By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

US criticises ICJ opinion that Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory is illegal

The United States has criticised “the breadth” of the top UN court’s opinion in which the International Court of Justice said Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory is illegal, with Washington saying it will complicate efforts to resolve the conflict.

“We have been clear that Israel’s programme of government support for settlements is both inconsistent with international law and obstructs the cause of peace,” a US State Department spokesperson said in an email to Reuters.

“However, we are concerned that the breadth of the court’s opinion will complicate efforts to resolve the conflict and bring about an urgently needed just and lasting peace, with two states living side-by-side in peace and security,” the spokesperson wrote.


Enough with US' lies. The Abraham accords are proof the US isn't interested in a two state solution, effectively sidelining a Palestinian state. Both Trump and Biden support the accords.

The US has been complicating efforts to resolve the conflict for many decades.



EU backs ICJ ruling on illegal Israeli occupation

The top UN court’s ruling that Israel’s 57-year occupation of Palestinian land is illegal is “largely consistent with EU positions”, the bloc’s foreign policy chief, Josep Borrell, says.

The sweeping opinion on Friday by The Hague-based ICJ, which called for the occupation to end as soon as possible, was immediately slammed as a “decision of lies” by Israel.

But Borrell said the bloc had taken “good note” of the court’s ruling and urged further backing for the court’s opinion.

“In a world of constant and increasing violations of international law, it is our moral duty to reaffirm our unwavering commitment to all ICJ decisions in a consistent manner, irrespective of the subject in question,” he said.

Borrell added in a statement that the opinion “will need to be analysed more thoroughly, including in view of its implications for EU policy”.