North African Countries Argue on Behalf of Palestine at ICJ in The Hague

The largest court case in the history of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is unfolding in The Hague.

In 2022, the UN General Assembly issued a request calling on the ICJ to provide an advisory opinion on the legal ramifications of Israeli policies and actions in the occupied Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem.

Since Monday, Feb 19, 2024, representatives of 52 countries and three international organizations, including the African Union, have been participating in the oral proceedings over the course of six days.

While North African governments were criticized for abstaining in a court case brought to the ICJ by South Africa in January, accusing Israel of violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Morocco, Algeria, Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia presented arguments in this separate case. All countries reiterated their support of the rights and demands of the Palestinian people.

According to Morocco World News, Morocco submitted a written plea to the ICJ, in which it reaffirmed its commitment to “work through all legal means at its disposal to protect the legal, historical, political, and spiritual status of the holy city [Jerusalem] and preserve its unique vocation as a city of peace.” Moroccan ambassador to the Hague, Mohamed Basri, attended the oral presentation by Palestine on Monday, Feb 19.

On Tuesday, Feb 20, Vusi Madonsela, ambassador of South Africa to the Netherlands, challenged Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories. He was followed by Algeria’s legal counselor Ahmed Laraba who stressed the “violent contrast [...] between theoretical appearances sketched out by Israel with a very broad brush and the reality Algeria considers.”

Palestinian author Marwan Bishararegards Algeria and South Africa — countries that lived through the colonial reality and, in South Africa’s case, an apartheid similar to what Israel is accused of enacting in the occupied Palestinian territories — to be the most relevant countries to speak before the ICJ.

Meanwhile, the UN Security Council met in an emergency session in New York where the U.S. vetoed a resolution put forward by Algeria on behalf of Arab States, demanding “an immediate humanitarian ceasefire that must be respected by all parties.” Yasmine Moussa, the legal advisor for the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, appeared before the ICJ on Wednesday, Feb. 21. She echoed Algeria’s arguments that Israel’s building of settlements, occupying of Palestinian land, and discriminating against Palestinians, represent a de facto colonization.

Moussa emphasized the “brutal onslaught” that Israel has been carrying out in Gaza and argued that “Israel is required to make full reparation, restitution, compensation and satisfaction by ceasing occupation and its practices.” While her remarks reflect wider Egyptian opinion, many social media users called out the double standard of this political stance vis-a-vis Egypt’s failure to support Palestinians at the border with Gaza.

On Thursday, Feb. 22, Libya’s representative, Ahmed Al-Jahani, affirmed the right of the Palestinian people to resist, and called on the ICJ to stop the Israeli aggression against Gaza and the West Bank immediately and unconditionally. He asserted that the crimes of the occupation amount to crimes of genocide.

On Friday, Feb. 23, Tunisia’s representative Slim Laghmani, a specialist in international law, called the occupation of the Palestinian people “the oldest and most unbearable injustice.” He went on to question whether the term occupation is a euphemism for Israel’s goal to acquire all Palestinian territories and its government’s intent to commit genocide against the Palestinian people.

While Lagmani presented a clear stance condemning Israel, Tunisian President Kaïs Saied has previously been criticized by social media users who called out his “timidity vis-a-vis Israel,” echoing Egyptian allegations against their own government.

This is the second time the ICJ has asked for an advisory opinion related to the occupied Palestinian territories. In July 2004, the court found that Israel’s separation wall in the occupied West Bank violated international law and should be torn down, though it remains standing to this day.

Consequently, people across the region are doubtful that a non-binding advisory opinion by the court will have a tangible impact on Israel’s actions in the occupied Palestinian territories. Egyptian and Moroccan activists interviewed by OkayAfrica said they are hopeful that the detailed arguments presented in this public court case “will shake up the status quo.”

An issued legal opinion by the court will take several months, but can be expected before the end of 2024. Israel rejects the legitimacy of this court case and did not send a delegation to The Hague.