Don’t order Israel out of Palestinian lands, US urges UN court

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has become the stage for a heated debate concerning Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory, with the United States and Egypt voicing contrasting opinions on Wednesday. This comes amidst a week-long series of hearings prompted by the UN and attended by a record-breaking 52 countries offering their perspectives.

While most nations have emphasized the need for an end to the occupation, dating back to the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, the US took a different stance. Richard Visek, legal advisor at the State Department, argued that Israel’s “very real security needs” must be considered before any potential withdrawal. He cited the recent Hamas attacks as evidence of these concerns, stating, “Any movement towards Israel withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza requires consideration of Israel’s very real security needs.”

This statement drew criticism from Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Maliki, who expressed disappointment and frustration. He reiterated the Palestinians’ attempt to resolve the issue through other channels for decades, pointing to the “US veto and the US hegemony over decision-making processes within the UN system” as barriers to progress. He justified their recourse to the ICJ by stating, “We tried other fora for the last 75 years…That’s why we came to the ICJ.”

Israel itself chose to abstain from the oral hearings but submitted a written statement criticizing the court’s involvement, deeming the questions posed “prejudicial” and “tendentious.”

Egypt, a crucial player in past Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, presented a contrasting view. Jasmine Moussa, legal advisor for the Egyptian foreign ministry, declared the occupation a “continued violation of international law.” She emphasized, “The consequences of Israel’s prolonged occupation are clear and there can be no peace, no stability, no prosperity without upholding the rule of law.”

This stark contrast in perspectives highlights the complexities surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While the US prioritizes Israel’s security concerns, Egypt and many other nations emphasize the illegality of the occupation and its detrimental effects.

The hearings also saw strong condemnation from South Africa, whose ambassador compared Israel’s policies to the apartheid system they endured. This comparison adds another layer of complexity to the debate, drawing parallels between historical and present-day struggles.

The ICJ’s eventual “advisory opinion,” expected before the year’s end, while not legally binding, carries significant weight. It could influence international perspectives and potentially shape future diplomatic efforts aimed at resolving this long-standing conflict.

The division of opinion witnessed at the ICJ underscores the urgency and difficulty of finding a solution acceptable to both sides. Whether the court’s opinion will pave the way for a breakthrough or further entrench existing positions remains to be seen. However, the international scrutiny brought upon this issue by the UN undoubtedly puts pressure on all involved parties to engage in constructive dialogue and prioritize the pursuit of lasting peace.