Israel's barrier illegal: World court
Reparations should be paid to Palestinians; Calls for UN action
BY ARTHUR MAX
ASSOCIATED PRESS
THE HAGUE, Netherlands — Israel's barrier in the West Bank violates international law, the highest UN court ruled today, urging the United Nations to stop its construction.
The International Court of Justice condemned the wall for going too far in infringing on the freedom of the Palestinians, dismissing arguments that it was essential to Israel's national security.
Israel must pay reparations to Palestinians harmed by the barrier and return land seized to construct the wall, which is already about 160 kilometres long, the ruling read.
Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia welcomed the ruling.
"The international high court decided clearly today that this racist wall is illegal to the root and Israel should stop building it and take down what has already been built of this wall," Qureia said.
The judges were unexpectedly united in slamming the structure of walls and fences, voting of 14-1 on most aspects of the ruling. Only the American judge dissented.
"The court accordingly finds that the construction of the wall, and its associated regime, are contrary to international laws," said court president Shi Jiuyong of China, who read the complex ruling.
The court asked the General Assembly and the Security Council "to consider what further action is required to bring to an end the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall."
Although the court's ruling is not legally binding, it carries substantial moral and political weight which could tip the scales in favour of UN action against the barrier.
And Arab nations are planning to request the General Assembly meet to discuss just that.
"Israel is in violation of international law, of international legitimacy, and the General Assembly now will be called upon to look into this matter," said Ambassador Yahya Mahmassani, the Arab League's UN representative.
The world body, comprising 191 countries, can recommend that the wall be torn down and that sanctions be slapped onto Israel if it fails to comply. But only the 15-member Security Council, where the U.S. has veto power, can implement sanctions.
At the Palestinians' request, the UN General Assembly asked the world court in December for its opinion on the legality of the barrier, a complex of towering concrete walls, razor-wire fences, trenches and watch towers. Some of the more controversial sections stray into the West Bank.
The court dismissed Israel's objections that the General Assembly acted irregularly in asking for an advisory opinion.
The wall was routed in a way that would cut off more than 230,000 Palestinians from their surrounding areas, the judges ruled.
Despite Israel's protests that the barrier was temporary and not designed as a political boundary, the court said it could amount to "de facto annexation."
The decision was a rebuff not only to Israel, but also to the United States and several European nations that had argued the court had no place delivering a judgement on the planned 685-kilometre-long wall.
Israel, which sent no senior officials to The Hague in an attempt to keep the issue low-key, said the wall was designed to deter Palestinian suicide bombers.
In one brief reference, the court said the construction of the barrier should be seen in the context of "the succession of armed conflicts, acts of indiscriminate violence and repressive measures" since 1947, when Israel declared itself a state.
"The International Court in The Hague has no authority to deal with disputes between Israel and the Palestinians," Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Jonathan Peled said in Jerusalem.
U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said the court should not have taken up the security barrier in the first place.
"It remains our view that this referral to the court was inappropriate and that, in fact, it could impede efforts to achieve progress toward a negotiated settlement between Israelis and Palestinians," Boucher said.
At the outset of the 2-1/2-hour session, the court ruled it had jurisdiction, rebuffing Israel's argument that the court should refrain from interfering because the issue was political, not legal.
"A legal question also has political aspects," said the ruling.
The court also dealt with issues that Israel and the Arab states have been bickering over for years.
It determined that lands captured by Israel in the 1967 Middle East war are occupied territory, including East Jerusalem. Israel has refused to recognize Jerusalem as occupied since it was formally annexed by the Israeli parliament after the war.
While the General Assembly and Security Council have never recognized Israel's claims, it was the first time Israel's status in the West Bank was the subject of an international legal judgment.
The ruling reminded Israel of its obligations to all conventions of international law, including the Geneva Conventions and common humanitarian law.
Recently the Israeli Supreme Court also ruled in favour of the Palestinians, ordering the government to reroute a 40-kilometre section of the barrier near Jerusalem.
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon accepted that decision and told senior military officials to review the fence's route. But he has previously denounced the world court hearings as "a campaign of hypocrisy."
Reparations should be paid to Palestinians; Calls for UN action
BY ARTHUR MAX
ASSOCIATED PRESS
THE HAGUE, Netherlands — Israel's barrier in the West Bank violates international law, the highest UN court ruled today, urging the United Nations to stop its construction.
The International Court of Justice condemned the wall for going too far in infringing on the freedom of the Palestinians, dismissing arguments that it was essential to Israel's national security.
Israel must pay reparations to Palestinians harmed by the barrier and return land seized to construct the wall, which is already about 160 kilometres long, the ruling read.
Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia welcomed the ruling.
"The international high court decided clearly today that this racist wall is illegal to the root and Israel should stop building it and take down what has already been built of this wall," Qureia said.
The judges were unexpectedly united in slamming the structure of walls and fences, voting of 14-1 on most aspects of the ruling. Only the American judge dissented.
"The court accordingly finds that the construction of the wall, and its associated regime, are contrary to international laws," said court president Shi Jiuyong of China, who read the complex ruling.
The court asked the General Assembly and the Security Council "to consider what further action is required to bring to an end the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall."
Although the court's ruling is not legally binding, it carries substantial moral and political weight which could tip the scales in favour of UN action against the barrier.
And Arab nations are planning to request the General Assembly meet to discuss just that.
"Israel is in violation of international law, of international legitimacy, and the General Assembly now will be called upon to look into this matter," said Ambassador Yahya Mahmassani, the Arab League's UN representative.
The world body, comprising 191 countries, can recommend that the wall be torn down and that sanctions be slapped onto Israel if it fails to comply. But only the 15-member Security Council, where the U.S. has veto power, can implement sanctions.
At the Palestinians' request, the UN General Assembly asked the world court in December for its opinion on the legality of the barrier, a complex of towering concrete walls, razor-wire fences, trenches and watch towers. Some of the more controversial sections stray into the West Bank.
The court dismissed Israel's objections that the General Assembly acted irregularly in asking for an advisory opinion.
The wall was routed in a way that would cut off more than 230,000 Palestinians from their surrounding areas, the judges ruled.
Despite Israel's protests that the barrier was temporary and not designed as a political boundary, the court said it could amount to "de facto annexation."
The decision was a rebuff not only to Israel, but also to the United States and several European nations that had argued the court had no place delivering a judgement on the planned 685-kilometre-long wall.
Israel, which sent no senior officials to The Hague in an attempt to keep the issue low-key, said the wall was designed to deter Palestinian suicide bombers.
In one brief reference, the court said the construction of the barrier should be seen in the context of "the succession of armed conflicts, acts of indiscriminate violence and repressive measures" since 1947, when Israel declared itself a state.
"The International Court in The Hague has no authority to deal with disputes between Israel and the Palestinians," Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Jonathan Peled said in Jerusalem.
U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said the court should not have taken up the security barrier in the first place.
"It remains our view that this referral to the court was inappropriate and that, in fact, it could impede efforts to achieve progress toward a negotiated settlement between Israelis and Palestinians," Boucher said.
At the outset of the 2-1/2-hour session, the court ruled it had jurisdiction, rebuffing Israel's argument that the court should refrain from interfering because the issue was political, not legal.
"A legal question also has political aspects," said the ruling.
The court also dealt with issues that Israel and the Arab states have been bickering over for years.
It determined that lands captured by Israel in the 1967 Middle East war are occupied territory, including East Jerusalem. Israel has refused to recognize Jerusalem as occupied since it was formally annexed by the Israeli parliament after the war.
While the General Assembly and Security Council have never recognized Israel's claims, it was the first time Israel's status in the West Bank was the subject of an international legal judgment.
The ruling reminded Israel of its obligations to all conventions of international law, including the Geneva Conventions and common humanitarian law.
Recently the Israeli Supreme Court also ruled in favour of the Palestinians, ordering the government to reroute a 40-kilometre section of the barrier near Jerusalem.
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon accepted that decision and told senior military officials to review the fence's route. But he has previously denounced the world court hearings as "a campaign of hypocrisy."
