The Hague, Netherlands – The United States has made a plea to the international court of justice (ICJ) to consider Israel’s security needs in the ongoing hearings on the legal status of the occupied Palestinian territories. The US argued that any resolution to the conflict should take into account Israel’s security concerns and not just focus on a withdrawal from the occupied territories.
Richard Visek, the state department’s acting legal adviser, emphasized the importance of addressing Israel’s security needs in any potential move towards withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza, during the ICJ hearings. The hearings, requested by the UN general assembly in 2022, aim to determine the legal status of the occupied territories and how the international community should approach the conflict.
More than 50 states are expected to present their positions during the week-long hearings, highlighting the growing international isolation of Israel’s few supporters. This follows the US’s recent lone vote against a draft ceasefire resolution at a UN security council hearing, with the UK abstaining. In light of these events, the US and UK are anticipated to find themselves in the minority again, as they urge the ICJ to exhibit restraint in its ruling on Israel’s occupation.
The upcoming opinion from the ICJ, expected by the summer, could have significant political and legal ramifications if it deems the occupation as illegal. This could impact governments attempting to ban boycott campaigns targeting products from the occupied territories, as well as increase the geopolitical costs for the US and UK in continuing to defend Israel on the world stage.
Visek laid out the US argument, underscoring the need for negotiations as a fundamental aspect of any peace resolution. He urged the ICJ to carefully consider its advice, emphasizing the eventual necessity of a negotiated solution. Conversely, most other states submitting arguments have emphasized the lack of negotiation efforts by the Israeli government and the need for decisive intervention from the ICJ.
Adil Haque, a professor at Rutgers Law School, highlighted the role of the ICJ in establishing legal parameters for any negotiated settlement, emphasizing the court’s potential to provide a foundation for negotiation based on legal rights. The opposing opinions among states center around the court’s role in advising on the lack of negotiations, with some advocating for the ICJ’s intervention in light of the absence of a negotiation process.
As the hearings continue, the stance of the ICJ and the subsequent implications for the conflict and the international community remain uncertain. The global community eagerly awaits the ICJ’s opinion and its potential impact on the Israel-Palestine conflict.