At World Court, US argues against declaring Israeli West Bank rule illegal
Washington asserts UN resolutions are framework for resolving conflict, says unilateral call for Israeli withdrawal would violate need to address Israeli security concerns
Jeremy Sharon is The Times of Israel’s legal affairs and settlements reporter
The US called on the International Court of Justice on Wednesday not to issue a ruling calling for a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and East Jerusalem, saying that addressing Israel’s “very real” security concerns was a critical aspect of the established framework for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Speaking in court in The Hague, the representative for the US Richard Visek pointed out that the UN Security Council and General Assembly had repeatedly upheld this “land for peace” formula, and argued it was not the ICJ’s place to overturn this principle.
The US’s position echoes that of Israel, although Visek made clear on several occasions that Washington is urgently seeking the establishment of a Palestinian state and does not believe that Israel can achieve lasting security without the fulfillment of “Palestinian political aspirations.”
The ICJ is currently holding six days of hearings following a request by the UN General Assembly for the court to issue an advisory opinion on the legality of Israel’s 56-year-long rule in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
The request, advanced by the Palestinian Authority, seeks a determination that Israel’s military control of the West Bank and annexation of East Jerusalem is illegal, and that it must take immediate steps to end its rule over the territories, including the dismantlement of settlements.
The US is one of the only countries to have expressed opposition to the Palestinian request.
Advisory opinions are non-binding and Israel has not sent a delegation to The Hague to argue against the petition.
“The established framework for achieving a comprehensive and enduring peace is anchored in UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338. At their core these and subsequent resolutions call for the application of two inter-dependent and inseparable requirements for a just and lasting peace,” said Visek, a legal adviser in the US State Department.
“One is the withdrawal of all forces from occupied territory, the other is peace and security for states in the Middle East, through the acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area.”
UN Security Council 242 was passed in the aftermath of the Six Day War in 1967 when Israel captured the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights, and calls for both “the withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict” alongside “respect for and acknowledgment of the right of every state in the area “to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries.”
Visek said that it would not be conducive to the achievement of peace for the court to issue an opinion “that calls for a unilateral, immediate and unconditional withdrawal that does not account for Israel’s legitimate security needs.”
He added that Israeli withdrawal from the territories “requires consideration of Israel’s very real security needs,” which he said were underlined by the atrocities perpetrated by Hamas against Israel during the October 7 attacks on southern Israel.
“Regrettably, those needs have been ignored by many of the participants in asserting how the court should consider the questions before it,” he said, scolding the various legal delegations that had already called on the court to declare Israeli rule to be illegal, among them South Africa, Colombia and the United Arab Emirates.
Visek also pointed out that international law does not provide for an occupation to be declared unlawful or void, regardless of its duration or even violations of occupation law itself.
“The court should not find that Israel is legally obligated to immediately and unconditionally withdraw from occupied territory,” he concluded.
“The court can address the questions before it, within the established framework based on the land for peace principle and within the parameters of established principles of occupation law.”
The US representative said that the current conflict in Gaza “illustrates the vital need to achieve this final peace, with a Palestinian state living safely and securely alongside a secure Israel,” adding a recent comment by US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken who said that “we’re not going to have durable security for Israel unless and until Palestinian political aspirations are met.”
