China tells the International Court of Justice that the Palestinians “should not be denied” justice News of the Israeli war on Gaza

Representatives from Ireland, Japan and Jordan present their arguments at the International Court of Justice hearing on Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories.

China has told the International Court of Justice that Palestinians “must not be denied justice” at a hearing on Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories.

“Justice has been long delayed, but it should not be denied,” Chinese Foreign Ministry Legal Counselor Ma Xinmin told the court in The Hague, Netherlands, on Thursday.

Fifty-seven years have passed since Israel began its occupation of the occupied Palestinian territories. He said that the illegal nature of the occupation and sovereignty over the occupied territories had not changed.

Al Jazeera's Stipe Weissen, reporting from The Hague, said China used its time at the International Court of Justice to counter the US argument on Wednesday that Israel should not be ordered to withdraw unconditionally from the occupied territories without security guarantees.

The United States said that the United Nations and the International Court of Justice should stay away from any bilateral issue between Israel and Palestine. According to China, the United Nations was certain to talk about self-determination for the Palestinian people.”

He added, “The Chinese representative said that Israel is a foreign country that occupies Palestine, and therefore the right to self-defense lies more with the Palestinians than with the Israelis.”

On Thursday, representatives from the Republic of Ireland, Japan and Jordan also presented their arguments before the International Court of Justice.

Ireland said it concluded that “Israel has committed serious violations of a number of peremptory rules of public international law.”

See also  Latino Democrats are shifting from quiet concern to open opposition to Biden's concessions in border talks

The Irish representative added that Israel had also violated basic rules of international humanitarian law.

Japanese Foreign Ministry Legal Counsel Tomohiro Mikanagi also told the ICJ that his country believes that “a two-state solution, in which Israel and a future independent Palestinian state live side by side in peace and dignity, remains the only viable path for both peoples.” .

For Jordan, Michael Wood said that “the only way to… [Palestinian] The right to self-determination must be exercised [Israeli] The occupation has come to an end.”

Al Jazeera's Hamda Salhout, reporting from occupied East Jerusalem, said Jordan occupies a “key position” in the ICJ hearing because it is one of the most prominent critics of the occupation and is also the custodian of the Al-Aqsa Mosque complex in Jerusalem.

She said: “Although they were not only critical of the occupation, they were critical of Israel's war on Gaza, so their role within the region is very important to help the Palestinians in any kind of talks.”

A woman holds a sign reading “Israel = Outlaw” and “I am Jewish,” and a man holds a Palestinian flag in The Hague, Netherlands, Wednesday, February 21, 2024. [Peter Dejong/AP]

The International Court of Justice hears the views of about 50 countries on the occupation, and is part of a campaign by the Palestinians to persuade international legal institutions to examine Israeli policy.

Palestinian representatives on Monday asked the judges to declare the Israeli occupation of their lands illegal and said their opinion could help reach a two-state solution.

In the occupied West Bank, tensions between illegal settlers and Palestinians have escalated dramatically due to the Israeli war on Gaza.

On October 7, a Hamas attack killed 1,139 Israelis, according to Al Jazeera's tally of Israeli figures. In response, Israel's deadly attack on Gaza killed some 29,000 Palestinians.

See also  Russian and Chinese warships sail near the Japanese islands, one day before the Biden summit

Israel, which is not participating in the sessions, said in written comments that the court's participation could harm a negotiated settlement.

The justices are expected to take approximately six months to issue their opinion.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *