Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu responded to the International Court of Justice's ruling on Friday, which declared Israel’s presence in Yehudah, Shomron, and East Jerusalem illegal.
Netanyahu declared, “The Jewish people are not occupiers in their own land, including in our eternal capital Jerusalem nor in Judea and Samaria, our historical homeland. No absurd opinion in The Hague can deny this historical truth or the legal right of Israelis to live in their own communities in our ancestral home.”
Israel’s Foreign Ministry rejected the ruling, stating, “Unfortunately, the Court’s opinion is fundamentally wrong. It mixes politics and law, injecting the politics of the UN corridors in New York into the courtrooms of the ICJ in The Hague.”
The ministry further criticized the opinion for being disconnected from the reality of the Middle East, especially given the threats from Hamas, Iran, and other terrorist elements. It highlighted that the opinion ignored the atrocities of October 7 and the necessity for Israel to defend its territory and citizens.
“The opinion contradicts the principles of all peace agreements reached to date, which assert that conflict resolution can only come through direct negotiations between the parties,” the ministry stated. “The Palestinian Authority, which initiated this move, is not interested in peace but in slinging mud at Israel. Peace can only be achieved through direct negotiations, and the Palestinian Authority cannot evade this reality by turning to international tribunals.”
The ministry also pointed out that the opinion is one-sided, ignoring Israel’s historical rights and current realities. It stressed that the opinion, being advisory, is not legally binding. Israel remains committed to international law and will continue to protect its citizens accordingly.
Professor Anne Bayefsky, Director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust, labeled the ruling a “legal obscenity.” She criticized the ICJ as biased and influenced by anti-Israel sentiment within the UN, highlighting that its members include representatives from countries with questionable legal standings.
Bayefsky noted that the request for the advisory opinion was framed to presuppose Israel's guilt, and the Court declared Israel guilty without factual findings. She argued that the opinion promotes legal and political isolation of Israel, calling for the removal of Jewish settlers and the return of Palestinian refugees, which she described as an endorsement of ethnic cleansing.
She also highlighted the opinion’s lack of recognition for violence against Israelis and its reliance on historical revisionism, ultimately deeming it a product of modern antisemitism designed to undermine the Jewish state.
In the wake of the ICJ’s controversial ruling, Israel's leaders and experts have united in their denunciation, asserting the nation's historical and legal rights. The path to peace, they argue, lies not in unilateral judgments but in direct, meaningful negotiations.
* Yeshiva World News contributed to this article.
