Richard Visek of the US State Department takes the floor
The legal adviser to the US Department of State says that since the UN General Assembly first requested the ICJ’s advisory opinion, the international community has confronted “the horror of the terrorist attacks of October 7” and ensuing war on Gaza that has had “severe, widespread and tragic consequences for Palestinian civilians”.
The United States is “engaging intensively with the Palestinians, with Israel and with other states in the region” not only to address the current crisis but also “to advance a political settlement that will lead to a durable peace in the region that includes lasting security for Israelis and Palestinians and a path to Palestinian statehood”, he said.
“There is broad international support for achieving a negotiated solution to the conflict that will give rise to a Palestinian state,” Visek said.
‘Land for peace’ remains only possible framework: US
Visek argues the UN has already established the principle by which the withdrawal of Israeli forces relies on “the termination of belligerence and respect of Israel’s right to live peacefully in the region”. This principle is recognised as “land for peace” and was also adopted by Israelis and Palestinians in the Oslo Accords, he said. “This remains the only basis to achieve a lasting peace and the framework for ongoing US efforts.”
The World Court can play a role in promoting this framework without “undermining the maintenance of peace and security”, he said.
“The US is by no means suggesting there is no role for the court or that it should not rule on violations of international law, but in exercising its advisory role, it must take into consideration the extent to which the UN Security Council has already taken action to address the matter, including in its Resolution 2720 in December that reiterated the need for a two-state solution,” the State Department official said.
Israel’s ‘very real security needs’ must be considered: US
International law has a central and important role to play within the “established framework” set forth by the UN Security Council and UN General Assembly, the US representative says. The challenge for the court is how to provide its advice in a way that “promotes the framework” rather than “disrupting its balance, potentially making the possibility of negotiations even more difficult”.
Under the established framework, “a movement towards Israel’s withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza requires consideration of Israel’s very real security needs”, he said. “We were all reminded of those security needs on October 7, and they persist,” Visek told the judges. “Regrettably, those needs have been ignored by many of the participants in asserting how the court should consider the questions before it.”
ICJ shouldn’t find Israel ‘legally obligated to immediately and unconditionally withdraw’
Visek’s concluding remarks:
- “The lack of meaningful progress in a negotiated end to the conflict cannot and must not persist. This conflict cannot be resolved through violence or unilateral actions. Negotiations are the path to a lasting peace.”
- “Hamas’s attacks, hostage taking and other atrocities, the ongoing hostilities and suffering of Palestinians in Gaza, and the violence in the West Bank reinforce the United States’s resolve to urgently achieve a final peace that includes the full realization of Palestinian self-determination.”
- “The current crisis illustrates the vital need to achieve this final peace with a Palestinian state living safely and securely alongside a safe Israel, fully integrated in the region.”
- “The court should not find that Israel is legally obligated to immediately and unconditionally withdraw from occupied territory.”
US representative offers ‘a lot of dry legal arguments’
The US is one of two states together with Fiji arguing against the idea that the court should declare Israel’s occupation illegal.
The US State Department official Richard Visek was trying to argue the question the court is being asked to consider is one-sided as it only focuses on Israel’s role in the occupation. The focus should instead be on the UN Security Council resolutions that over the decades have affirmed the commitment to the two-state solution, according to Visek.
The US representative also said the allegations that Israel breaches the fourth Geneva Convention by transferring settlers to the occupied Palestinian territories should be addressed by the UN Security Council.
There were a lot of dry legal arguments suggesting that the court shouldn’t be considering this question because it’s biased against Israel.
How would ruling the occupation illegal burden peace negotiations?
The United States defended Israel in a very clever way. Its arguments were sober and sophisticated, but this doesn’t make them any less dishonest.
The overall message of the American representative is that the court should be at the service of the American and Israeli negotiation strategy – not that the American and Israeli negotiation strategy should abide by the court’s ruling.
But a World Court cannot be at the disposal of the US. It is otherwise unclear why a potential ruling by the court that the occupation is illegal would be a burden on the negotiations. On the matter of Israel’s security, who defines what that means? Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu defines security as Israel taking control of the territory from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, which would mean accepting the acquisition of territory by force.
Conflict’s main cause ‘needs to be eliminated’: Russia
Russia follows US arguments after a break. The creation of a Palestinian state is the “most reliable” solution for peace in Israel and fighting alone won’t ensure security, Russia said previously.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in October that Moscow had “serious questions” about Western policy on Israel, noting wars and turmoil continue because “the main reason [for the conflict] needs to be eliminated”. “The Palestinian problem should not be delayed further,” Lavrov said at the time.
Russia invited representatives of all Palestinian factions – including Fatah and Hamas – to Moscow for talks on Monday. President Vladimir Putin said earlier this month Moscow could play the role of mediator, thanks to its friendly ties with both Israel and the Palestinians, adding “No one could suspect us of playing up to one party”.
Russia’s representative calls for vicious circle to be broken in Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Vladimir Tarabrin, Russia’s ambassador to the Netherlands, has taken the floor, summarising the suffering of the Palestinian people and condemning the October 7 attack on Israel, but slamming the Israeli retaliation as “collective punishment” that cannot be justified. He said:
- Images from Gaza are terrifying. Indiscriminate air strikes are killing civilians and erasing whole residential districts … Up to 90 percent of Gazans have been forced to leave their homes and they are living in inhumane conditions. Against the backdrop of tough Israeli blockade the Gaza Strip is experiencing a genuine humanitarian catastrophe.
- Russia of all countries understands the danger of terrorism. We have faced this evil time and again. Let me use this opportunity to reiterate our heartfelt condolences to the Israelis who lost their loved ones in the attack on the 7th of October. Brutal massacre of innocent people, taking of hostages and other terrorist violence do not have and cannot have any justification.
- We are convinced the tragic events of the 7th of October cannot justify the collective punishment of more than two million Gazans. We cannot accept the logic of those officials in Israel and some Western countries who try to defend the indiscriminate violence against civilians by referring to Israel’s duty to protect its nationals. Violence can only lead to more violence. Hatred brings hatred. This vicious circle must be broken.
Settlements imperilling two-state solution, Russia says
Tarabrin says Israeli settlements established in breach of international law “are contrary to the principle of inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by force”. The UN Security Council has already determined that these settlements constitute a “flagrant violation of international law and a major obstacle to the two-state solution and a just and lasting peace”, he says.
Israel’s policy of settlement expansion continues unabated in defiance of UN Security Council resolutions and in breach of the right to property, freedom of movement and an adequate standard of living, the ambassador charged. The court would be right to conclude that Israel has a duty to put an end to its current violations and provide reparations, he said.
Russia calls for establishment of Palestinian state
Tarabrin ends his speech, saying:
- A negotiated two-state solution with an independent and viable Palestinian state peacefully coexisting with Israel will be the best recipe for bringing an end to Israel’s violations, creating guarantees of their non-repetition and redressing the damage.
- The Russian Federation invites the Court to be guided by the need to contribute to creating conditions for successful final status negotiations. The best contribution would be confirmation by the court that Israel and Palestine are under an obligation to resume such negotiations while all states and organisations shall cooperate in order to make that possible.
- The continued Israeli occupation of Palestine impedes the realisation of the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination. Israeli settlements are contrary to the principle of the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by force.
Bunch of hypocrites as all that applies to the Ukraine 'special military operation' as well. But it doesn't make it less right and would also be a roundabout way to put more pressure on Russia for its illegal invasion of Ukraine and occupation of Crimea and Donbas.
