Court: Fence violates int'l law, must be dismantled

[cal04]

West Bank Barrier Ruled Illegal by Court - Paper

The International Court of Justice has found the Israeli barrier in the West Bank to be illegal, and demanded Israel dismantle the structure and compensate Palestinians for confiscated land, an Israeli newspaper reported today. The court, the highest judicial arm of the United Nations, was due to deliver its ruling on the barrier later today, in what was expected to be a long and complex legal opinion.

The Tel Aviv newspaper Haaretz, quoting court documents it said it obtained, reported that by a 14-1 vote the judges found the barrier, along its planned route, “gravely infringes” on the rights of Palestinians and cannot be justified by military needs or national security. At the Palestinians’ request, the UN General Assembly asked the world court last December for its opinion on the legality of the barrier – a 425-mile long complex of high concrete walls, razor-wire fences, trenches and watch towers.

About a quarter has been completed, much of it close to the pre-1967 border, but some dipping into the West Bank. Haaretz said the court rejected Israel’s argument that it had no jurisdiction in the case.
It also brushed aside arguments from the United States and several European countries that its intervention could disrupt the US-initiated Mideast peace process known as the “road map”.
The lone dissenter, the paper said, was the US judge Thomas Buerghenthal.

Israel, hoping to keep the issue low key, sent no senior officials to The Hague, and said it would not comment until after the decision is delivered. But officials in Jerusalem said they expected a decision critical of Israel. The 15-member court’s advisory opinions are non-binding but bear moral and historic weight. They can serve as the basis for later action by the UN General Assembly or Security Council. Israel says the barrier is needed to stop Palestinian suicide bombers, who have killed hundreds of Israelis in the last four years.

It points to the sharp drop in successful infiltration attempts from the West Bank since the barrier has been partly built, and to the fact that there have been almost none from Gaza, which has been surrounded by a fence for years. Palestinians say the barrier imposes intolerable hardships on innocent people, separating them from schools, agricultural fields or workplaces.

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3181636


Court: Fence violates int'l law, must be dismantled
http://www.haaretz.com/

[Jim Sagle]

1. The Court has disgraced itself before all humankind.

[lefty_mcduff]

6. The ICJ Raaaaawwwkkks!

The Fence suuuuuuccccckkks!

[neverborn]

7. If by that you mean

that the Court has given equal rights to Palestinians to be human as Israelis... yes.

[ze_dscherman]

8. They did *not* condemn the fence itself

But they did condemn that it was built on the occupied territories. If Israel thinks the wall is necessary for it's security, it should stay within the boundaries of the Green Line.

So, where's the disgrace? Please explain.

- Headline edited for clarity,message for spelling

[truthspeaker]

11. yeah, how dare they criticize thieves!

[Betty The Younger]

2. The fence should be dismantled

just enough to fit "The International Court of Justice" and let them hold court there for 1 year. If the justices are alive (not blown up) in that years time then yes by-all-means tear down that wall.

[tinnypriv]

4. Why the quotation marks?

The International Court of Justice is not only a court, it is international. Try looking at the roster of judges - most come from countries that are:

1) Democracies
2) US allies (strong ones), or

3) Both.

The decision taken is also in line with the views of the current Justice Minister of Israel, Tommy Lapid (no dove). He thinks the route is 'totally indefensible', and on its present course the fence cannot be justified by security concerns.¹

That's also in line with the views of political centrists in Israel, say, Haim Ramon of Labor, who feels that the route of the fence is a 'political decision' - in other words, not security.²

Ariel Sharon himself even implicitly admits that these views are accurate, because he has ordered every member of his government to "shut up" about their opposition to the route of the fence, because they are "kowtowing to foreigners".³

So, I'd be interested in your views as to why you find yourself to the right of Israeli centrists and hawks.

-----

1. Paraphrased quote from "behind closed doors". Cited by Ben Caspit, Ma'ariv, 16 Jan 2004.
2. Yehuda Golan, Ma'ariv, 23 December 2003 (Hebrew)
3. Ma'ariv, 18 Jan 2004.

[The Magistrate]

22. It Will Be Interesting, Mr. Priv

To wade through the entire decision when it becomes available. In its outline as presently presented, the Court's decision seems correct, and to the point of constituting a blinding flash of the obvious. The reasoning by which the judges concluded the Geneva Accords apply to the situation would seem to me the most important point, and the most useful in the long run. The decision itself is merely advisory, and will not issue in any action, either by the Security Council or Israel, but it seems nonetheless to me an important step toward solidifying the Geneva Accords in world affairs.

[Gimel]

33. "Tommy Lapid (no dove). He thinks the route is 'totally indefensible',"

MK Lapid's statement was before the Israeli High Court ruling that the fence route must be altered. If he still thinks that it is "indefensible" (the new planed route), why is he saying that Israel will ignore the ICJ ruling?

[tinnypriv]

36. Because he's a centrist and a nationalist

Which is why his statement before the High Court ruling is so significant.

In fact, along with his "totally indefensible" statement he said that he had a route that could be defended at the ICJ, which Sharon then ignored. In other words, Lapid would have attempted to defend Israel at the ICJ, but whether he would have accepted the ruling is another matter. The important point is that he knew that there was no chance of defending the fence with Sharon's route, and some chance with his.

[tkmorris]

5. Oh don't be silly

Palestinians bomb Israelis because they hate them, not because the bloody wall isn't high enough. Perhaps if they are so concerned about what the Palestinians might do they could stop treating them like sub-humans?

Just a thought.

[Redhead488]

12. Maybe if they

stopped bombing schoolbusses and pizza parlors, the Israelis would treat them better...

[CWebster]

13. If only those darkies wouldn't complain about the beatings

maybe the slaveowners would treat them better.

[Redhead488]

14. Nice strawman

Not even close.

[lefty_mcduff]

16. By treating 'them better'

can one assume you mean not shooting kids in the street, blowing up thousands of houses in searches for 'suspected tunnels, stealing the most fertile land, water, and other IDF 'niceties'?

Chicken, meet egg.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

26. Maybe if Israelis

didn't keep trying to kill and steal from Palestinians, Palestinians wouldn't have to fight back.

[Classical_Liberal]

34. Terrorists should stop bombing schoolbusses

and pizza parlors because it is wrong. However the Israeli government treated them like skunk snot before the suicide bombings ever started.

[tinnypriv]

3. Israel has already declared it's contempt for the ruling

Even though Israel's own justice minister (Lapid, no dove) admits that the route of the barrier is 'totally indefensible'. See the report by Amir Rapaport, military correspondent for Ma'ariv (in Israel), for a demonstration of the contempt:

"(Israel's) political leadership is resolved on a policy of establishing facts on the ground as a result of the increase in world criticism of the separation fence, and because of fear that this will eventually lead to heavy pressure on Israel to halt construction." ¹

The article then goes on to discuss how Israel is deploying hundreds of bulldozers to areas of the fence beyond the Green Line, in order to begin construction that will be impossible to reverse. Later reports on Israeli TV showed the bulldozers operating on a "24/7" basis - i.e. 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Note the date of the article - Christmas Eve. No need to spell out the reason. Nor is there any need to spell out the result of having this policy continue for over 7 months...

As for Israel trying to keep the issue 'low-key' (with the co-operation of the US media), Sharon's already stated his policy in cabinet discussions. As quoted by Ma'ariv, all Israeli officials are to "shut up" about the fence (unless they're in favor of it), because they are "kowtowing to foreigners".

Another glorious Day of Light for Israel I suppose.

-----

1. 'Order: Build Fence Immediately', also 'Lightening Operation to Complete Separation Fence' Ma'ariv, 24 Dec 2003 (Hebrew)

[Scurrilous]

9. Lapid: Israel won't comply with ICJ ruling

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/449631.html

<snip>

"Israel will not follow the International Court of Justice ruling on the West Bank separation fence, Justice Minister Yosef Lapid said Friday."

<snip>

"Lapid said Israel would honor only its own court rulings, such as the June 30 High Court of Justice ruling ordering the defense establishment to reroute a 30-kilometer stretch of the separation fence northwest of Jerusalem. The High Court held that the fence was a security barrier rather than a political one, but that Israel must balance security considerations against the needs of local residents.

"Now, of course, there is the limitation the High Court of Justice imposed in Israel, and we will comply with our High Court decisions, and not with the panel of European Union nations, which are not exactly suspected of excessive sympathy for Israel," Lapid told Army Radio."

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

27. I wonder if Bush will enforce the U.N.'s will this time around...

or do we only do so when it means killing more arabs?

[CWebster]

10. Fence?

Like the way they call it a "fence"? The Berlin wall was just a fence, and yeah, there were fences, little picket fences around the ghettos...

You want a damn fence? Build it on your own damn land rather than a obvious land grab to establish expanding borders at the expense of a viable Palestinian state. As for security, more Palestinians have died--what is it now 3 to 1? 5 to 1? A fact usually hushed up or dismissed by claiming every Palestinian child, every Palestinian grandmother is a terrorist and the innocent Israelis are all victims. I guess Palestinians have no way to protect themselves, for security reasons, from the sky, in which American made apache attack heliocopters fire at them from above, flying above the "fence".

[Mari333]

15. Good. n/t

[cal04]

17. several hours to read

As it began reading its decision, the International Court of Justice said Friday it has jurisdiction to rule on the legality of the barrier, which Israel is building in response to Palestinian suicide bombings that have killed hundreds of Israelis.

Judge Shi Jiuyong of China called the United Nations' highest legal authority to order and started reading the non-binding advisory opinion requested by the UN General Assembly that is expected to be highly complex and possibly take several hours to read.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-World-Court-Israeli-Barrier.html

[Jack Rabbit]

18. The ruling is based on sound law

Israel was building the fence in occupied territory. This was less for Israel's own security, but for the security of settlements constructed in violation of Article 49, paragraph 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Israel has a security problem, but it can be resolved by constructing a security barrier on or closer to the Green Line and withdrawing Israeli nationals in occupied within that confine. Although some may object to the Green Line as an international border, it has served that purpose for decades and should be thought of as one. It is certainly a boundary more agreed upon and recognized than any arbitrary point that Sharon would draw. It is the starting point for any negotiations for a final border.

There may be no Palestinian state at this time, but there is a Palestine. It is the West Bank and the Gaza. It is occupied territory and, as such, Israel cannot treat it as a conquered province to do as she pleases. The days when states go to war and unilaterally expropriate territory are past. To paraphrase UN Resolution 242, acquisition of territory through war is inadmissible. The rules of the Fourth Geneva Convention apply

[papau]

19. True - but final path is to be via agreement - a Temp path needs a ruling?

In anycase, The General Assem. will pass a resolution demanding enforcement - and send it to the Security Council, where it will die.

The Israeli High Court ruling will be the one to have an effect - a positive effect - on the lives of the non-Israeli folks in the west bank.

[Jack Rabbit]

20. Unfortunately, you are right

Will there be now a boycott/divestment campaign against Israel to bring down the unjust aspects of the occupation as there was against South Africa to bring down Apartheid? It would be justified if the Israelis remain obstinate in the face of this ruling.

The situation is more complex than it was over South African Apartheid. I'm afraid many people don't realize that. There was nothing that justified Apartheid; it was simple institutionalized racism. The problems were solved by ending it. A boycott aimed at not just bringing down the South African government, but in effect abolishing its constitution, was in order. South Africa as we thought of it for decades had no right to exist.

On the other hand, Israel has a right to be secure in her borders. Some people seem to dispute that; and others dispute that Palestinians have a right to be secure within borders protected by the apparatus of a state, or even going to a racist extreme and disputing that there are Palestinians.

I'm not in favor of a single binational state. There is too much danger that such a state will be dominated by one nationality and oppress the other. A single state that falls under the rule of Palestinian extremists would only be the Israeli occupation in reverse, and perhaps even worse. That cannot be allowed.

So, the problem is how to entice Israel to change her policies and stop treating the occupied territories as conquered provinces or, in the words of Mr. Begin, "an integral part of Israel", without doing away with Israel altogether. Doing away with white-ruled South Africa solved problems. Doing away with Israel won't.

What Israel has the right to do is to occupy the Palestinian Territories for security and for security only. She has no right to occupy territory for the purpose of expansion. There is and can be no such thing as a legal Israeli settlement in the occupied territories; they must be dismantled and the Palestinian must be treated with the respect and dignity due a sovereign people.

[papau]

21. I agree - and I hope the PA comes to its senses before the wall is built -

but I doubt that will happen

Nothing in the MidEast is easy to do

So money will be wasted on a Wall that a simple Taba or Geneva no or very limited right of return with minor border adjustments agreement would make un-necessary.

[The Magistrate]

23. Well Said, Mr. Rabbit!

!!

[Jim Sagle]

24. I think you just solved it.

Now to get agreement in the real world. ;(

[Violet_Crumble]

30. Sanctions...

Isn't there an obligation on other states now to go down the path of sanctions if the Israeli government ignores this ruling and continues building the barrier along their planned path? There's a bit in the ruling that talks about the legal obligations for other states, and though it doesn't mention sanctions, it does say that there is an obligation on other states not to recognise the illegal situation from construction of the barrier, and not to assist the construction of the barrier in any way...

I still think the swiftest and surest way of enticing Israel to do away with some of the nonsense it carries on with towards the Occupied Territories would be for the US administration to gently wave that big stick in Israels direction and threaten a bit less gently to pull its funding until the situation is rectified. That alone would have changes happening way quicker than the rest of the international community and any sanctions they may impose...

Violet...

[Jack Rabbit]

31. The ruling was "advisory"

I believe the ruling against South Africa was, too.

Bush has already called the ruling "inappropriate".

Reagan acted as if he'd rather die a thousand unnatural deaths than cross the South Africans over Apartheid. The wolrd didn't need Reagan's permission to punish South Africa.

Once again, if something is to be done, it will have to be the world revloting against the Emperor.

[Violet_Crumble]

32. Yeah, it was non-binding...

I've probably got this all arse-about, but from what I could work out, the whole thing could have been sent to the World Court as a Contentious Case if the Palestinian territories were a state. And it's the decisions on the contentious cases that are binding decisions. I guess it really makes no difference, seeing as how I'd keel over with shock if Israel would have taken any more notice of a binding decision than a non-binding one....

Hell, Bush's advisers should read the ruling before they label it "inappropriate" and program the fool with something to stutter. The ruling made it absolutely clear why it was appropriate for them to accept this case...

Violet...

[Classical_Liberal]

35. Since I have no faith that a movement will be started to boycott

occupation, binationalism is the only trump card Palestinians hold and they should never give it up.

[newyorican]

25. Well...

there goes EU membership up in smoke...along with a seat on the UN Security Council anytime in the forseeable future. Easy come, easy go...

[number6]

28. Damn Right !!!!

"Court: Fence violates int'l law, must be dismantled"

[Violet_Crumble]

29. I don't know if anyone else has posted it yet...

..so my apologies if they have, and just in case they haven't, here's a link to the ruling....

http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imwp/imwpframe.htm

Happy reading....

Violet...