World Court Rules Israel's Barrier Illegal

Forums: International News
Email this Topic • Print this Page

By Mark Heinrich
Reuters
July 9, 2004

The World Court will rule on Friday that Israel's West Bank barrier, which has caused hardship for thousands of Palestinians, violates international law and should be torn down, a leaked copy of the ruling showed. A spokesman for the European Commission said the decision seemed to confirm the European Union's view that the barrier was illegal and urged Israel to remove it from occupied territory.

Israel has said it will disregard the court's non-binding advisory decision, calling its barrier a vital security bulwark against infiltrations by Palestinian suicide bombers. The court acknowledged Israel's duty to protect its citizens but said it must do so within the law and should compensate Palestinians for homes and land lost or damaged by the building of the 100-meter (yard) wide strip of walls, ditches and fences. Palestinians brand the barrier a precursor to annexation of land Israel captured in the 1967 Middle East war and where they seek a viable state under a U.S.-backed "road map" peace plan.

Only American judge Thomas Buergenthal dissented from his 14 international colleagues' opinion, the leaked document showed. The leaked document said the court would declare fences and walls infringed the rights of Palestinians trapped by twists and turns in the barrier that take it around Jewish settlements.

"The construction of the wall along the route chosen and its associated regime are contrary to international law," said the document leaked to Reuters in Jerusalem before its slated 3 p.m. announcement in The Hague where the court is based. "The court is not convinced that the construction of the wall along the route chosen was the only means to safeguard the interests of Israel against the peril it invoked as justification," the leaked document read.

U.N. ACTION URGED

The leaked text urged follow-up action by the U.N. General Assembly and U.N. Security Council, which could heighten Israeli concern about a move to impose sanctions on the Jewish state. "The court is of the view that the United Nations, and especially the General Assembly and Security Council, should consider what further action is required to bring an end to the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall."

Palestinians tend to enjoy considerable support at the United Nations. But Israel looks to the U.S. veto in the Security Council to block any bid to punish it in the way that apartheid South Africa was after the World Court ruled its occupation of South West Africa, now Namibia, illegal in 1971.

WORLD ATTENTION

The World Court, the top U.N. legal body formally known as the International Court of Justice, acknowledged documents had been circulated before its announcement but said in a statement: "The registrar of the court wishes to make it clear that the only authentic text is the official text issued by the court." Israeli and Palestinian officials declined comment before the ruling was announced. Palestinian President Yasser Arafat said on Thursday: "We put tremendous faith in this court."

The General Assembly requested an opinion in December and the Hague court held hearings in February overshadowed by public lobbying and demonstrations from both sides. The ruling was expected to be one of the most closely monitored in the 58-year history of the World Court and attested to paralysis in Middle East peacemaking after years of violence.

Israeli officials say the barrier, about a third of whose planned more than 370-mile length has been built since 2002, has already pre-empted dozens of suicide bomb attacks. Such bombers have killed hundreds of Israelis. "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," Justice Minister Yosef Lapid told Israeli Army Radio Friday. Five of the 15 judges are from the European Union.

Last week Israel's top court ordered one segment of the barrier re-routed to avoid cutting off Palestinian villagers from farms, jobs, public services and cities, but ruled Israel had a right to build it in the West Bank on security grounds. European Commission spokesman Jean-Christophe Filori said the EU had long felt the barrier's route did not adhere to the 1949 armistice line between Israel and the West Bank and that it could hinder peaceful solutions to the conflict

LINK

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 4,377 • Replies: 61

No top replies

GRRR, the only thing illegal about the barrier is that prtions of it are constructed on land that doesn't belong to the Israelis.

I support the barrier, I think it's a great idea that will help move towards settlement of the dispute. I wish people would not be soo knee-jerk about Israel, this barrier is a good thing by my estimation, even for those who generally side against Israel.

0 Replies

Quote: GRRR, the only thing illegal about the barrier is that prtions of it are constructed on land that doesn't belong to the Israelis.

Haha, that cracked me up, Craven. Sorry, didn't mean that as an offensive at all - but it sounds like quite a biggie to me. And the Court's opinion will mention it, from what I read.
I, on the other hand, don't support it at all, even if it was entirely legal. It does not resolve conflict, it may lessen suicide attacks short term, but in the long term it will only aggravate the tensions. Conflict resolution has to start with addressing the root causes.

0 Replies

It may be a biggie to some, but in the overall territorial conflict the infraction is minor in comparison to what Israel has done.

And I think lessening the attacks in the short term is the most important step, "addressing the root causes of the problem" sounds nice, but the reality is that with the attacks Israel has no pressure to do so.

Lessening the attacks is the only way to create a political atmosphere in which Israel can be pressured to address the "root causes".

0 Replies

You mean, the infraction in minor compared to other things Israel has done? The wall was built by Israel, too. And the wall will allow them to postpone addressing the root causes. Along with the attacks, for sure, but there we have to look for the root causes again... Seems like we're on the same page, no?
Signed: Confoozled in Somerville.

0 Replies

dagmaraka wrote:

You mean, the infraction in minor compared to other things Israel has done? The wall was built by Israel, too.

Yes, I know... what was the point?

Quote:

And the wall will allow them to postpone addressing the root causes.

How so? I suspect this is one of those things that might sound nice but that doesn't have any substantiating facts behind it.

If I am wrong feel free to explain.

Quote:

Along with the attacks, for sure, but there we have to look for the root causes again... Seems like we're on the same page, no?
Signed: Confoozled in Somerville.

No, we are not on the same page. For some undescribed reason you think this wall postpones addressing "root causes".

This makes no sense and ignores the history of the conflict.

Throughout every single stage of this protracted confglict, what has allowed Israel to ignore the "root causes" (territorial conflict) was the attacks from Palestinian militants.

Every time pressure comes to bear on Israel to start moving toward negotiation conflict rescues them.

Each terrorist attac allows them to delay addressing the territorial dispute by saying they will not "negotiate under fire" and demand sequentialism.

Parallelism is the only shot this conflict has of being resolved within the current status quo.

If putting up the fence increases Israel's security in the short term it is a big important step toward addressing the "root causes".

As long as Israel is being attacked they are under little pressure to address "root causes".

If they gain respite the pressure can be put to them to resolve the territorial dispute.

The objection over the fence is just a knee-jerk objection because of who is behind it.

It's patently absurd to say it adds to the conflict. Palestinians have no inherent right to enter Israel while the security concerns for Israel exist.

When people do this knee-jerk thing against Israel it just fortifies Israel's excuses for flouting all the rulings against them because of frivolous absurd ones like this.

I say that the people who complain about the fence are a barrier to the peace process and to addressing "root causes".

Increasing Israeli security is a good thing. Without the attacks Israel has no pretext upon which to occupy and no pretext upon which to delay setttlement and no pretext upon which to argue that more land needs to be taken from their neighbours for "security".

Furthermore it presents what could be a de facto border, and inhibits Israeli expansionism.

If you want the best argument for the fence see which Israelis oppose it. Their radical right wing and settlers.

0 Replies

I don't think it is a step towards addressing the 'root causes' at all. I hear you, it increases security, does reconciliation should be less avoidable. Don't think so. There are data showing that the wall lessened the terrorist attacks from the palestinian side. In an of itself, that is not an unworthy thing at all. But if you want to talk about long-lasting peace, it is a step in the opposite direction - re-inforcing stereotypes, enlarging the already large gaps between Jews and Arabs, who need to be kept behind a fence, because they are so savage and dangerous.
At one time a Czech city built a wall between Roma (Gypsies) and the majority population. Data was used again to justify this segregational policy. Crime went down significantly. Does this solve the Czech - Roma tensions and conflicts? Perhaps in that neighborhood, short time. But it only led to escalation of hatred on both sides, and I expect much the same in Israel and Palestine. It is simply a negative gesture and will only strengthen the negative image Israel is building. It may increase security in that area. But not for Israel as such, and definitely not in the long run.

0 Replies

dagmaraka wrote:

There are data showing that the wall lessened the terrorist attacks from the palestinian side.

Yes, there is very convincing data that the barriers save lives.

Quote:

But if you want to talk about long-lasting peace, it is a step in the opposite direction - re-inforcing stereotypes, enlarging the already large gaps between Jews and Arabs, who need to be kept behind a fence, because they are so savage and dangerous.

I don't know about all that...

Either way it is irrelevant as the barrier is not a long term solution. It is proposed as a short term solution.

Perhaps this is the root of your objection? Not knowing that this fence is proposed a short term security measure?

Quote:

At one time a Czech city built a wall between Roma (Gypsies) and the majority population. Data was used again to justify this segregational policy. Crime went down significantly. Does this solve the Czech - Roma tensions and conflicts? Perhaps in that neighborhood, short time. But it only led to escalation of hatred on both sides, and I expect much the same in Israel and Palestine.

Again, it's really easy to say a wall "led to escalation of hatred on both sides" but while it might resonate with you I doubt you can provide factual evidence for this claim.

You may be able to show that an escalation coincided with it but I am nearly certain that you can't in any way illustrate that it was the wall's fault.

Quote:

It is simply a negative gesture and will only strengthen the negative image Israel is building.

"Negative gesture"? Question

Ok, let's say for the purpose of simplicity we agree that building a wall is a "negative gesture".

I think we can also agree that suicide bombings are "negative gestures".

Furthermore I think we can agree that suicide bombings have a degree of negativity beyond building a wall.

I allege that while this nebulous "negative gesture" quality to building the wall may well exist, that it serves to prevent far less nebulous and far more negative gestures.

Thusly I'd assert that it is a net benefit for as long as the threat of suicide bombings needs mitigating.

Furthermore, even if it is a "negative gesture" it's one that the Israelis have a right to if they want.

It may well be "negative" for tem to keep Palestinians out. I'm no fan of those kinds of borders, but it is their legal right to do so.

Quote:

It may increase security in that area. But not for Israel as such, and definitely not in the long run.

1) You acknowledge evidence that it will improve security in some way

2) You claim it will not improve security in the long run, but you do not have a shred of evidence toward this claim except to invoke a vague negativity about the whole thing

3) Ultimately the evidence isn't really needed as the fence is proposed as a short term solution, and not a long term one (though I recommend and hope that it stay well into Palestinian statehood to avoid regression)

4) "That area" IS Israel "as such", the fence won't protect only the immediate vicinity of the fence

0 Replies

Another thing I forgot to mention is that I think you fail to consider it in context.

Let's just say we agree on all the negativity you ascribe to the fence.

That does not take into account that Israel's traditional methods are far far far more negative.

The fence represents a move Sharon is making toward unilateral withdrawal and disengagement.

The incusions into Palestinian territory and the occupation can easily be shown to be far far more negative in impact than the mere fence.

The political climate is such that an Israel president really must react in bloddy ways to bloody attacks.

IMO mitigating those attacks is a huge way of breaking the bloddy cycle

And I assert that the bloddy cycle is far far more "negative" than the "stereotype" of the fence.

0 Replies

I hear you, Craven, and you have said all of that more or less before the last two posts. No, I do not consider it out of the context, and I read a lot about the history of Israel and Palestine. You repeat your statement about short term security - fine, a worthy goal. But when you want context, look at what it does for the rest of Israel and for the large picture of the Arab-Israeli conflict. I never said suicide bombings are not a negative thing or attempted to excuse them in any way. But to put a lid on a boiling pan only means to await an explosion when the stuff boils out. Anyhow, I would only be rephrasing what I wrote above.
I can't give you a hard data on the wall in Czech Republic. You know, there aren't data for everything - not everything is measurable by numbers, you know. And that doesn't mean it is to be dimissed as faulty either. Perhaps there are polls, I don't know of them- i will dig around, but not now. There most likely are polls about the Israeli barrier. Those I would be more interested in.
What I do know however is that I lived at home at the time of our wall, heard people's reactions on both sides, read papers - both major dailies and Roma weekly paper. Dismiss it if you want, to me it is evidence enough. Silly academic writer I am. Gotta go though, will be back later, D.

0 Replies

Ok let's make it simple:

IF the choice was between these two scenarios which would you choose:

1) Suicide bombings by Palestinians against Israelis.

Israeli occupation of Palestinians and incursions and assasinations

2) A fence that is "negative" and "stereotypes".

Now of course, neither solution might seem good to you, and there migth be other options you wish for. But frankly, given the status quo they may end up being vain wishes that do not recognize the current reality.

0 Replies

Craven, it is easy to talk when you are not a Palestinian being confronted with this Israeli wall, fence, whatever you want to call it. I once did an essay on the Israeli "security fence". The sources I used were Amnesty International, CIDI (a Dutch organization which among other things monitors anti-Semitism), and Dutch newspapers ('Het Parool' and 'NRC Handelsblad'). Fact is that thousands of Palestinians will get a hard time getting to work because of the fence; this also accounts to children getting to school. A water shortage is feared in the Palestinian Territories because of the fact the fence uses land which contains a lot of large water sources. 2,000 Palestinian farmers lost their land, or are not able to reach it. Another 80,000 farmers and landowners are confronted with other consequences. Palestinian villages and cities are being isolated because of the fence. It causes a lot of frustration among the Palestinians living in the Territories. It causes higher unemployment rates, and it has a negative effect on the healthcare system (hospitals are sometimes barely reachable). These are just some of the facts. But still, the fence is a 'good' thing right? Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Rick d'Israeli wrote:

Craven, it is easy to talk when you are not a Palestinian being confronted with this Israeli wall, fence, whatever you want to call it.

So? This is a meaningless point. The reverse can be said just as easily.

Watch: "It's easy to talk when you are not an Israeli being faced with Palestinian terrorist bombings."

Quote:

I once did an essay on the Israeli "security fence".

I saw a Palestinian on TV once.

Quote:

The sources I used were Amnesty International, CIDI (a Dutch organization which among other things monitors anti-Semitism), and Dutch newspapers ('Het Parool' and 'NRC Handelsblad').

I've read what each of those entities have said about it. I think for the most part their arguments have been idiotic.

Quote:

Fact is that thousands of Palestinians will get a hard time getting to work because of the fence; this also accounts to children getting to school.

I agree. So? I am not saying that the fence will not cause these problems, so what is your point?

Frankly, I think their inconvenience is worth the benefits and frankly Israel's alternate measures bring the exact same inconveniences with roadbloacks, curfews and occupation.

The knee-jerk reactions to the fence disconsider that it represents an Israeli attempt to minimize many of the very negatives you allege.

Quote:

A water shortage is feared in the Palestinian Territories because of the fact the fence uses land which contains a lot of large water sources. 2,000 Palestinian farmers lost their land, or are not able to reach it. Another 80,000 farmers and landowners are confronted with other consequences. Palestinian villages and cities are being isolated because of the fence.

This is relevant to the specifications of the fence, and not the idea of the fence itself.

These are arguments against the specifics of implementation, not the ideal itself.

Quote:

It causes a lot of frustration among the Palestinians living in the Territories.

So do ingrown toenails.

Look, it's damn hard to take this myopic complaint seriously.

The occupation and assasinations by Israel caused more frustration.

The roadblocks caused more frustration.

The curfews caused more frustration.

The incusions into camps caused more frustration.

The suicide bombings causeed more frustration.

Beyond frustration the methods used prior to the idea of disengagement and fence building caused lots more bloodshed than the fence.

I'm perfectly willing to agree that the fence might cause "frustration". I simply think that preventing the deaths are more important.

Secondly, even if preventing loss of life were not more important I think the fence causes far less "frustration" than Israel's typical methods.

This is a welcome change from their previous MO.

So if "frustration" is so important to you, you should welcome this new, less frustrating experience for the Palestinians.

Quote:

It causes higher unemployment rates, and it has a negative effect on the healthcare system (hospitals are sometimes barely reachable).

1) Palestinians have no inherent "right" to employment within Israel, their terrorists are the ones who craete a situation in which their entry is problemetic.

Even if Israel had no reason to deny them entry this would be Israel's legal right.

But they do, and it's the terrorists within their side. So blame the terrorists.

Quote:

These are just some of the facts.

I hope you don't try to pass off your weak opinions as facts. Yes, you might be so inclined to include some facts, I dispute your conclusions.

Quote:

But still, the fence is a 'good' thing right?

Yes, I think that on the whole the fence is a good thing for this situation, though your admirable skill with the use of emoticons nearly convinced me otherwise.

0 Replies

Miri Avitan came to the demonstration at The Hague with a photo of her son, Assaf, who was killed at his 15th birthday party in a suicide bombing in December 2001.
wording:

Quote:

My son was celebrating his birthday with his friends, and all his friends died
How bad is our world, if the court , that to adjust at Nazis to convicted, now the victims convicted, which want themself protect before new war criminals, those are killed womens and children in buses,houses and on the street.

a bold statement, so maybe it´s hard for the victims of suicide strike. But the court has absolutly right! The wall is illegal.

0 Replies

Just chiming in with another article - few days ago, from USA Today. Sorry, it's a bit too long, but it is more eloquent than I am in summing up the negatives of the wall - which I still believe are greater than the positives. Craven, you yourself said it needs to be looked at within a larger context -I can't agree more and encourage you to do so.

full article

Israel orders separation barrier changes

0 Replies

and I chopped it off prematurely. It goes on to say that with current suit against the wall WITHIN Israel and the very real possibility of dozens more, the wall will most likely not be finished on time. Thus, my opinion now, since it will have to be rebuilt in some areas, slowed down, etc. (possibly torn down eventually) - it seems a waste of money and resources that could have gone into alternative ways of increasing security. I don't agree that the wall was the only option. It never is - otherwise you'd have similar walls all over the world! I doubt that would help solve conflict anywhere.

0 Replies

dag,

I don't know whay you say I need to look at the article, I'd read it and have read any article that the major networks have printed on the subject. It doesn't cover anything new and just reinforces the "inconveniece" argument you'd already used.

I too have qualms with the route Israel chose. But this to me constitutes a qualm with specifics of the implementation while you seem to think that it should be a qualm with the idea per se. I disagree, the specifics of the route do not invalidate the idea of the wall altogether.

When Israel first had this idea I voiced those qualms. The fence needs to be in their own land to begin with and it shouldn't reach out to embrace certain settlements, those settlements should simply be on the wrong side of the fence (along with perhaps a forceful suggestion to get back on the right side of the fence).

As to the inconveniece we covered that before. I know it's an inconvenience to some people. That doesn't magically make it wrong. Not having the fence is an inconvenience to the dead Israelis too.

I've argued that not having it would represent a greater inconvenience to the very same people because of the Israeli MO.

So this whole inconvenience argument really falls flat for me. You can't even illustrate that the wall represents more of an inconvenience than the absence of the wall does.

Quote:

I don't agree that the wall was the only option. It never is - otherwise you'd have similar walls all over the world! I doubt that would help solve conflict anywhere.

Nobody said it was the only option, but this logic doesn't make any sense.

This is not a situation that exists all over the world. You do not have such attacks like this.

In other situations where there are similar conflicts there are, indeed, walls of this nature quite often.

Some are a lot worse, think the Indian no man's land with Pakistan.

Gaza has had their fence for years.

In conflicts like this, barriers like this are not uncommon, your logic neglects to consider that we do not have conflicts like this "all over the world".

I posit that that is a big reason we don't have this kind of fence "all over the world".

0 Replies

Israel is trying helplessly to ensure its security, but it will never be secure as long as it's occupying the lands of others and violating the UN's laws.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

I saw a Palestinian on TV once.

Craven de Kere wrote:

I've read what each of those entities have said about it. I think for the most part their arguments have been idiotic.

That is your opinion. May I assume you're Dutch?

Craven de Kere wrote:

I agree. So? I am not saying that the fence will not cause these problems, so what is your point?

My point is that the Israeli government, to protect its citizens it seems, doesn't care about the people on the "other side" who have to pay for what some Palestinian extremists do. Is that fair? I realize that both Israel and the Palestinians have certain priorities. But a wall is not the way to battle the roots of the terror performed by Palestinian terrorists. And do not think the peace process will get much of a boost when one side is confronted with a wall which is build to stop that minority among them, but eventually will effect a majority among them.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Frankly, I think their inconvenience is worth the benefits and frankly Israel's alternate measures bring the exact same inconveniences with roadbloacks, curfews and occupation.

YOU think it's worth the benefits.

Craven de Kere wrote:

This is relevant to the specifications of the fence, and not the idea of the fence itself.

But it's still the same fence.

Craven de Kere wrote:

So do ingrown toenails.

Right.

Craven de Kere wrote:

The occupation and assasinations by Israel caused more frustration.

The roadblocks caused more frustration.

The curfews caused more frustration.

The incusions into camps caused more frustration.

The suicide bombings causeed more frustration.

Beyond frustration the methods used prior to the idea of disengagement and fence building caused lots more bloodshed than the fence.

I'm perfectly willing to agree that the fence might cause "frustration". I simply think that preventing the deaths are more important.

Secondly, even if preventing loss of life were not more important I think the fence causes far less "frustration" than Israel's typical methods.

This is a welcome change from their previous MO.

So if "frustration" is so important to you, you should welcome this new, less frustrating experience for the Palestinians.

You realize this is all frustration. You realize that there will be less both Israeli and Palestinian deaths because of the fence. But we DO want the conflict to stop right? We DO want peace in the Middle East, right? I consider the fence to be an obstacle in that way. You do not, I assume?

Craven de Kere wrote:

1) Palestinians have no inherent "right" to employment within Israel, their terrorists are the ones who craete a situation in which their entry is problemetic.

'Their terrorists'. What is this? Collective punishment?

Craven de Kere wrote:

I hope you don't try to pass off your weak opinions as facts. Yes, you might be so inclined to include some facts, I dispute your conclusions.

As I pointed out, I based this on what I believe to be reliable sources.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Yes, I think that on the whole the fence is a good thing for this situation, though your admirable skill with the use of emoticons nearly convinced me otherwise.

Next post will be emoticons only.

0 Replies

:wink:

0 Replies

World Court Rules Israel's Barrier Illegal

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know