in ,

Normalisation first, US tells ICJ

Nazi Israel must not be immediately ordered to end its illegal, 57-year-long occupation of Palestinian territories because it needs to ensure the safety of its citizens, Richard C. Visek, Acting Legal Adviser, United States Department of State, has told the ICJ.

The only path to peace in Arabia travels directly through normalisation of ties with the apartheid entity, Visek argued.

He told the court the United States, along with others, is engaging intensively 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.

The United Nations has been consistent in its support for the proposition that a comprehensive, just and lasting peace requires negotiations between the parties to the conflict, he said.

There is broad international support for achieving a negotiated solution to give rise to a Palestinian State.

The established framework for achieving a comprehensive and enduring peace is anchored in Security Council resolutions 242 and 338: one is the withdrawal of forces from occupied territory; and the other is peace and security for States in the Middle East through acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area.

The Security Council decided that the withdrawal of Israeli forces relies on the termination of belligerency, mutual recognition and respect for the right of Israel and every other State in the region to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.

This principle is referred to by both the Security Council and the General Assembly as Land for Peace.

This principle underlies peace agreements between Israel and Egypt, and then between Israel and Jordan. They were also adopted by Israel and the Palestinians in the Oslo Accords, though the promise of Oslo has yet to be fulfilled.

This framework also remains the basis for ongoing U.S. efforts to facilitate a lasting peace. United States Secretary of State Blinken in talks in Arabia has told parties the diplomatic path to a just and lasting peace continues to be a path to an Israel that is fully integrated into the region, with normal relations with the countries of the region, and with firm guarantees for its security.

He underscored that this must include a concrete path to a Palestinian State living side by side in peace and security with Israel. Countries and organizations around the world want to revive the peace process and the two-State solution.

Under the established framework, any movement towards Israel’s withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza requires consideration of Israel’s very real security needs. We were all reminded of those security needs on 7 October, and they persist. Regrettably, those needs have been ignored by many of the participants in asserting how the Court should consider the questions before it.

As set out in the written submissions of the United States, international law does not provide for an occupation itself to be rendered unlawful or void based either on its duration or on any violations of occupation law.

Even if the occupying power starts settlements, in effect colonisation, the legal status of the occupation would not change as a consequence, because the occupation continues in fact.

We have repeatedly reaffirmed that the acquisition of territory by force is prohibited, he told the court.

International law does not impose specific time-limits on an occupation. That said, belligerent occupation is a temporary measure for administering territory under the control of belligerent armed forces. In light of these considerations, the Court should not find that Israel is legally obligated to immediately and unconditionally withdraw from occupied territory. 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.

This conflict cannot be resolved through violence or unilateral actions. Negotiations are the path to lasting peace. For these reasons, we respectfully encourage the Court to carefully calibrate its advice in this proceeding to support and promote final realization of peace and stability within the established United Nations framework set out in Security Council resolutions 242 and 338.

What do you think?

500 Points
Upvote Downvote

Written by WebAdmin


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings



“France will never recognise the Occupation”

13 SHA’BAAN 1445