Explanation of Vote by Germany on Resolution ES-10/L.31/Rev.1 “Advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legal consequences arising from Israel’s policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and from the illegality of Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”, 18 September 2024.

I have the honour to speak on behalf of Germany.

Today's meeting is about the right of the Palestinian people to live in their own state, in dignity, and in recognition of the state of Israel. Germany has fought for the two-State-Solution for very long.

We have repeatedly condemned that the prospects of a two-State-Solution are being undermined by the expansion of Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the violence perpetrated by radical Israeli settlers.

The ICJ advisory opinion addresses this. The ICJ stated that the State of Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is unlawful and that Israel is under an obligation to bring it to an end as rapidly as possible.

It clearly calls on the United Nations and its members to not recognise the status quo and to consider modalities and further action to bring an end to it. This is a very far-reaching task that we must take very seriously. We therefore regret the narrow time frame between the presentation of the draft resolution and its adoption today.
We would also have wished that the resolution followed the conclusions of the ICJ more closely. Unfortunately, the resolution goes beyond the scope of the advisory opinion in several points:

- Instead of setting unrealistic timeframes, it would have been advisable to emphasize more strongly that the parties need to resolve their differences through direct talks.
- The resolution also fails to spell out that the ICJ´s advisory opinion does not cover events after 7 October 2023, the brutal terror attack carried out by Hamas, the taking of the hostages and the Israeli response since then. It should in no way undermine ongoing diplomatic efforts.
- We disagree with provisions that do not acknowledge the right of Israel to ensure its security and the safety of its population. The ICJ did not limit this right in any way in its advisory opinion.
- We regret that the resolution blurs the lines between this Advisory Opinion, and other legal procedures, addressing the situation in Gaza.

Mr. President,
The resolution has been adopted today. For the reasons outlined, Germany abstained.

Let there be no doubt that we respect the ICJ’s advisory opinion, that we will act in line with the obligations of international law set out in it and that we are ready to assist in its implementation in its entirety to achieve justice and lasting peace and security for both Israelis and Palestinians.

We don’t always agree amongst us. Here, at the United Nations, we come together to seek solutions. International Law is what unites us. It is the cornerstone of our international order and must be respected. When it is not, peace and security will not prevail.

Our position on the Middle East is clear: The only way to reach a lasting and comprehensive peace is a negotiated two-state solution. The only way to get there is through direct negotiations between the two parties.

I thank you, Madam President.