further, there is no reason let alone a compelling one for the court to decline to issue the requested opinion. on the contrary, many fold reasons exist which confirm that answer by the court to these questions is about most importance for the general assembly, the united nations at large, and the international community as a whole. of first, the questions concerned serious breaches of use cogens and omnous norms, as my colleagues will show, those breaches by israel include violations of the prohibition of acquisition of territory by force, the prohibition of racial discrimination and apartite, the denial of the right of self-determination as well as other egregous violations of international human rights and humanitarian law of the same character. accordingly, all states as well as the united nations in... have legally protected interest

in having those violations in both their individual and cumulative manifestations as well as their legal consequences laid out and clarified by the court so as to guide them in their future actions. second, the questions concern the united nations's continuous responsibility for resolving the question of palestine. this responsibility stems from its duties relating to... matters of international peace and security arising under the charter and as the court put it quote has its origin in the mandate and the partition resolution concerning and quote. this responsibility continues as confirmed by of the unequivocal and contemporary practice of the general assembly, the security council as well as other united nations organs and bodies and as the court has previously reiterated in its wall advice. opinion there

exists and i quote, a permanent responsibility of the united nations towards the question of palestine until the question of is resolved in all its aspects in satisfactory manner in accordance with international legitimacy, and quote. the questions put before the court by the assembly does seek the court's legal guidance on matters of fundamental and longstanding importance and concern to the. united nations. third, all of the ground for declining to issue an opinion suggested in the submissions of few states fall far short of constituting compelling reasons that must exist for the court to refrain from answering the general assembly questions. some of these submissions oppose the advisory opinion because of the proported existence of negotiation framework or of bilateral negotiations. however, none of these

considerations constitutes a reasonable basis for the court to refuse the general assembly's request. to the contrary, an opinion from the court will assist in these negotiations by confirming the applicable international legal framework as affirmed in united nations resolutions, in order to reach a just and peaceful solution. as matter of fact, there exist, there exist at least three reasons why the court should not be deterred from answering the ga questions on that basis: first, israel has repeatedly refused and to this very day to engage in meaningful negotiations with palestine on the basis of international law and united nations resolutions. this is reflected in repeated statements, including most recently by the israeli prime minister and other high-ranking israeli officials. "the mere hypothetical

possibility of future negotiations cannot thus be used as a mere pretext for avoiding the application of international law to this crucial matter or for avoiding responsibility of for ongoing breaches of preemptory norms of international law. israel, israel has made it clear that it wants and will tolerate only one state, israel between the mediterranean sea and the jordan river. this is confirmed interrera by the map displayed by the israeli prime minister in his speech before the general assembly of 22nd september 2023 that you have already seen, as well as by his november 2023 statement where the israeli prime minister said that he was proud to have prevented the establishment of a palestinian state. but these statements of israel's head of government have not been empty words.

rather, they are reflected in concrete policy decisions and measures on the ground undertaken by israel for decades. interalia, when faced with the attempt by pales. time to initiate the conciliation procedure under articles 11 and 12 third, it was israel that consistently and continuously rejected any meaningful attempt to bring to an end by way of negotiations under the auspices of theoc commission set up under article 12:3rd its entrenched system of racial discrimination inherent in its occupation regime. second and significant the security council has repeatedly called for peaceful settlement of the question of palestine based on international law, based on international law. it renewed this call only two months ago in december 2023, in its resolution 27-20,

when reiterating that the solution to the conflict must be, and i quote the council, consistent with international law and relevant un resolutions. and quote: the court's opinion can thus only contribute to achieving the peaceful settlement of the question of palestine, called for by the security council. it, your opinion, will clarify the legal rights and obligations of israel, of palestine, of third states and of the united nations, to be reflected in a settlement that is truly consistent with international law. thus, the court's opinion will also contribute to upholding the international rule of. law at large. in that regard, let me remind you, members of the court, that this is precisely what the court's advisory opinion in the chargos proceedings achieved. by clarifying the legal, the relevant legal rules, it, your opinion, broke the deadlock that had

precluded negotiations. the advisory opinion, your opinion, let the united kingdom to agree to negotiate with mauritius for the first time on the basis. of mauricious sovereignty over the disputed territory. third, the general assembly, when deciding upon the request for the current advisory opinion, was acutely aware of the claim that such request would somehow proportedly undermine the chances of future negotiations. nevertheless, the general assembly decided to ask for the court's legal determination. anyway, the general assembly does. found that this argument had no merit, to the contrary, it considered, the ga considered that the court's opinion would be helpful as to future steps to be taken by the political organs of the united nations as well as by all states. in line with your role as one of the

principal organs of the organization, as envisaged in article 7 of the charter, the court ought not now set aside this considered decision of the general assembly. members of the court, the mere hypothetical chance of possible future negotiations cannot and ought not prevent the court from rendering its opinion. if this were the case, quote none, a reluctant state wishing to bar the court from exercising its judicial function could unilaterally, unilaterally prevent the matter from reaching the court by simply insisting on the mere possibility of negotiations. this would cur tell the general assembly's right to receive legal assistance from the court and to do so even in a situation where the general assembly making the request determined that such opinion by the court would be needed for the exercise of its own function. such approach finds no basis in the

wording of the charter or the court statute either. it would unduly limit the right of the political organs of the united nations to request an opinion from the court any, as the wording as it, any legal question, as both 961 charter and 65 of the court statute provide unequivocally. mr. president, members the court, let me conclude, the catastrophic developments of recent month in the gaza strip confirmed that the metters put to the court by the general assembly are if ever there was need, not mere bilateral issues, rather, they are issues of grave consequence for the maintenance of international peace and security. they are thus of immense concern for the international community at large, where the court's legal guidance is desperately needed. all of these affor mentioned considerations corroborate that in

the present proceedings, as indeed each and every previous advisory proceedings that had come before this court, there are no reasons, no compelling. reasons to prevent the court from rendering its opinion, rather, palestine invites the court to fulfill its duty of providing its legal determination to the general assembly by answering the legal questions put to it, in so doing, you will assist all states, as well as the united nations, in furthering respect for the international rule of law, the fulfillment of the inalinable rights of the palestinian people, and a just and peaceful solution in accordance with international law. members of the court, i thank you for your kind attention, and would now kindly ask you, mr. president, to call upon mr. reichler to take the floor. thank you, i thank professor zimmerman. i now give the floor to mr. por richler. you have the floor, mr. reidler. mr.

president, members of the court, it is an honor for me to appear before you and a privilege to speak on behalf of the state of palestine. i will address the... whether those elements are present here, and i will show that based on the applicable law,

and the well established and undisputed facts, israel's 56 year occupation of palestinian territory is manifestly and gravelful, and that international law requires that it be brought to an end conditionally. the applicable rule of law is straightforward. as piquet wrote in 1958, occupation is essentially a temporary situation. this remains the law. in december 2022, the general assembly in resolution 77/126 recognized that the occupation. of territory is to be a temporary de facto situation, whereby the occupying power can

neither claim possession nor exert its sovereignty over the territory it occupies. this rule is neatly explained in the written statement of switzerland. laws of occupation are built on the idea that occupation is only, a temporary situation, they are based on four fundamental principles: one, the occupying power does not acquire sovereignty over the territory it occupies. two, the occupying power must maintain the status quo ante and must not take any measures which might bring about permanent changes. the law is that: crystal clear, occupation can only be a temporary state of affairs, a permanent

occupation is legal oximoron. mr. president, what makes israel's ongoing occupation of the palestinian territory unlawful, is precisely its permanent character, and what demonstrates its permanence, israel's dejure and de facto annexation of jerusalem and the west bank. two, its claims of sovereignty over these areas, which it refers to by their biblical names, judea and samaria, and considers integral parts of the state of israel. three, it's establishment of hundreds of permanent. israeli settlers with over 700,000 israeli settlers who have been

promised by successive israeli governments that they will never be removed, and four, the multitude of official statements and documents that openly declare israel's intention to incorporate all of the occupied territory east of the green line into the state of israel and a permanent part of a single jewish state extending from the jordan river to the mediterranean sea. as i will show you, "the evidence is overwhelming and leaves no room for serious dispute about israel's actions or its intentions, as israel's cabinet secretary wrote in june of last year, quote, judea and samaria were not

seized from sovereign state, recognized by international law, and the state of israel..." has a right to impose its sovereignty over these areas, as they comprise the cradle of history of the jewish people, and are inseparable part of the land of israel, as purported legal authority, the cabinet secretary invoked the first book of macabeeds written in the year 100 bc, chapter 15, verse 33, "it is not a foreign land we have taken, nor have we seized the property of foreigners, but only our ancestral heritage, which for a time had been unjustly occupied by our enemies. this was followed in august of last year by message broadcast on israel army radio by israel's heritage

minister. sovereignty, sovereignty. must be extended within the borders of the west bank, and the most prudent way to create international recognition that this place is ours, there is no green line, it is fictitious line that creates a distorted reality and must be erased. in september 2023, israel's prime minister literally the green line in his presentation to the united nations general assembly. as you saw earlier, he depicted the state of israel as extending from the jordan river to the mediterranean sea, eliminating not only the green line, but all traces of palestine. this was no oversight, it was an act of the head of government, with the all the attribution that

it implies. the same message was delivered by israel's. finance minister in paris six months earlier, when he denied the existence of palestine and declared that palestinians do not constitute a people. previously he said, quote, we are here to stay. we will make it clear that our national ambition for a jewish state from the river to the sea is an accomplished fact, fact not open to discussion or... negotiation, this has been israels consistent position. here is the map of israel produced by its armed forces and published by the government in 2021. one state, israel, from the river to the sea. there is no green line, there is no palestine. instead, palestine has been replaced by juda and samaria, which,

according to israel's highest officials, are now integral parts. the state of israel, as these official statements and maps demonstrate, israel makes no secret of its intention to retain permanently the entire area east of the green line. it's annexation of occupied palestinian territory began in 1967 with legislation annexing east jerusalem, which israel increased 11-fold in size to...

jerusalem is not in any part occupied territory, it is the sovereign capital of israel. in june 1996, the guidelines of the incoming israeli government stated, jerusalem, the capital of israel, is one city whole and undivided, and will remain forever under israel's sovereignty. more recently, in assuming office in december 2022, the current prime minister declared that the jewish people are not... occupiers in their own land, nor occupiers in our eternal capital, jerusalem. as these official statements make clear, israel's dominion over jerusalem the incorporated area, the west bank is not intended to be temporary. it has been repeatedly proclaimed by israel's highest authorities to be eternal. in furtherance of

this end, more than 230,000 israeli jewish settlers encouraged, subsidized and protected by the israeli government and occupation forces have been installed in east jerusalem, dramatically altering the demographic composition of the holy. city by creating an israeli jewish majority. israel has been equally clear in declaring its permanence in the west bank where more than 465,00 israeli jewish settlers have been implanted with the support of every israeli government since 1967. in over 270 ever expand.

secretary general reported to the general assembly in 2015, occupation is supposed to be temporary, because the annexation or acquisition of territory by force is strictly prohibited under international law, in the west bank, including east jerusalem, the establishment and maintenance of the settlements amount to slow but steady annexation of the occupied palestine. israel has made no secret of the intended permanence these settlements. in 2010, prime minister

netanyahu told israeli settlers in the west bank, our message is clear, we are planting here, we will stay here, we will build here. this place will be inseparable part of the state of israel for eternity. in august 2019. prime minister announced, the time has come to apply israeli sovereignty over the jordan valley and to also arrange the status of all jewish communities in judea and samaria. they will be part of the state of israel. in january 2020, israel's defense minister naftali benet declared, our objective is that within a short amount of time. he will apply sovereignty to all of area c, not just the settlements, not just this block or another.

this area, which is depicted in red on your screens now, comprises over 61% of the west bank. the defense minister proclaimed, i solimly declare that arias c belongs to israel. this area includes the jordan valley, which is the water reservoir, the bread basket and the source of life for the entire west bank. in december, 2022, the guiding principles of the incoming israeli government declared, the jewish people have an exclusive and indisputable right to all parts of the land of israel. the government will promote and development, the settlement of all all parts of the land of israel, the galilea, the negev, the golan, and judea and samaria. the coalition agreement between the political

parties that form the government, included this pledge: the prime minister will lead the formulation and promotion of policy in which sovereignty will be applied in judea and samaria while choosing the timing and weighing all the national, international interest.

israel's annexation of land, whether de facto or through national legislation. israel has thoroughly disregarded resolution 77/126, just as it disregarded all prior general assembly and security council resolutions, declaring illegal the annexation of any part the occupied palestinian territory and the establishment of israeli settlements there. these include are by no means limited to security council resolution 252 of 1968, declaring israel's acquisition of territory by military conquestt inadmissible. resolution 476 of 1980, which reaffirmed the overriding necessity for ending the prolonged occupation of arab territories in 1980, and strongly deplored the refusal of israel. to

comply with the relevant resolutions of the security council and the general assembly. resolution 478 of 1980, which determined that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by israel to alter the character and status of the holy city of jerusalem, and particularly the basic law in jerusalem, are null and void, and must be resinded forth with. resolution 2334 of 2016. which reaffirmed the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force and condemned all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status the palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including interalia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of israeli settlers, confiscation of land,

demolition of homes and placement of palestinian submissions and at least 28 general assembly resolutions which expressly condemned israel's annexation of jerusalem and the west bank. israel has also blatently disregarded the obligations reflected in the court's 2004 advisory opinion in the wall case. since then, instead of dismantling the wall, israel has extended from a length of 190 kilometers to more than 460 kms and compassing hundreds of additional square kilometers of palestinian land and incorporating it into the state of israel. in its advisory opinion, the court expressed concern less, quote, the construction of the wall and its associated regime create a phat