Indonesia Slam Israel for Continuing Unlawful Presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory

The Hauge: Indonesia’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Sugiono made his comment at the public hearing of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the Obligation of Israel in Relation to the Presence and Activities of United Nations other International Organizations and Third States in and in Relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory The Hague.

Minister Sugiono said that Indonesia is and will always stand with the people of Palestine to attain their independence.

Indonesia’s commitment to and profound bond with the Palestinian people is rooted in humanity, that is their inalienable rights to live in peace in their very-own homeland. Indonesia attaches its utmost importance to the rule of international law and has a strong confidence that the decision of this distinguished Court will guide the General Assembly and its member States in delivering justice to the persecuted and oppressed Palestinian people.

“Let me stressed that while many countries, including Indonesia, clearly expressed that no country should be above the law, Israel have consistently imposed its nefarious policies and measures in the Occupied Palestine Territory (OPT) in utter disrespect against international law,” said Sugiono at the The Hague, Wednesday, April 30, 2025.

“Israel continuing unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and its coercive environment created had made it impossible for the Palestinian people to exercise its basic rights as a nation: the right to self determination,” he said.

Against this backdrop, Indonesia assumes its moral duty to furnish information on the issues brought by the General Assembly to this Court. The issue of jurisdiction, followed by the merit of the case, on the Israel’s obligations as a UN Member and as the Occupying Power is being the most being notice.

On the jurisdiction, Indonesia asserts that this Court has jurisdiction to provide its opinion requested by the General Assembly under Article 96 Paragraph 1 of the UN Charter and Article 65 of the Court’s Statute, and that there are no grounds for declining to do so.

The question raised to this Court is a legal question and within the scope of activities of the General Assembly. And this is consistent with the opinion of the Court, such as in the Chagos Advisory Opinion, which stated that a request for an advisory opinion from the Assembly seeking to examine a situation by referencing to international law, is a legal question.

The present request fits into that requirement, as the chapeau to the present question makes it unequivocal for scrutinizing Israel’s obligations by reference to international law. There should be no doubt that this Court has jurisdiction to deliberate over the present request for advisory opinion.

“On the merit of the case, Indonesia submits that Israel, as a member of the UN, bears a general obligation to adhere to its commitments to accept and perform obligations stipulated by the UN Charter in good faith,” stated Minister Sugiono.

Israel had accepted such obligations through its Declaration Accepting Obligations under the Charter made on 29 November 1948. And Israel’s acceptance was a crucial undertaking pursuant to Article 4 paragraph (1) of the Charter to be admitted to the UN membership.

“In its Declaration, Israel states that, and I quote, ‘… the State of Israel unreservedly accepts the obligations of the United Nations Charter and undertakes to honor them from the day when it becomes a Member of the United Nations’, end of quote,” Minister Sugiono added.

“The term used in the Declaration is ‘unreserved’— and I do not need to enlighten this Court on the significance of this term. Referring to this Court’s Opinion on the Reparation for Injuries, Israel’s acceptance of the obligations of the Charter must be strictly observed,” said Sugiono.

In this regard, Israel ongoing violation of and its failure to fulfill its obligation under international laws have raised the question of its suitability to be called a peace-loving state, which is a prerequisite of the UN membership as prescribed in Article 4 paragraph (1) of the Charter.

Sugiono explain further that Israel’s general obligations under the Charter encompass obligations to respect the presence of the UN, to facilitate and give every assistance to the UN, as well as to carry out the decisions of the UN Security Council, the judgements, and the decisions of this Court.

“By virtue of Security Council’s resolutions, Israel also owes those obligations towards other international organizations and third states,” said Sugiono.

Israel is also under the obligation to respect the presence of the UN, including UNRWA as the UN body responsible for discharging UN’s humanitarian assistance.

This obligation is provided for in Article 105 of the UN Charter and have been further elaborated in the two UN Conventions on the Privileges and Immunities of the UN, both of which Israel is a state party.

These Conventions envisage that the scope of Israel’s obligations is relevant to the present request, in relation to the premises, property, assets, and funds of the United Nations; to the archives and documents of the UN; and to the experts and officials on missions of the UN.

As this Court noted in its Advisory Opinion regarding Reparation for Injuries, these privileges and immunities are essential for ensuring the fulfilment of the UN’s functions independently and effectively.

This is particularly relevant in the present context where the UN has to properly discharge its humanitarian functions in the Occupied Palestine Territory. Having said the above, Indonesia wish to submit that Israel’s conduct, including its enactment of laws targeting the UNRWA’s operation, contradicts Israel’s obligations to respect the presence of the UN.