The United States has told the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that it should not order the unconditional withdrawal of Israeli forces from Palestinian territories without security guarantees.
The ICJ, also known as the World Court, will hear from around 50 countries throughout the week to present their arguments on the issue of a non-binding opinion on the legal consequences of the Israeli occupation.
Previous speakers, including South Africa and Saudi Arabia, demanded that Israel end its occupation of Palestinian territories, following its victory in the six-day Arab-Israeli war in 1967.
But on Wednesday, the U.S. State Department’s acting legal adviser, Richard Visek, took a different approach.
“The court should not conclude that Israel is legally obligated to immediately and unconditionally withdraw from the occupied territory,” Visek said.
“Any movement toward Israel’s withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza requires consideration of Israel’s very real security needs.
“We were all reminded of these security needs on October 7, and they persist. Unfortunately, these needs were ignored by many participants,” he added, referring to the Hamas attack on Israel that killed at least 1,139 people, according to an Tel Aviv Tribune tally based on figures Israeli officials. Around 250 other people were taken hostage.
Israel responded to the attack with a devastating assault on Gaza that killed more than 29,000 people, according to Palestinian authorities. The assault displaced more than 80 percent of the population and reduced large parts of the territory to rubble.
The ICJ’s panel of 15 judges was tasked with examining “Israel’s occupation, colonization and annexation…including measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem , as well as the adoption of related discriminatory laws and measures.”
Visek urged the judges to stick to the framework established by the United Nations for a two-state solution.
“It is important that the Court keeps in mind the balance that the (UN) Security Council and the General Assembly have deemed necessary to provide the best chance of achieving lasting peace,” he said. -he declares.
The speech comes after the United States vetoed a draft resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Hamas at the UN Security Council on Tuesday.
Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the US ambassador to the UN, said the resolution was rejected because it could affect peace negotiations on securing a temporary ceasefire and exchanging of Israeli hostages against Palestinian prisoners by the United States, Egypt, Israel and Qatar.
Tel Aviv Tribune senior political analyst Marwan Bishara said on Wednesday that the United States’ legal arguments before the ICJ were “sober and sophisticated, but that doesn’t make them any less dishonest.”
“The overall message from the American representative is that the Court must serve the American and Israeli negotiating strategy – not that the American and Israeli negotiating strategy must conform to the Court’s decision,” he said. declared.
“But a global court cannot be at the disposal of the United States. Furthermore, it is not clear why a possible court ruling that the occupation is illegal would be a burden on the negotiations,” Bishara said.
Egypt, which plays a mediating role in negotiations between Israel and Hamas, presented its position on Wednesday on the legality of the Israeli occupation and called it a “continuing violation of international law.”
“The consequences of Israel’s prolonged occupation are clear and there can be no peace, stability or prosperity without respect for the rule of law,” said Jasmine Moussa, legal advisor to the Egyptian Foreign Ministry. .
Russia and France also presented their arguments on Wednesday.
Vladimir Tarabrin, Russia’s ambassador to the Netherlands, said Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank violated international law and “contrary to the principle of inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by force.”
He added that continued Israeli occupation blocked Palestinians’ right to self-determination and that a two-state solution with an “independent and viable” Palestinian state would be the best way to “end Israel’s violations.” , by creating guarantees of their non-repetition and compensation for the damage.”
France’s representative, Diego Colas, also condemned Israel’s settlement policy and said Paris “would never recognize the illegal annexation of territories in the West Bank.”
Israel, which is not participating in the hearings, submitted a written submission calling the questions posed to the court “prejudicial” and “tendentious.”
Israel has long maintained that the territories are formally occupied on the grounds that they were captured from Jordan and Egypt in the 1967 war rather than from a sovereign Palestine.