Mr. Sharon, Tear Down This Wall

[Timber Loftis]

Text of ruling:
http://electronicintifada.net/downlo...cj20040709.pdf
(the astute reader will note early on that the portions of international law outlawing the annexation of territory are listed)

Too bad the ICJ can't issue binding rulings.
_________________________
July 9, 2004
World Court Says Israeli Barrier Violates International Law
By CHRISTINE HAUSER and GREG MYRE

The International Court of Justice ruled today that it is against international law for Israel to build its barrier in the West Bank and that it should be dismantled.

The advisory ruling by the World Court, in the Hague, is nonbinding. But it contributes to the debate surrounding construction of the network of fencing and ditches on lands that have been the focus of Middle East peace efforts.

Israel says it is building the barrier as self-defense against attackers, but Palestinians call it an attempt to grab land.

A copy of the ruling, posted on the Web site www.electronicintifada.net before the court began its reading of the decision, said that the construction of the wall is "contrary to international law."

"Israel is under an obligation to terminate its breach of international law, and under obligation to cease forthwith the construction of the wall being built in the occupied Palestinian territory," it said.

The Palestinian Authority, in a previous presentation to the court, had argued that the partly built barrier was a violation of international law and an attempt to annex Palestinian land.

"I think this is a historic decision," said Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, today. "I think the message to Palestinians is that they should pursue the path of diplomacy, not violence, and that they don't stand alone.

"I really hope tonight that Israel will stop building the wall, and come back to the negotiating table," Mr. Erekat said. "And if they insist on building the wall, they should build it on their border and not in the heart of the West Bank."

Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat called the ruling "a victory for the Palestinian people and for all the free peoples of the world."

Israel, which contends that the court lacks jurisdiction to rule in the matter, had filed a written brief to present its case.

Today Jonathan Peled, the spokesman for Israel's Foreign Ministry, said the advisory opinion "failed to address the essence of the problem and the very reason for building the fence — Palestinian terror. If there were no terror, there would be no fence."

Thomas Buergenthal, an American, was the only dissenter among the 15 judges, according to the copy of the ruling posted on the Internet.

The court opened a hearing in February on the barrier amid demonstrations by Palestinian supporters and a silent march by pro-Israeli organizations featuring photographs of nearly 1,000 victims of terrorism-related acts.

The United Nations General Assembly had asked the court for an opinion about the legal consequences of the barrier's construction after it voted in October to demand that Israel tear it down.

United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan on Nov. 28 called its construction "a deeply counterproductive act" that was causing the Palestinian population "serious socio-economic harm."

President Bush, too, has expressed concern about the barrier. But today the White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, told reporters that the administration did not believe the World Court was the appropriate forum to address what is a "political issue."

"This is an issue that should be resolved through the process that has been put in place, specifically the road map" peace plan, said Mr. McClellan, speaking aboard Air Force One en route to a campaign event in Pennsylvania.

"We certainly recognize the need for Israel to defend itself and protect the people of Israel. It's also important that they allow the Palestinian people to move freely within that region," he said, according to Reuters.

Today the European Commission again urged Israel to take it down.

The World Court, based in The Hague and created to settle legal disputes between nations, is not obligated to issue an opinion. But Arab nations worked for the resolution in the hope of increasing pressure on Israel over what they consider an illegal land grab.

Last month, Israel's Supreme Court ordered the army to remove a small portion of the barrier and to reroute other sections to reduce the harm imposed on Palestinians who were cut off from lands they need.

The court asserted that Israel has a genuine security reason for building the barrier and can expropriate land in the West Bank for it. But it said the army "has a legal duty to balance properly between security considerations and humanitarian ones."

"We will abide by the ruling of our own High Court and not the panel in The Hague, with judges from the European Union who are not suspected of being particularly disposed toward Israel," Yosef Lapid, Israel's justice minister, told army radio in remarks made before the court ruling was announced.

Palestinian groups and their supporters have held a series of demonstrations in recent days to coincide with the court ruling.

Azmi Bishara, an Arab Israeli who is a member of Israel's parliament, was in the seventh day of a hunger strike today. He has been carrying out his protest in northern Jerusalem, under a tent set up alongside a main road where Israel is building part of the barrier.

"Israel has tried to present the wall as a magic formula they can use to remove Palestinians from their lives," said Mr. Bishara. "This is nonsense, it won't work."The court decision shows that there is an inhuman side to the wall."

Israel says the barrier is intended to prevent suicide bombings and other Palestinian attacks, and that it goes into the West Bank to protect some Jewish settlements.

Israel also argues that Palestinian attacks have dropped dramatically since the wall began going up two years ago. There have been no deadly Palestinian bombings inside Israel's 1967 borders in almost four months, the longest such stretch since the Palestinian uprising began almost four years ago.

However, Palestinians say the barrier separates many West Bank residents from their farmland, schools and workplaces.

The Palestinian leadership says it does not want to see a barrier, regardless of the route, but that it cannot stop Israel from building it on the West Bank boundary.

According to Israeli officials, the route that has been approved by the government would stretch for more than 400 miles. About one-quarter has been completed, including a long stretch in the northern West Bank and sections around Jerusalem.

Part of the barrier runs along the West Bank frontier, though much of it dips inside that territory. According to United Nations calculations, the proposed barrier would put about 15 percent of the West Bank on the western, or Israeli side of the barrier.

The barrier includes a network of electronic fences, walls, barbed wire, trenches, and guard towers. A chain link fence would run along about 95 percent of the proposed route, and concrete walls would make up about 5 percent, according to Israeli officials.

Israel seized the West Bank, including east Jerusalem, from Jordan in the 1967 Mideast war. More than 400,000 Israelis now live in the West Bank and east Jerusalem.

The Palestinian leadership is seeking all of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip for a future state, with a capital in east Jerusalem.

Gideon Meir, deputy director general of Israel's Foreign Ministry, said that the ruling made no mention of terrorism and that the conflict would not be decided in international court.

"It will be decided in the region, where we have to negotiate and they have to negotiate," Mr. Meir said.

Christine Hauser reported from New York for this article, and Greg Myre reported from Israel.

[Black Baron]

Booo-hooo. The ICS (International Court of Stupidity) opened its mouth. It desided in a fit of moronism and total misunderstanding of situation that it can bring the problem to justice. Well, What can i say? I can say that we will abide our SCJ, that issued a correct pro-palestinian decision. If we will build the fence in the 67 borders too, much of our people would be outside it. We cannot take them all to 67 borders, so we must build the fence outside 67 borders. ICS decided that it can ignore the fact. [img]graemlins/1puke.gif[/img] Suits us. We will ignore it in turn.

Nice to have you back, TL.

[Timber Loftis]

So, if Americans build across the long border we have with Canada, we're allowed to then annex the land? I'll get right on it! Seriously, that's really unjustifyiable. The people living on non-Israeli land should (1) move or (2) accept their decision to move to Palestine and provide for their own safety. If you choose to live in a war zone, you should be prepared to face the consequences.

IMO, the wall is not a bad idea -- building it on land you don't own is.

Thanks for the welcome back.

[promethius9594]

hey timber, thought you might enjoy

1) taking my poll

2) looking at the results to a couple of the questions.

here's the link:
http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/cg...;f=12;t=000807

[Ronn_Bman]

You know when I saw that story, I wondered how long before someone paraphrased the Gipper.

Another welcome back! It's good to see you. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Black Baron]

A short time ago, you , TL agreed that we can return to them 90% of the land. The pieces that we annex are those 10%. Now, you seem to back away from your statement. Why?

[Kilor Gilowaar]

Personally, I'm all for the wall. It'll hopefully prevent more of those wondermus suicide explosions. Anything that prevents people from using children as human bombs is a good thing.

[Khazadman Risen]

When the ICJ can guarantee that the Palestinians will stop killing Israelis then they can tear it down. But I don't put alot of faith in these international bodies.

[Stratos]

I might want to add, just for the records, that the criticism against Israel for building the wall is about the wall being built on what is regarded as Palestinian land, and NOT because it's built in the first place.

[Davros]

Thanks Stratos - I think too many people miss that detail. Personally I have no problem at all with a wall - keep them apart - send them both to different corners with no supper, but build the wall at the border.

It would show some Palestinians that they have somewhere to go to use legal channels. If Israel was big enough to comply with the ruling instead of ignoring it then it shows the Palestinian people that the legal channels are being a whole lot more succesful than the violence.