The United States called on the international court not to demand Israel’s withdrawal from the occupied territories

The United States is calling on the International Court of Justice to consider Israel’s security needs in hearings on the legal status of the occupied Palestinian territories.

The United States has called on the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague not to issue a ruling calling for Israel’s immediate withdrawal from the occupied Palestinian territories, arguing that Israeli security must be taken into account in any solution to the conflict, The Guardian writes.

“Any movement toward Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza Strip requires consideration of Israel’s very real security needs,” Richard Visek, the State Department’s acting legal counsel, told the ICJ judges.

Visek was laying out the US position at the International Court of Justice hearings this week, which were first requested by the UN General Assembly in 2022. They aim to establish the legal status of the occupied territories and the implications for the international community’s approach to the conflict.

More than 50 states are due to present their positions at the week-long hearing, which further underscored the isolation of Israel’s few supporters, following a U.N. Security Council hearing on Tuesday in which the United States was the only one to vote against the draft ceasefire resolution and Britain abstained. The US and UK are again expected to stand virtually alone at the International Court of Justice hearings, calling for restraint in their handling of the Israeli occupation.

The International Court of Justice is expected to issue its opinion by the summer, and it could have far-reaching political and legal consequences if it finds Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land illegal. This could, for example, have implications for governments attempting to prohibit boycott campaigns targeting products originating in occupied territories. It could also further increase the geopolitical costs for the US and UK of continuing to defend Israel on the world stage.

Outlining the US argument on Wednesday, Wisek argued that both the UN Security Council and the General Assembly had paved the way for a negotiated peace settlement that would essentially involve a land-for-peace trade.

“Lasting peace requires progress on both of these balanced elements,” he told the judges. “They have asked you to attempt to resolve the entire dispute between the parties through an advisory opinion addressing issues relating to the actions of one party only.”

Wisek insisted that Washington was not ruling out a role for the International Court of Justice in the conflict, but was instead asking the court to “carefully calibrate its recommendations” in light of the possible need for a negotiated solution.

Most of the other states presenting material in the case argued the opposite: that the lack of negotiations in the face of the Israeli government’s adamant opposition to the creation of a Palestinian state required decisive intervention by the International Court.

“This is a major dispute between the United States and many other states about the prudence of the court making recommendations on certain issues,” said Adil Haque, a professor at Rutgers Law School. – Many other states have said, both today and over the past few days: what kind of negotiations? There is no negotiation process underway. The Israeli government is not interested in the negotiation process that will lead to a solution, and therefore the court has no reason to hold back.”

Professor Haque argued that the International Court of Justice had a role to play in setting the legal parameters for any negotiated settlement.

“Typically, in a negotiation, I have a legal right to what you want, you have a legal right to what I want, and we negotiate a trade,” he said. “The court can therefore play a constructive role by telling the parties what their legal rights are and then allowing them to negotiate from that legal framework.”