-legal-consequences-arising-from-the-policies-and-practices-of-israel-in-the-occupied-palestinian-territory-including-east-jerusalem/

[4]

”Governments should also seek justice for the atrocities committed with impunity over the past two years, including the Hamas-led war crimes and crimes against humanity on October 7 and thereafter and Israeli authorities’ war crimes, crimes against humanity, and acts of genocide in Gaza.”

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH

Gaza: Ceasefire No Substitute for Action on Aid, Justice

9 OCTOBER 2025

(Jerusalem) – The Israeli government and Hamas agreed on October 9, 2025, to the first stage of the US government’s “Comprehensive Plan to End the Gaza Conflict,” which includes a ceasefire, the release of Israeli and other hostages held in Gaza and Palestinians from Israeli detention, an increase in the entry of humanitarian aid into Gaza, and phased withdrawal of the Israeli military from parts of Gaza.

The following quote can be attributed to Balkees Jarrah, acting Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch:

“The October 9 ceasefire announcement offers the prospect of desperately needed relief for Palestinian civilians in Gaza, who for two years have faced unlawful killings, starvation, forcible displacement, and property destruction, as well as for Israeli hostages and Palestinian detainees and their families.

However, Palestinians in Gaza will continue to suffer and die so long as Israel maintains its unlawful blockade of the Gaza Strip, including by restricting the United Nations and other humanitarian organizations from delivering desperately needed large-scale aid. It is also vital for Israel to ensure the immediate restoration of basic services like electricity, water, and health care, or Palestinians will continue to die from malnutrition, dehydration, and disease.

Now is not the time to exhale. Governments should not wait for the US plan to go into effect to take urgent action to prevent further violations of the basic rights of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, including imposing an arms embargo on the Israeli government and targeted sanctions against Israeli officials credibly implicated in ongoing abuses.

Governments should also seek justice for the atrocities committed with impunity over the past two years, including the Hamas-led war crimes and crimes against humanity on October 7 and thereafter and Israeli authorities’ war crimes, crimes against humanity, and acts of genocide in Gaza. The government should support the International Criminal Court and address root causes, including Israel’s crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution against Palestinians.”

[3]

HAMAS IS THE LEGITIMATE PALESTINIAN RESISTANCE MOVEMENT

AGAINST THE ISRAELI OCCUPATION TERROR

ASTRID ESSED

24 AUGUST 2025

[2]

[1]

”The Israeli government’s plan to remove troops and Jewish settlements from the Gaza Strip would not end Israel’s occupation of the territory. As an occupying power, Israel will retain responsibility for the welfare of Gaza’s civilian population.

Under the “disengagement” plan endorsed Tuesday by the Knesset, Israeli forces will keep control over Gaza’s borders, coastline and airspace, and will reserve the right to launch incursions at will. Israel will continue to wield overwhelming power over the territory’s economy and its access to trade.”

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH

ISRAEL: ”DISENGAGEMENT” WILL NOT

END GAZA OCCUPATION

28 OCTOBER 2004

https://www.hrw.org/news/2004/10/28/israel-disengagement-will-not-end-gaza-occupation

The Israeli government’s plan to remove troops and Jewish settlements from the Gaza Strip would not end Israel’s occupation of the territory. As an occupying power, Israel will retain responsibility for the welfare of Gaza’s civilian population.

Under the “disengagement” plan endorsed Tuesday by the Knesset, Israeli forces will keep control over Gaza’s borders, coastline and airspace, and will reserve the right to launch incursions at will. Israel will continue to wield overwhelming power over the territory’s economy and its access to trade.

“The removal of settlers and most military forces will not end Israel’s control over Gaza,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch’s Middle East and North Africa Division. “Israel plans to reconfigure its occupation of the territory, but it will remain an occupying power with responsibility for the welfare of the civilian population.”

Under the plan, Israel is scheduled to remove settlers and military bases protecting the settlers from the Gaza Strip and four isolated West Bank Jewish settlements by the end of 2005. The Israeli military will remain deployed on Gaza’s southern border, and will reposition its forces to other areas just outside the territory.

In addition to controlling the borders, coastline and airspace, Israel will continue to control Gaza’s telecommunications, water, electricity and sewage networks, as well as the flow of people and goods into and out of the territory. Gaza will also continue to use Israeli currency.

A World Bank study on the economic effects of the plan determined that “disengagement” would ease restrictions on mobility inside Gaza. But the study also warned that the removal of troops and settlers would have little positive effect unless accompanied by an opening of Gaza’s borders. If the borders are sealed to labor and trade, the plan “would create worse hardship than is seen today.”

The plan also explicitly envisions continued home demolitions by the Israeli military to expand the “buffer zone” along the Gaza-Egypt border. According to a report released last week by Human Rights Watch, the Israeli military has illegally razed nearly 1,600 homes since 2000 to create this buffer zone, displacing some 16,000 Palestinians. Israeli officials have called for the buffer zone to be doubled, which would result in the destruction of one-third of the Rafah refugee camp.

In addition, the plan states that disengagement “will serve to dispel the claims regarding Israel’s responsibility for the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.” A report by legal experts from the Israeli Justice Ministry, Foreign Ministry and the military made public on Sunday, however, reportedly acknowledges that disengagement “does not necessarily exempt Israel from responsibility in the evacuated territories.”

If Israel removes its troops from Gaza, the Palestinian National Authority will maintain responsibility for security within the territory—to the extent that Israel allows Palestinian police the authority and capacity. Palestinian security forces will still have a duty to protect civilians within Gaza and to prevent indiscriminate attacks on Israeli civilians.

“Under international law, the test for determining whether an occupation exists is effective control by a hostile army, not the positioning of troops,” Whitson said. “Whether the Israeli army is inside Gaza or redeployed around its periphery and restricting entrance and exit, it remains in control.”

Under international law, the duties of an occupying power are detailed in the Fourth Geneva Convention and The Hague Regulations. According to The Hague Regulations, a “territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.”

The “disengagement plan,” as adopted by the Israeli Cabinet on June 6, 2004, and endorsed by the Knesset on October 26, is available at:
http://www.pmo.gov.il/nr/exeres/C5E1ACE3-9834-414E-9512-8E5F509E9A4D.htm.

END

“Israel has the responsibility as the Occupying Power to protect the civilian population. But instead of allowing a healthy people and economy to flourish, Israeli authorities have sealed off the Gaza Strip”

UNITED NATIONS

COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT IN GAZA MUST END:

ISRAEL’S BLOCKADE ENTERS IN IT’S 7TH YEAR-

UN SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR

14 JUNE 2013

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2013/06/collective-punishment-gaza-must-end-israels-blockade-enters-its-7th-year-un

GENEVA, 14 June 2013 – The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, Richard Falk, called today on Israel to end its blockade over the Gaza Strip, six years after it was tightened following the Hamas takeover in June 2007. The human suffering of the land, sea and air blockade imposed on the 1.75 million Palestinians living in one of the most densely populated and impoverished areas of the world has been devastating.

“Six years of Israel’s calculated strangulation of the Gaza Strip has stunted the economy and has kept most Gazans in a state of perpetual poverty and aid dependency,” said the UN expert. “Whether it is fishermen unable to go beyond six nautical miles from the shore, farmers unable to access their land near the Israeli fence, businessmen suffering from severe restrictions on the export of goods, students denied access to education in the West Bank, or patients in need of urgent medical attention refused access to Palestinian hospitals in the West Bank, the destructive designs of blockade have been felt by every single household in Gaza. It is especially felt by Palestinian families separated by the blockade,” he added.

“The people of Gaza have endured the unendurable and suffered what is insufferable for six years. Israel’s collective punishment of the civilian population in Gaza must end today,” said the Special Rapporteur.

“Israel has the responsibility as the Occupying Power to protect the civilian population. But instead of allowing a healthy people and economy to flourish, Israeli authorities have sealed off the Gaza Strip. According to statistics released by the Israeli Ministry of Defense, last month’s exports out of Gaza consisted of 49 truckloads of empty boxes, three truckloads of spices, one truckload of cut flowers, and one truckload of furniture,” he said. In 2012, the total number of truckloads of exports leaving Gaza was 254, compared to 9,787 in 2005 before the tightening of the blockade.

“It does not take an economist to figure out that such a trickle of goods out of Gaza is not the basis of a viable economy,” noted the UN expert. “The easing of the blockade announced by Israel in June 2010 after its deadly assault on the flotilla of ships carrying aid to the besieged population resulted only in an increase in consumer goods entering Gaza, and has not improved living conditions for most Gazans. Since 2007, the productive capacity of Gaza has dwindled with 80 percent of factories in Gaza now closed or operating at half capacity or less due to the loss of export markets and prohibitively high operating costs as a result of the blockade. 34 percent of Gaza’s workforce is unemployed including up to half the youth population, 44 percent of Gazans are food insecure, 80 percent of Gazans are aid recipients,” he said.

“To make matters worse, 90 percent of the water from the Gaza aquifer is unsafe for human consumption without treatment, and severe fuel and electricity shortage results in outages of up to 12 hours a day. Only a small proportion of Gazans who can afford to obtain supplies through the tunnel economy are buffered from the full blow of the blockade, but tunnels alone cannot meet the daily needs of the population in Gaza.”

“Last year, the United Nations forecast that under existing conditions, Gaza would be uninhabitable by 2020. Less optimistic forecasts presented to me were that the Gaza Strip may no longer be viable only three years from now,” said the Special Rapporteur. “It’s clear that the Israeli authorities set out six years ago to devitalize the Gazan population and economy,” he said, referring to a study undertaken by the Israeli Ministry of Defense in early 2008 detailing the minimum number of calories Palestinians in Gaza need to consume on a daily basis to avoid malnutrition. The myriad of restrictions imposed by Israel do not permit civilians in Gaza to develop to their full potential, and enjoy and exercise fully their human rights.

END

ZIE OOK

https://www.astridessed.nl/volgens-het-internationaal-recht-gaza-is-nog-steeds-bezet-gebied/