ECAJ statement on ICJ advisory opinion on Israel’s presence in the West Bank and east Jerusalem.
The Executive Council of Australian Jewry, the peak national body of the Australian Jewish community, is appalled by the advisory opinion issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on 19 July 2024 concerning Israel’s presence in the territories of the West Bank and east Jerusalem.
“Nowhere in its 83 pages is there a single reference to the repeated attempts by neighbouring states to eradicate Israel and wipe out its Jewish population, an ambition still openly proclaimed by the present criminal regime in Iran” said ECAJ President Daniel Aghion.
“The ICJ glosses over the fact that when Israel came into possession of the territories of the West Bank and east Jerusalem in the course of the Six Day War in 1967, it was as a result of Israel’s neighbours massing troops on its border with those territories and openly threatening its annihilation.”
“In concluding that Israel has an obligation to bring an end to its presence in the West Bank and east Jerusalem, the ICJ ignores the lesson of history, which is that unilateral withdrawal from territory is suicidal in the face of enemies who are determined to eradicate you and your country”, Mr Aghion said.
“Far from creating a pathway to peace, it is an incentive to further war and bloodshed. This is precisely what happened after Israel withdrew unilaterally from Gaza in 2005. For this reason, Palestinian statehood can only be sustained in the context of a negotiated peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, not through a diktat of the ICJ or any other external body.”
Mr Aghion also excoriated the ICJ for blaming Israel for the failure of the Palestinians to achieve Statehood. “The ICJ is silent not only about the ongoing rejectionist attitude of the Palestinian leaders towards Israel but also about their perennial violence, corruption and incompetence. One cannot simply airbrush from the record their rejection of repeated offers made by Israel for a comprehensive peace agreement that would have included the establishment of a Palestinian State covering the whole of the Gaza Strip and an area equal in size to the West Bank, together with a capital in east Jerusalem.”
“The ICJ has been mendacious and reckless In its attempt to rewrite history and minimise the ongoing threats to Israel’s existence”. Mr Aghion concluded. “Thankfully the Advisory Opinion is not legally binding. It deserves to follow the ICJ’s 2004 advisory opinion in the so-called “Wall” case into obscurity and irrelevance.”
