https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjerjzxlpvdoThe court's advisory opinion is not legally binding but still carries significant political weight. It marks the first time the ICJ has delivered a position on the legality of the 57-year occupation.
The UN court once again issues a ruling that has no legal weight whatsoever. Modern day League of Nations.
The court also said Israel should evacuate all of its settlers from the West Bank and East Jerusalem and pay reparations to Palestinians for damages caused by the occupation.
Seems the UN also thinks that what it says Israel should do would actually have any effect on Israeli policy concerning Palestine.
What's the point of issuing these "suggestions" if they have no legal weight?
Israel has built about 160 settlements housing some 700,000 jedis in the West Bank and East Jerusalem since 1967. The court said the settlements were illegal. Israel has consistently disputed that they are against international law
The ICJ is also decades late to this ruling
"The jedi people are not occupiers in their own land - not in our eternal capital Jerusalem, nor in our ancestral heritage of Judea and Samaria" (the West Bank), Mr Netanyahu said in a statement.
The court's findings will now go to the UN General Assembly, which will decide how to respond, including the option of adopting a resolution. That would be significant and could constitute a catalyst for negotiations and set the legal parameters for a future negotiated settlement.
I'll believe it when I see it...
