On July 19, 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a groundbreaking advisory opinion affirming what Palestinians, legal scholars, and many observers have argued for years—Israel’s 57-year-occupation of Palestinian territory is illegal and must end.
While it has been established for decades that many of Israel’s actions as an occupying power are illegal—for example, its colonial settlement activity that is systematically taking over Palestinian land—the world’s top court has determined that these actions have rendered the occupation itself unlawful. According to the ICJ, and without any ambiguity, Israel’s continued presence in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza (collectively referred to as the “OPT,” for “Occupied Palestinian Territories”) is illegal.
The ICJ concluded that Israel “is under an obligation to bring to an end its unlawful presence in the [OPT] as rapidly as possible,” as well as to evacuate all Israeli settlers and allow displaced Palestinians to return to their homes.
But the ICJ also determined that states like Canada have an obligation to help bring Israel’s unlawful occupation to an end. In doing so, the ICJ opinion presents a fundamental challenge to several facets of Canadian policy, which must radically change in order to comply with the obligations described by the ICJ.
Canadians for Peace and Justice in the Middle East (CJPME)has identified at least seven major policy changes required of Canada. I will focus on two—Canada’s free trade deal, and arms trade, with Israel.
Canada-Israel free trade
Canada is already violating its obligations per the ICJ opinion through the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement (CIFTA).
In its Advisory Opinion, the ICJ concluded that states including Canada are under an obligation to structure their economic relations with Israel so that they do not contribute to its illegal presence in the OPT.
Specifically, the ICJ found that states are obliged to:
“Distinguish in their dealings with Israel between the territory of the State of Israel and the [OPT].”
“Abstain from treaty relations with Israel in all cases in which it purports to act on behalf of the [OPT].”
“Abstain from entering into economic or trade dealings with Israel concerning the [OPT] or parts thereof which may entrench its unlawful presence in the territory.”
“Take steps to prevent trade or investment relations that assist in the maintenance of the illegal situation created by Israel in the [OPT].”
Canada is violating every one of these directives through CIFTA, doing the exact opposite of what the ICJ requires.
CIFTA is unique among bilateral agreements in that it does not only apply to the territory of the two parties involved (Canada and Israel), but has also been extended to the OPT. Palestinians are not a party to the agreement, nor have they given their consent to be included under it.
Despite this, under CIFTA, all trade from these regions is treated as if it was “Israeli,” without making a distinction between Israel, its illegal settlements, or Palestinians under occupation. As CJPME argued in a report issued last year titled “Annexing Palestine Through Trade,” Canada’s trade policy treats the OPT as formally annexed by Israel. By distributing free trade benefits to Israel’s illegal settlements, Canada directly provides a material incentive for Israel to continue and expand its illegal presence.
The International Court of Justice could not be more clear on these matters. Canada’s trade policy with Israel very directly facilitates Israel’s continued illegal presence in the OPT, while materially rewarding illegal colonization. To comply with its obligations per the ICJ, Canada must cancel CIFTA and prohibit all trade with goods and services with Israel’s settlements, and as well as any other Israeli sectors that help maintain the occupation.
Canada-Israel arms trade
Canada’s exports of military goods and technology to Israel have skyrocketed in recent years, with a record-breaking $30.6m worth of weapons transferred last year.
While Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly says Canada has paused new export permits to Israel since January 2024, significant loopholes and exclusions remain, allowing a significant volume of trade to continue uninterrupted. As of August 2024, nearly $95m worth of active permits are still expected to ship to Israel in the coming months, and Canada is allowing the United States to obtain 50,000 highly explosive mortars from a Quebec-based enterprise and transfer them to the Israeli military, bypassing Canada’s arms control regime altogether.
Obviously, the continued sale of arms presents a grave human rights risk given the current context of war crimes and genocide in Gaza. But even if and when a ceasefire is reached, the ICJ Advisory Opinion warns that Canada would be wrong to resume the arms trade with Israel. This is because the ICJ insists that states like Canada are obliged “not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by Israel’s illegal presence in the [OPT],” and that they must “take steps to prevent trade or investment relations that assist in the maintenance of the illegal situation created by Israel in the [OPT].”
There is no question that Canada’s military trade with Israel assists in the maintenance of Israel’s unlawful occupation. The export of weapons and military technology to Israel directly supports its military control over the OPT, while the import of Israeli weapons indirectly supports the occupation by sustaining the country’s defense industry and legitimizing its testing of new weaponry on Palestinians. Canada must put an end to both by imposing a comprehensive two-way arms embargo under the Special Economic Measures Act.
What rules-based order?
For all the talk from Foreign Minister Joly and Trade Minister Mary Ng about the “international rules-based order,” Canadians might imagine that their government would take the opinion of the ICJ into consideration when it formulates its approach. History suggests that this is not likely.
Successive Liberal and Conservative governments have introduced trade policies that directly support Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian territory, while shielding Israel from accountability on the international stage. This has occurred despite clear violations of international law, such as a 2004 ICJ advisory opinion that Israel’s apartheid wall that cuts through the occupied West Bank is illegal. That wall still stands today.
Nonetheless, the clarity of the ICJ opinion, when combined with the possibility of arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu from the International Criminal Court (ICC), provides civil society with powerful tools to hold our government accountable for its complicity in Israel’s crimes.
