ICJ - US again defends Israeli security operations but avoids the word 'occupation' : Emily Rauhala / Washington Post

US State Department official Richard Visek

Article shared by Tom McDermott

Click here for the article in the Washington Post

Did you ever sit through a very tedious movie or stage presentation and wonder what the heck the writer and producer were trying to say?  Did you wonder if the show would ever end ?  It seems that we are spectators trapped in our seats and watching two such shows - one a human tragedy of historic proportions without any end in sight; the other a delicate ballet in which the dancers take their steps with extraordinary nuance but no clear direction or relation to the other dancers.  

The delicate diplomatic dance by the US delegations in NY, Brussels, and the Hague continued on Tuesday and Wednesday. 

 At the Security Council on Tuesday the US carried through on its vow to veto the Algerian draft resolution which called for a ceasefire in Gaza - the third US veto of ceasefire resolutions. This time the US stood alone, with all other members voting for the resolution, and only the UK delegation abstaining. The US tried to soften its position by calling instead for a 'temporary ceasefire' but then said that it was in no rush to bring the proposal to a vote and added various conditions.

Some observers saw progress in the mere mention of the word 'ceasefire' - a word the US carefully avoided previously. Others saw a mild warning to Israel that the Biden Administration could shift its position in the event Israel proceeds with its threat to launch a new major military operation in Rafah or drive the Palestinians sheltering there into Egypt.  Most saw only another attempt to delay any action that might pressure Israel.

On Wednesday the dance continued in Brussels with the US arguing at the ICJ hearings that a potential advisory opinion by the Court challenging the legality of Israeli security operations in the West Bank and Gaza 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 according to the US legal advisor.  

Here again, it is important to tease apart the words the US is using.  The real issue before the Court is not only Israeli security operations (although these are clearly a major stumbling block), but the physical occupation of Palestinian lands by steadily growing Israeli settlements - a fact which in turn drives the raids and other security operations by Israeli forces and the division of Palestinian settlements into small islands separated by Israeli controlled roads.  The US has always claimed to oppose the settlements, but has generally 'turned a blind eye' to their establishment and steady expansion. The US has now reverted to calls for a 'two state-solution', something that could only happen if those settlements were withdrawn or a new map with contiguous borders were agreed upon.  

The dance will continue next week when Israel will present its response to the Court's call that Israel take all steps necessary to avoid genocide in Gaza.  In both NY and the Hague the issue of whether the Security Council and the ICJ have any relevance to the realities on the ground is very much in question.  

Tom