The ICJ’s arguments on Palestine confirm the impotence of the law in the face of Israel.

Written by Elijah J. Magnier:

In recent days, the appeals of the international community were presented to the fifteen judges of the United Nations International Court of Justice (ICJ), the pinnacle of global judicial authority. These appeals sought legal advice on the ongoing Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The substance of these appeals consisted mainly of citing past international resolutions condemning Israel’s occupation of Palestine and other Arab territories – resolutions that the United Nations has failed to enforce and that Israel has consistently flouted. This situation underlines the inability of the United Nations to implement its directives without the consensus of its member states, especially those with significant power. The Gaza conflict has thus highlighted the urgent need for a new world order in which international law is upheld before the situation becomes irreparable.

State Department legal adviser Richard Visek has submitted an argument to the ICJ arguing that security concerns necessitate Israel’s continued occupation of Palestinian territories. “The Court should not conclude that Israel has a legal obligation to withdraw immediately and unconditionally from the Occupied Territories,” Visek said. This statement inadvertently acknowledges the ongoing Israeli occupation. It signifies US support for an indefinite occupation despite numerous United Nations resolutions calling for Israel’s unconditional withdrawal from Palestinian territory. Visek’s appeal to the ICJ underscores the US position of support for Israel’s actions, whatever they may be, which are considered illegal by international standards. It also highlights an apparent disregard for the Palestinian right to self-determination, a principle supported by several UN Security Council resolutions and endorsed by legal experts at the ICJ.