International Court of Justice (World Crt) Overwhelmingly Condemns Israeli Apartheid Wall : Cleveland IMC (((i)))

U.N. Court Condemns West Bank Barrier
By ANTHONY DEUTSCH, Associated Press Writer

In a sharply worded advisory opinion — far harsher than Israel expected — the International Court of Justice said Israel should compensate Palestinians harmed by the structure and return property confiscated for its construction.

In addition to finding that the barrier violates international law, the court also called for a negotiated peace settlement that would see the establishment of a Palestinian state "as soon as possible."

The 15 international judges were unexpectedly united in backing the majority of the decisions by a vote of 14-1. Only the American judge dissented, in line with Washington's position that the court is not the appropriate venue for considering the security barrier.

The decision cannot be imposed on Israel, but the Palestinians and the Arab League said they would seek action at the United Nations (news - web sites) to force Israel to comply.

The ruling came in response to a request by the U.N. General Assembly in December for an opinion on the legality of the barrier — a complex of high concrete walls, razor-wire fences, trenches and watch towers.

Much of it is near the pre-1967 border, but parts cut deep into the West Bank, isolating more than 200,000 Palestinians from their neighbors and livelihoods, the court found.

The ruling was an unequivocal call "that this wall must be stopped, must be brought down," said Palestinian U.N. observer Nasser Al-Kidwa. He called it "a great day for Palestine and a great day for all those who believe in international law."

Israel says the barrier is necessary to block suicide bombers who have killed hundreds of Israelis in the last four years, and points to a sharp drop in the number of casualties since construction began.

Palestinians say — and the court agreed — the barrier could lead to the demarcation of a new border and be "tantamount to de facto annexation."

If security were the only issue, the Palestinians said, the barrier could be built on the Israeli side of the 1967 border.

"Israel is under an obligation to terminate its breaches of international law; it is under an obligation to cease forthwith the works of construction of the wall being built in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, to dismantle forthwith the structure therein situated," said the ruling, read by court president Shi Jiuyong of China.

The 59-page decision was far more critical than Israel anticipated, going beyond the issue of the wall to declare Israeli settlements illegal and accuse Israel of taking action to deny Palestinians their right to self-determination.

Israel gave no indication it would comply with the ruling.

"As long as terror continues, Israel will have no choice but to defend its citizens," said Israeli legal adviser Daniel Taub. "If there were no terror, there would be no fence."

But the court said it was not convinced the wall, on its planned route, "was the only means to safeguard the interests of Israel against the peril which it has invoked as justification for that construction."

The Bush administration denounced the ruling.

"We've always said that is not the appropriate forum to resolve what is a political issue," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said, adding that a political agreement was the only means to a solution.

Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry (news - web sites) said he was disappointed by the ruling. "The fence is an important tool in Israel's fight against terrorism. It is not a matter for the ICJ."

Israel, which submitted its position to the court in writing and has been supported by Washington with its veto-wielding seat on the U.N. Security Council, insisted the court has no authority in the matter.

Armed with the court ruling, Arab nations were quick to announce they will call on the General Assembly next week for a resolution to enforce the decision.

"This decision calls on Israel to destroy this wall and desist from further actions," said Ambassador Yahya Mahmassani, the Arab League's representative at the United Nations. "Israel is in violation of international law, of international legitimacy, and the General Assembly now will be called upon to look into this matter."

The ruling was certain to deepen Israelis' perception that the world does not appreciate the terror threat they face.

"I lost everything I had. I lost my whole family," said Avi Ohayon, whose wife and two sons were killed by a Palestinian gunman. But the judges "were not willing to hear me. They should have judged for the right to live."

JERUSALEM: Socrates was the first thinker to contend that it is better to suffer injustice than to perpetrate it. Those who carry out injustices, he argued, corrupt their own souls and are ultimately ruined from within.

The great Greek philosopher consequently maintained that society helps the criminal by imposing upon him or her a penalty, since the punishment serves to cleanse the soul and thus allows the lawbreaker to live a more just life. Accordingly, courts of law that mete out sentences -- insofar as they follow universal principles of justice -- not only protect society from offenders, but also save offenders from themselves.

It is precisely in the context of Socrates’ teachings that Sharon’s government and United Nations Security Council should understand the ruling regarding Israel’s separation barrier. Although the International Court of Justice (ICJ) claimed that Israel is in breach of international law and is therefore guilty of wrongdoing, its decision is, paradoxically, also pro-Israeli.

Let’s begin with the facts. The so-called separation barrier is made up of a series of fences, trenches, walls, and patrol roads, which are not constructed on the internationally recognized border between Israel and the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, but rather deep inside Palestinian territories.

The length of the proposed barrier, which winds around Jewish settlements and surrounds Palestinian villages, transforming them, as it were, into islands, is about 650 km -- more than twice the length of the international border. It often runs in between Palestinian communities, thus undermining the argument that the barrier is being built to separate Israelis from Palestinians and in this way to ensure the security of the former.

Rather, the barrier is being employed as a mechanism to expropriate Palestinian land and create facts on the ground that will affect any future arrangement between Israel and the Palestinians. As in the case of the Jewish settlements, it is being used to annex Palestinian territories and has in effect become a barrier against peace, rather than a barrier against terrorists.

In its ruling the ICJ made clear that the barrier’s repercussions on basic rights are appalling. According to the ICJ, “the wall, along the route chosen, and its associated regime, gravely infringe a number of rights of Palestinians residing in the territory occupied by Israel, and the infringements resulting from that route cannot be justified by military exigencies or by the requirements of national security or public order.”

Thus, the ICJ recognized that the separation barrier, which was ostensibly built to satisfy security needs, is being used as an extremely efficient weapon of dispossession. It took into account that over 875,000 Palestinians will be directly affected by the barrier, amounting to 38 percent of the West Bank population. Children are already unable to reach schools, adults are unable to reach work, and patients do not have access to hospitals. The economic ramifications have been just as bad, inflicting further suffering on a whole society, 50 percent of which, as the World Bank has claimed, are already living under conditions of grinding poverty -- defined at less than US$2.1 per day. All of which suggests that the Palestinians' basic rights to freedom of movement and livelihood as well as the rights to education, health and even burial are being systematically abused.

While the Court did not say as much, its ruling also suggests that there is a qualitative difference between a barrier whose function is to demarcate a border between two countries, and a barrier used to create a prison. Israel, so the verdict implies, has built a prison, placing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians “behind bars” and thus punishing a whole population.

Yet, the ICJ’s ruling not only aims to protect the Palestinians from collective punishment, but also hopes to protect Israel from itself. By trying to stop the construction of a barrier that violates the basic rights of hundreds of thousands of people, the judges are also attempting to cleanse Israel, which, according to international law, has turned into a criminal state.

While the Court’s ruling has no claws, it should be understood as an opportunity. The U.S. together with other members of the Security Council should use it in order to insist that Israel dismantle the separation barrier and immediately enter diplomatic negotiations with its Palestinian neighbors. Getting the two parties back to the negotiation table is the only way to reach a viable peace. Only peace -- and not barriers or military might -- can put an end to the vicious cycle of violence plaguing the Middle East.

Welcome to the '30's again, boys and girls.

If there ever was a case for war, it is the Palestinian and Isralei situation.

The parties have been deadlocked for decades. You currently have a slow blood-letting.

A war will make both sides reevaluate their positions and may lead to an agreeable settlement.

War is an outcome of failed negotiations--and what better example of failed negotiations can be found.

"War is an outcome of failed negotiations--and what better example of failed negotiations can be found."

Where ya been Warmonger? The Bloody Intifada was an Arab response to Peace negotiations.
Now that the Intifada has failed, the Arabs will get back to the business of killing each other...no negotiations needed

Right. And Yitzak Rabin must have been murdered by the PLO, even though the assasin was Jewish. If the settlers are ever forced to return to Israel, the civil disruption will make Gaza look like a picnic in the park.

I'm not talking skirmishes. I'm talking large scale battles like Antiedam(spelling?) during the US Civil War.

That will get everyones attention.

You must have misunderstood my remark. I'm talking about the conflict between the West Bank settlers and the rest of the Israelis. An Israeli civil war.

Strategy change--Moderate Palestinians and Israleis need to run the radicals out of their respective towns.

Then get back to mediation. If the Palestinians give up their suicide bombing, the Israeli's will take down its wall.

" I'm talking about the conflict between the West Bank settlers and the rest of the Israelis. An Israeli civil "

That's hardly on the scale of the Palestinian civil war...the Palestinians have been smuggling weapons and turning them on each other, in addition, they've used the weapons given them by israel to kill each other (along with Jewish women and children)...if there weren't ANY jews in the neighborhood, the Arabs woud have gotten back to the busineess of killing each other a long time ago...
Black September, Hama, Damour are a few examples of Pan-Arabic/ Islamist murderous infighting...Black September, Jordan massacred 20,000 Palestinians in less then a month...Hama, Syria massacred 25,000 Sunnis in less then two weeks...(not to be bested by Jordan, the Baathist currently hold the record) Damour? Only one of the PLO massacres of Christian Lebanese Arabs after they invaded and started a civil war...

Take down the wall? That's cute. The Palestinians will discontinue their resistance to Israeli incursions against their territory, their people and their culture, and the Israelis promise to dismantle the wall? Wow, what a bargain.

Return the settlers to Israel, the borders prior to the '67 war, and then negotiate with the Palestinians for peace. Perhaps the settlers might be more appropriately employed in building a wall inside Israeli borders. They can man the barricades and raise their families among the watchtowers of a vigilant people terrified of the cultural and genetic impurities which surround them.

Cleveland Indy Media Center