Washington appeals to global tribunal against calling for Israel's exit from Palestinian lands

At the core of the discussions is the legal status of Israel's occupation of territories captured during the 1967 war, including the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, areas the Palestinians envisage as part of their future state. Despite Israel's withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, its control, along with Egypt, over Gaza's borders and the continued expansion of settlements in the West Bank have been points of contention. The international community, through various UN resolutions, has called for an Israeli withdrawal, although the resolutions have stopped short of labeling the occupation as illegal.

The US, in a significant move, urged the ICJ not to issue a ruling calling for Israel’s immediate withdrawal from the occupied Palestinian territories. This stance is part of a broader narrative that Israeli security considerations must be taken into account in any resolution to the conflict. Concurrently, Russia demanded that Israel halt all settlement activities in the occupied territory, highlighting the divergent positions among global powers. These hearings further highlight the isolation faced by Israel's few supporters on the global stage, as most countries and international organizations push for adherence to international law and the cessation of settlement activities.

The Palestinian push for legal scrutiny of Israel's actions by international law institutions has gained urgency following recent escalations in violence, attacks by Hamas in Israel, and the subsequent military response in the Gaza Strip. These developments have exacerbated the regional humanitarian crisis and complicated efforts toward achieving a two-state solution, which remains a widely advocated resolution to the conflict.

Israel's decision not to participate actively in the hearings, citing the issue as one to be resolved diplomatically rather than judicially, underscores the contentious nature of the discussions at the ICJ. Despite this, the hearings proceed, with many countries presenting their stances, reflecting the global consensus on the need for a legal examination of the occupation's implications.

As the ICJ deliberates on these matters, the outcome, though advisory and non-binding, is anticipated to carry significant moral and legal weight. The international community watches closely, hopeful that the court's opinion will contribute to a pathway toward peace and justice in the region amidst the complex web of historical grievances, security concerns, and aspirations for sovereignty and self-determination

Sources: ICJ; Reuters; The Guardian; AlJazeera