Forcing Israel to unilaterally withdraw to the pre-1967 lines without addressing its security concerns would be harmful and complicate a negotiated peace process, US State Department legal adviser Richard Visek told the International Court of Justice on Wednesday.
“It would not…be conducive…to issue an opinion that calls for a unilateral, immediate, and unconditional withdrawal by Israel that does not account for Israel’s legitimate security needs,” Visek said.
“We were all reminded of those security needs on October 7, and they persist,” Visek added, pointing to the Hamas-led infiltration of southern Israel during which over 1,200 people were killed and 253 were seized as hostages.
He spoke during the ICJ’s six-day hearing on the legality of Israel’s “occupation” of territories it acquired from Jordan and Egypt during the 1967 Six-Day War: Gaza, the West Bank, and east Jerusalem.
Israel: Court's intervention delays peace in Middle East
The United Nations had asked the ICJ to render a non-binding advisory opinion on the issue. Israel has boycotted the proceedings, which include testimonies from 49 countries and three organizations.
Most of those testifying have urged the ICJ to render Israel’s “occupation” illegal, a move that they have argued is necessary to bring it to an end. Many of the testimonies have focused solely on the suffering of the Palestinians without providing additional historical or security context.
Many of those testifying have linked an opinion on the illegality of Israel’s “occupation” with the Palestinian right to self-determination and unilateral statehood in the West Bank, Gaza, and east Jerusalem.
Palestinian Authority Foreign Minister Riyad Al-Maliki, who opened the hearing, argued that any peace process should be divorced from Palestinian statehood recognition.
The United States, which argued on Israel’s behalf, said that the ICJ had to stay within the framework of a negotiated process that has had the backing of the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly.
“The Security Council and General Assembly continue to make clear their support for the two-state solution and the established framework to fulfill it,” Visek said.
“This conflict cannot be resolved through violence or unilateral actions,” he stressed.
Others involved in this case have asked that the ICJ “try to resolve the whole of the dispute between the parties through an advisory opinion addressed to questions focusing on the acts of only one party.” Visek said.
The ICJ's 15-judge panel has been asked to review Israel's "occupation, settlement and annexation ... including measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character, and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and from its adoption of related discriminatory legislation and measures."
“This court’s advisory opinion will have consequences for the parties to the conflict and for the ongoing efforts of all of those working to achieve a durable peace,” he added.
Others involved in this case have asked that the ICJ “try to resolve the whole of the dispute between the parties through an advisory opinion addressed to questions focusing on the acts of only one party.” Visek said.
“This court’s advisory opinion will have consequences for the parties to the conflict and for the ongoing efforts of all of those working to achieve a durable peace,” he added.Therefore, it has to proceed in a way that does not make the possibility of negotiations “even more difficult,” he explained.“This conflict cannot be resolved through violence or unilateral actions,” Visek said, stressing that “negotiations are the path to lasting peace.”He asked the court to “carefully calibrate its advice in this proceeding to support and promote the final realization of peace and stability within the established UN framework set out in Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.”