July 9th, 2004, 03:45 PM
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."
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."
Super Genius
Posts: 1,103 
July 9th, 2004, 03:59 PM
It was the right call, I think.
The case brought before the court was limited to the barrier. The fact that it may create 'boundries', that may be construed as a future border, as the decision says, is reason enough among others, to validate the courts decision.
The court did also validate the right of a state to defend itself, of course.
It has been an intersting week insofar as the region has gone. The Quartet (US, Russia, UN and EU) pointedly took the PA to task for not implementing reform fast enough, not cleaning up endemic corruption and not doing enough to rein in the militant factions-- so much so, they have threatened to withold aid to the PA.
I suspect they knew what the ICJ decision would be.
Next move, who knows? I wouldn't be surprised if Israel took the PA to the ICJ, for not doing its part in reining in the militant factions.
Of course, once more into the abyss...
In the meantime, I think the court, based on the case brought before it, made the right decision.
It was the right call, I think.
The case brought before the court was limited to the barrier. The fact that it may create 'boundries', that may be construed as a future border, as the decision says, is reason enough among others, to validate the courts decision.
The court did also validate the right of a state to defend itself, of course.
It has been an intersting week insofar as the region has gone. The Quartet (US, Russia, UN and EU) pointedly took the PA to task for not implementing reform fast enough, not cleaning up endemic corruption and not doing enough to rein in the militant factions-- so much so, they have threatened to withold aid to the PA.
I suspect they knew what the ICJ decision would be.
Next move, who knows? I wouldn't be surprised if Israel took the PA to the ICJ, for not doing its part in reining in the militant factions.
Of course, once more into the abyss...
In the meantime, I think the court, based on the case brought before it, made the right decision.
July 9th, 2004, 04:27 PM
All countries should follow the examples and rules set down by the United Nations. The UN was created as a result of world wars, and that's why it exists today. If nobody is going to follow UN rulings, then we'll probably see a rise in the amount of wars (actually, we have).
The United States, for example, will not follow the UN resolutions. Look at Iraq for god sakes! Israel is not even legit to begin with. So nothing they will do and are doing currently will probably be legit. As long as we have George Double-ya up in power down south, Israel will do what they please just as the American gov't does.
Quoting
In context, how is Israel protecting it's citizens? Allowing them to settle on Palestinian territory in the first place was a stupid idea. We all know the drawbacks and dangers of it. Suicide bombing is very common, hense.
Hardly the case.
Every governments first obligation is to protect its citizens.
That is universal.
Every governments first obligation is to protect its citizens.
That is universal.
All countries should follow the examples and rules set down by the United Nations. The UN was created as a result of world wars, and that's why it exists today. If nobody is going to follow UN rulings, then we'll probably see a rise in the amount of wars (actually, we have).
The United States, for example, will not follow the UN resolutions. Look at Iraq for god sakes! Israel is not even legit to begin with. So nothing they will do and are doing currently will probably be legit. As long as we have George Double-ya up in power down south, Israel will do what they please just as the American gov't does.
Super Genius
Posts: 1,103
July 9th, 2004, 04:38 PM
Oh, i agree with the courts decision, as I said. Th ewall (as it was situated) was a bad idea.
As for Israel not being legitamate, that argument is a red herring.
Israel is a duly recognized state by the UN and all other world bodies. Its that simple. That isnt going to change-- as Chirac put it-- Israel's right to exist is not in question. How Israel conducts its foreign policy is however, fair game.
Further, the entire peace process is predicated on UN ersolutions-- all of which acknowledge Israels right to exist. If you deny that right, why would Israel b esubject to UN particiaption?
Also, you have to distinguish between binding and non binding UN resolutions.
Heres a good article on the subject, from the economist. It also addresses Isreal nuclear position.
http://economist.com/world/na/displa...ory_id=1378577
Oh, i agree with the courts decision, as I said. Th ewall (as it was situated) was a bad idea.
As for Israel not being legitamate, that argument is a red herring.
Israel is a duly recognized state by the UN and all other world bodies. Its that simple. That isnt going to change-- as Chirac put it-- Israel's right to exist is not in question. How Israel conducts its foreign policy is however, fair game.
Further, the entire peace process is predicated on UN ersolutions-- all of which acknowledge Israels right to exist. If you deny that right, why would Israel b esubject to UN particiaption?
Also, you have to distinguish between binding and non binding UN resolutions.
Heres a good article on the subject, from the economist. It also addresses Isreal nuclear position.
http://economist.com/world/na/displa...ory_id=1378577
Member
Posts: 107
Location: Boston
Location: Boston
July 9th, 2004, 06:10 PM
Quoting
All countries should follow the examples and rules set down by the United Nations. The UN was created as a result of world wars, and that's why it exists today. If nobody is going to follow UN rulings, then we'll probably see a rise in the amount of wars (actually, we have).
We may see a rise in wars (US - Iraq, Iraq - Iran, US - Taliban, etc.), but we haven't seen a rise in a world-war style war, where all countries are full fledged in attack mode. The UN has done a good job on that.
Quoting
In context, how is Israel protecting it's citizens? Allowing them to settle on Palestinian territory in the first place was a stupid idea. We all know the drawbacks and dangers of it. Suicide bombing is very common, hense.
Hardly the case.
Every governments first obligation is to protect its citizens.
That is universal.
Every governments first obligation is to protect its citizens.
That is universal.
All countries should follow the examples and rules set down by the United Nations. The UN was created as a result of world wars, and that's why it exists today. If nobody is going to follow UN rulings, then we'll probably see a rise in the amount of wars (actually, we have).
Super Genius
Posts: 1,103
July 9th, 2004, 06:30 PM
I can't agree Andem with some of your premise.
American foreign policy-- and that of the west for that matter-- has been entirely consistent over the last 50 years.
A negotiated settlement is the desired outcome, of course.
For the last 50 years, the basis for that are the following principles:
1. Cessation of violence.
2. Secure and defensible borders.
3. Diplomatic recognition of and by all parties.
Since 1967, UN 242, 338, etc, have all reiterated those principles. The land for peace for offer has been on the table for all that time. It was the Khartoum Resolution that stalled negotiated settlement talks for decades, until now.
I can't agree Andem with some of your premise.
American foreign policy-- and that of the west for that matter-- has been entirely consistent over the last 50 years.
A negotiated settlement is the desired outcome, of course.
For the last 50 years, the basis for that are the following principles:
1. Cessation of violence.
2. Secure and defensible borders.
3. Diplomatic recognition of and by all parties.
Since 1967, UN 242, 338, etc, have all reiterated those principles. The land for peace for offer has been on the table for all that time. It was the Khartoum Resolution that stalled negotiated settlement talks for decades, until now.
Super Genius
Posts: 1,320
Location: Winnipeg
Location: Winnipeg
July 9th, 2004, 07:40 PM
Th General Assembly will now have to send a resolution to the Security Council. The only way it won't pass the SC now is if the US vetos it. Considering their past record they will likely do just that.
What if they don't veto it though? The US has had to go crawling back to the UN a couple of times recently, after directly undermining the UNs authority. They also have to make some attempts to make some friends in this world though. This could be their chance to show that they aren't just Hells Angels. They should let any resolution that results from this pass.
Th General Assembly will now have to send a resolution to the Security Council. The only way it won't pass the SC now is if the US vetos it. Considering their past record they will likely do just that.
What if they don't veto it though? The US has had to go crawling back to the UN a couple of times recently, after directly undermining the UNs authority. They also have to make some attempts to make some friends in this world though. This could be their chance to show that they aren't just Hells Angels. They should let any resolution that results from this pass.
Super Genius
Posts: 1,103
July 9th, 2004, 07:56 PM
I don't think sanctions have legs. The Economist is saying that sanctions would be vetoed by most, if not all of the SC.
Best chance they have is a straightfoward vote of condemnation- that would havea shot in the SC. I don't tink the US would veto that at this point.
I don't think sanctions have legs. The Economist is saying that sanctions would be vetoed by most, if not all of the SC.
Best chance they have is a straightfoward vote of condemnation- that would havea shot in the SC. I don't tink the US would veto that at this point.
Super Genius
Posts: 1,320
Location: Winnipeg
Location: Winnipeg
July 10th, 2004, 12:45 AM
Who is going to veto it? The US and Britain? Russia won't, China won't, France might, but not if they can let the US and Britain look like the only bad guys
Actually I doubt, given the current political climate, that anybody but the US would dare to veto this.
Who is going to veto it? The US and Britain? Russia won't, China won't, France might, but not if they can let the US and Britain look like the only bad guys
Actually I doubt, given the current political climate, that anybody but the US would dare to veto this.
Member
Posts: 172
Location: 7000 ft. asl and on full auto
Location: 7000 ft. asl and on full auto
July 10th, 2004, 08:38 AM
...nevermind.
Quoting
Absolutely. Like the UN food for oil program. A fine example they have set there. Or like the peace and stability the UN has brought to Kosovo. Or like...
All countries should follow the examples and rules set down by the United Nations.
...nevermind.
Member
Posts: 172
Location: 7000 ft. asl and on full auto
Location: 7000 ft. asl and on full auto
July 10th, 2004, 09:06 AM
Ya know what? If one wants to keep its land, it shouldn't start wars. "To the victor go the spoils."
It's not occupied territory. It's Israeli land. Period.
Quote:
Hmmm. The UN should arrest "the wall" then, don't ya think?
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.
Quote:
The palestinians can send the bill to the terrorists who necessitated the construction of the wall.
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.
Quote:
He is right. The only impediment to progress is Palestine. They consistently reject offers of land peace all the while proclaiming that their goal is elimination of the Jewish state.
"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.
Quote:
Oh, this is good! In 1967 Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon all massed forces at Israel’s border in order to “push the Jews into the sea”. Four arab countries against the Jewish state. The obviously superior state of Israel crushed the bully arabs in 6 days.
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.
Ya know what? If one wants to keep its land, it shouldn't start wars. "To the victor go the spoils."
It's not occupied territory. It's Israeli land. Period.
