The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has delivered a momentous advisory opinion declaring Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories, including the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza, to be illegal under international law. This nonbinding advisory, while lacking legal enforcement, is anticipated to impact international sentiment profoundly.

The ruling stems from the request of the United Nations General Assembly, predating the recent conflict between Hamas and Israel. The 15-judge panel stated that Israel has abused its status as the occupying force, engaging in activities that amount to annexation, permanent control, and the establishment of settlements. The ICJ urged Israel to cease all settlement activities, evacuate settlers, and provide reparations to Palestinians.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu swiftly dismissed the court's decision, asserting that it ignores historical truths and the Jewish people's right to their homeland. Netanyahu maintained that Israeli settlements and presence in these territories are legitimate. His stance aligns with the Israeli government's long-standing view that international bodies unfairly discriminate against Israel.

Conversely, the Palestinian Authority heralded the ruling as a watershed moment. The Palestinian foreign ministry emphasized that the international community must act to enforce the Palestinian right to self-determination immediately. This sentiment was echoed by Palestinian leadership in Ramallah, recognizing the decision as a victory for justice and a reinforcement of the illegality of the Israeli occupation.

The advisory opinion critiques Israel's settlement expansions and its use of resources within occupied territories, contravening obligations under international law. The opinion highlights the historical context, noting that since the 1967 war, Israel has constructed settlements housing approximately 700,000 Jews in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, an activity repeatedly deemed illegal by the international community.

The reaction from the global community has been mixed. Fifty countries had previously asked the ICJ to rule on the legality of Israel's prolonged occupation, while a minority, including Canada and Britain, opposed giving an advisory opinion. The United States, as Israel's staunchest ally, argued for the court to limit its advisory scope to avoid mandated unilateral withdrawal of Israeli forces.

In February, representatives from more than 50 nations presented their views to the court. Palestinian representatives called for Israel to withdraw from all occupied territories and dismantle illegal settlements. Israel, choosing not to participate in the hearings, submitted written comments criticizing the questions posed to the court as biased and ignoring Israel's right to protect its citizens.

The ICJ's president, Nawaf Salam, reaffirmed the need for an immediate end to Israel's presence in these territories, amplifying calls for international intervention. Proponents of the ruling, including various human rights organizations, believe it may bolster efforts for boycotts, divestments, and sanctions against Israel, increasing international support for Palestinian statehood.

This latest advisory opinion is reminiscent of the ICJ's 2004 ruling against Israel's West Bank barrier, which was also deemed contrary to international law. Israel had previously dismissed that ruling as politically motivated, maintaining that the structure was imperative for security.

The court's decision arrives amid heightened conflicts, notably the recent Israeli military assault on Gaza following Hamas-led attacks. The Advisory opinion's impact on this complex geopolitical issue remains to be seen, but it undeniably adds pressure on Israel from the international stage.

While the ICJ's advisory opinions do not enforce change, their political weight can influence international relations and policy. This recent decision could potentially lead to further recognition of Palestine by additional countries, particularly in light of recent recognitions by nations such as Spain, Norway, and Ireland.