BRUSSELS — The United States again diverged from allies Wednesday to back Israel before the International Court of Justice, despite growing tension between President Biden and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over the war in Gaza.
In a presentation in The Hague, U.S. officials warned that an advisory opinion from the top U.N. court, if not properly written, could frustrate peace efforts. “A movement toward Israel’s withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza requires consideration of Israel’s very real security needs,” State Department official Richard Visek told the court.
Palestinian Foreign Affairs Minister Riyadh al-Maliki spoke to reporters at the International Court of Justice after the U.S. defended Israel’s security needs. (Video: Reuters)
Visek spoke on the third day of historic hearings on Israel’s control over the West Bank, Gaza and annexed East Jerusalem. In earlier presentations, representatives from South Africa and other nations accused Israel of running an “apartheid state” and called for an end to its occupation of Palestinian territories.
U.S. vetoes U.N. proposal for immediate Gaza cease-fire, drawing ire
The U.N. General Assembly asked the ICJ for an advisory opinion in 2022, before the Hamas-led attack on Israeli communities Oct. 7 — when Israel says militants killed around 1,200 people and took 253 hostage — and Israel’s war on Hamas in Gaza, where the health ministry says the Israel Defense Forces have killed more than 29,000 people. It’s distinct from the genocide claim brought against Israel in December by South Africa. But the devastation on the ground in Gaza and the inability of the world so far to stop it have added urgency.
Israel is not participating in the hearings, which Netanyahu’s office said were “designed to harm Israel’s right to defend itself against existential threats.”
Washington is becoming increasingly isolated in its support for Israel, a development that’s been evident at The Hague. A lawyer for the Palestinians said the United States was “the only state besides Fiji to defend Israel” during the proceedings.
“This is not surprising,” attorney Paul Reichler said. “Whatever offenses against international law Israel commits, the United States comes forward to shield it from accountability.”
The United States is Israel’s closest ally. The Biden administration faces growing pressure to get its government to change its conduct of the war in Gaza.
Biden this month called the Israeli campaign “over the top” and said the civilian suffering must stop. He signed an executive order to impose sanctions on four West Bank settlers who the administration says have committed violence against Palestinians, the most significant step taken against Israelis since the conflict began.
Still, many have called on the administration to do more. The killing of two American teens in the West Bank has also provoked calls for a stronger U.S. response.
But the Biden administration continues to back Israel in international venues. On Tuesday, the United States vetoed a Security Council resolution calling for an immediate cease-fire in the Gaza Strip for the third time since the start of the conflict.
The United States argued that an immediate cease-fire could jeopardize negotiations for a six-week pause, during which Hamas would return kidnapped Israelis, Israel would release jailed Palestinians and more humanitarian aid would be delivered to the besieged enclave. Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, called on members to support an alternative resolution.
The United States was the only member of the 15-member council to vote against an immediate cease-fire. Britain abstained; the rest voted in favor.
In The Hague on Wednesday, Visek sought to acknowledge the court’s role while warning against the risks of “one-sidedness.” He said the court should not find that Israel is legally obligated to withdraw immediately and unconditionally.
“We were all reminded of Israel’s security needs on October 7, and they persist,” he told the court. “Regrettably, those needs have been ignored by many of the participants in asserting how the court should consider the questions before it.”
France on Wednesday again condemned Israel’s settlement policy in the occupied territories and called for restitution or compensation for Palestinians for practices that violate international law. But it urged the court to “go no further than necessary” in its ruling.
The proceedings opened Monday with remarks from Palestinian officials. Foreign Affairs Minister Riyadh al-Maliki told the court that “2.3 million Palestinians in Gaza, half of them children, are besieged and bombed, killed and maimed, starved and displaced.”
“More than 3.5 million Palestinians in the West Bank, including in Jerusalem, are subjected to colonization of their territory and racist violence that enables it,” he added.
Remarks Tuesday from 10 countries on Tuesday — South Africa, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, the Netherlands, Bangladesh, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil and Chile — drew on similar themes.
South Africa accused Israel of perpetuating a “more extreme form” of apartheid that once existed in its country.
South African ambassador to the Netherlands Vusimuzi Madonsela on Feb. 20 urged the International Court of Justice to find Israel’s occupation illegal. (Video: Reuters)
Vusi Madonsela, the South African ambassador to the Netherlands, said Israel’s occupation “discriminates against and fragments all Palestinian people to ensure the maintenance of Israeli Jewish domination.”
Canada was expected to address the court Tuesday but dropped out, saying its written statement would suffice. Canada had asked the court not to issue an advisory opinion for fear it would disrupt peace efforts.
South Africa presses genocide case against Israel at international court
With more than two dozen countries yet to speak, the hearings are scheduled to continue through Monday. The court’s advisory opinion is not expected for months — and might have no impact.
The court ordered Israel to minimize civilian harm in Gaza. However, few see evidence that these “provisional measures” have changed its conduct of the war.