JNS
“Novel legal interpretations will not bring an end to the ongoing conflict,” said an attorney for the U.S. State Department. “They will not bring the hostages home.”
The United States spoke in defense of Israel at the International Court of Justice on Wednesday, as the court heard arguments about the Jewish state’s obligations to provide humanitarian aid as the “occupying power” over the Gaza Strip, and Judea and Samaria.
Joshua Simmons, a lawyer in the office of the legal adviser at the U.S. State Department, urged the court to reject novel legal theories that international law might require Israel to work with specific U.N. agencies, such as the U.N. Relief and Works Agency.
“International law does not impose any unqualified obligations on an occupying power regarding all these entities, much less any particular entity,” Simmons told the court. “The General Assembly does not have the power to impose on Israel a perpetual obligation to cooperate with UNRWA.”
“This is a fundamental principle that is distinct from any obligations Israel or any U.N. member state might have toward a U.N. entity that it agrees to host,” he added.
In December, the U.N. General Assembly passed a Norway-sponsored resolution demanding that the Hague-based court, which is a subsidiary organ of the United Nations, issue an advisory opinion about Israel’s obligations to provide humanitarian aid to Palestinians via U.N. agencies.
The move followed Israel’s legislature voting in October to ban UNRWA after the Israeli government accused some 450 of its employees of working for terror groups, primarily Hamas, and of participating in the Oct. 7 attacks. The ban went into effect in January.
Simmons argued before the court that UNRWA’s associations with Hamas compromised the neutrality that the Geneva Conventions demand of humanitarian organizations, and that, contrary to what some other countries had argued, Israel does not have to cooperate with the agency.
“There are serious concerns about UNRWA’s impartiality, including information that Hamas has used UNRWA facilities and that UNRWA staff participated in the Oct. 7 terrorist attack against Israel,” Simmons said. “Israel, therefore, has ample grounds to question UNRWA’s impartiality.”
“Given these concerns, it is clear that Israel has no obligation to permit UNRWA specifically to provide humanitarian assistance,” he told the court.
Because the text of the General Assembly resolution asked only for an advisory opinion about Israel’s obligations, Simmons urged the court to refrain from making any finding about Israel’s compliance with those obligations or to impose any legal consequences for any alleged breach of them.
“Novel legal interpretations will not bring an end to the ongoing conflict,” Simmons said. “They will not bring the hostages home. They will not create a better tomorrow for Israelis, Palestinians and the region.”
Gideon Sa’ar, the Israeli foreign minister, announced on Sunday at the JNS International Policy Summit that Israel will not participate in the hearings at The Hague.
The court is scheduled to finish hearing arguments on Friday.
