The US administration defended the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, believing the International Court of Justice (ICJ) should not issue a ruling calling on Israel to “immediately and unconditionally withdraw” from the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967.
At the request of the General Assembly, the Court will review the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories, including the West Bank and East Jerusalem, in an issue that has long been part of major discussions and decisions at the United Nations.
Israel refused to participate in the sessions but sent a letter to the Court last year, considering that the focus of the proceedings failed to “recognize Israel’s right and duty to protect its citizens” or its right to security.
In his briefing before the Court, US State Department official Richard Visek said that the 15-judge panel should not seek to settle the decades-long Palestinian-Israeli conflict “through an advisory opinion.
“They have asked you to try to resolve the whole dispute between the parties through an advisory opinion, addressed to questions focusing on the acts of only one party.”
He said that only the establishment of an independent Palestinian state “living safely and securely alongside” Israel could bring about lasting peace, repeating a longstanding US position, but the prospect of which appears even more elusive amid the war in Gaza.
“An enduring peace requires progress on these balanced elements,” he told the judges.
“This conflict cannot be resolved through violence or unilateral actions,” Visek said. “Negotiations are the path to a lasting peace.”
The State Department legal adviser asked the UN court to uphold the “established framework” for peace that he said UN bodies had agreed to, one that is contingent on a “broader end to belligerence” against Israel, rather than to heed calls by other nations for Israel’s “unilateral and unconditional withdrawal” from occupied territories.
The Oct. 7 Hamas-led attacks on Israel were a reminder of the threats facing the country and of its security needs, Visek said, “and they persist.”
“Regrettably, those needs have been ignored by many of the participants in asserting how the court should consider the questions before it,” he said, referring to other countries’ testimony in the hearings.
- Ending the occupation
Earlier this week, Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Maliki called on the Court to uphold the Palestinians’ right to self-determination and declare that the Israeli occupation is illegal and must end immediately, completely, and unconditionally.
The idea of Land for Peace has been a cornerstone of US-led diplomacy for decades and the basis of the “Camp David” agreement between Israel and Egypt.
Last month, the Court, which usually hears disputes between countries, issued a ruling on the case filed by South Africa, accusing Israel of committing genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza.
The judges issued a temporary order calling on Israel to take steps to prevent genocide in the Strip.
The US remained Israel’s strongest ally at the international level.
The United States has remained Israel’s staunchest defender internationally.
However, the Biden administration, under increasing pressure from parts of the Democratic Party, has also shown signs of impatience with Israel’s conduct of the war, the rising toll in Gaza, and the plight of Palestinians under Israeli occupation.
President Biden this month said that Israel’s military response in Gaza had been “over the top” and that the immense civilian suffering had “to stop.”
After the hearings, which are scheduled to conclude on Monday, the Court will issue a nonbinding, advisory opinion. That decision is expected to take several months.
