30 No. 75 JUSTICE but not sufficiently an international entity for the prohibition of armed attack on others to be applicable. This is formalism of an unevenhanded sort. The question is surely where responsibility lies for the sending of groups and persons who act against Israeli civilians and the cumulative severity of such action.”135 Conclusion 91. The Israeli-Palestinian dispute is one component of a historic, wider, dispute between the Arab world and the State of Israel, which is widely viewed as having commenced in 1948 (although some would date it before or after). This submission has shown that there are competing claims over the disputed territory which forms the subject of the General Assembly’s referral. The territory’s current legal status is that of indeterminacy pending agreement by the parties. 92. We have further explained that there is an international legal framework (UN and bilateral) in force for the resolution of the conflict, which is based on the principle of land for peace, and which does not view the presence of Israeli forces in the West Bank until peace is achieved as unlawful. Over the last 45 years, significant strides have been made in resolving the wider dispute. Peace treaties between Egypt and Israel and Jordan and Israel were signed and implemented in 1979 and 1994 respectively. In 2020, in the context of the Abraham Accords, normalisation agreements (equivalent to peace treaties) have been reached between Israel and a diverse list of Arab countries including the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan. The Israeli presence in the West Bank pending the conclusion of a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians is consistent with the international and bilateral frameworks for the resolution of the conflict. 93. We also explained that Israel’s presence in the West Bank is a result of lawful use of force in self-defence in 1967. Israel’s presence in the West Bank since then is governed by the jus in bello, and in particular, the law of occupation. We demonstrated that international law does not include a requirement to end a situation of occupation before the resolution of the conflict. We also highlighted that while international law does not require Israel to provide an ongoing self-defence justification for its continued presence in the West Bank, in reality Israel’s presence in the West Bank is required in order to protect its citizens from attacks such as the one that occurred on 7 October 2023. 94. The historic peace processes between Israel and its neighbours show that, in this context, one-time enemies can set aside their differences and resolve their disputes without resorting to force and compulsion. What is required is that both the Israeli and Palestinian sides accept that a negotiated solution is the only way forward. In the words of Judge Sebutinde: “As can be seen from the above history, it is clear that a permanent solution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict can only result from good faith negotiations between Israeli and Palestinian representatives working towards the achievement of a just and sustainable two-State solution. A solution cannot be imposed from outside, much less through judicial settlement.”136 135. Wall Advisory Opinion, Id., Separate Opinion of Judge Higgins, para. 34, para. 6. 136. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel), Order of 26 January 2024, Dissenting opinion of Judge Sebutinde, para. 11.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=