The International Court of Justice ruled here Friday that Israel’s separation barrier in the occupied West Bank violates freedom of movement and should be demolished because it threatens a “de facto annexation” of Palestinian lands for Jewish settlements.
The court’s non-binding decision–issued after hearings requested by the United Nations–harshly criticized the massive barrier of trenches, fences and concrete that Israel says is necessary to stop suicide bombers and others from launching attacks. Israel’s security concerns, the world court found, do not condone seizing land that restricts the ability of Palestinians to move about and “severely impedes” progress toward their self-determination.
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s government repeatedly has stated it did not recognize the world court’s jurisdiction and vowed Friday to ignore the opinion and continue building the planned 437-mile barrier. Palestinians hailed the ruling, which was a more sweeping condemnation than Israel expected, as a vindication and planned to use the victory to press their cause before the United Nations.
“The fence works,” the Israeli government said in a statement. “It is a temporary, non-violent security means and it saves lives. So long as terror continues, Israel will continue to defend its citizens.” The statement added: “The solution won’t be found in The Hague or Manhattan but in Ramallah and Gaza, from where the terror originates.”
Palestinians pledged to immediately mount a campaign in the UN General Assembly as well as the Security Council that they hoped ultimately would bring international sanctions against Israel.
“It’s a historic day and a historic decision,” said Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia. “To tell the world, the Israelis and the Americans that this wall is illegal, because it is built on someone else’s land.”
In Washington, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said the ruling will be studied “in coming days” but emphasized the fact that it “is not legally binding.”
“Along with a number of other states, we did not support the General Assembly resolution that referred the matter to the court,” Boucher said. “It remains our view that this referral to the court was inappropriate and that in fact it could impede efforts to achieve progress towards a negotiated settlement between Israelis and Palestinians.”
1 dissenting vote
The sole U.S. judge on the 15-member panel, Thomas Buergenthal, was the lone dissenter on much of the court’s opinion. Buergenthal argued that the court did not closely examine Israel’s right to self-defense in light of years of attacks. Those types of concerns are probably shared by countries such as Russia and Spain that might not want the world court evaluating how they handle security concerns regarding separatist groups.
The international court’s finding in part echoes a decision by the Israeli Supreme Court last month that said stretches of the wall beyond the boundaries of the so-called Green Line — Israel’s pre-1967 de facto frontier — violated Palestinian rights. The Israeli court, however, basically supported the idea of a barrier.
The path of the wall, according to the international court’s opinion read by Judge Shi Jiuyong of China, “gravely” violates Palestinian rights “and the infringements from that route cannot be justified by military exigencies or by the requirements of national security or public order.”
In some of the strongest language against Israel, the judge added: “The wall’s sinuous route has been traced in such a way as to include a great majority of the Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory.”
There is a danger of a “fait accompli” that the “route of the wall will prejudge the future frontier between Israel and Palestine,” the court ruled. UN documents filed with the court suggest the barrier would take in about 14 percent of the West Bank.
The court emphasized that Israel should ease construction–about one-third of the wall is complete–and make reparations to Palestinians who have lost orchards, olive groves and other property. The barrier, the court noted, would result in human-rights violations because about 160,000 Palestinians would be forced to live in “almost completely encircled communities.” Such restrictions, the court said, will lead to “increasing difficulties” for Palestinians to access hospitals, schools and primary sources of water.
Israelis support wall
Israelis, who have endured more than 150 suicide attacks during the Palestinian uprising in the past 45 months, overwhelmingly support a barrier to keep out bombers. Attacks inside Israel by Palestinians have declined 80 percent this year, and the Israeli security establishment says that is due almost entirely to the presence of the partly built barrier.
The Sharon government refused to make any argument before the international court, although Israelis did ship part of a bus to The Hague that had been destroyed in a terrorist attack. Palestinians submitted their own images, including pictures of children shot by Israeli soldiers.
More Top Picks Best Mini Split Heat Pumps For Cold Climates
The public-relations battle has chafed Israel, which has long complained that Europe is pro-Palestinian. The Israeli government called the court’s decision making “politicized, biased and faulty.”
Even among dovish critics of the barrier, there was a strong sense that Israel had been dealt with unfairly by the world court. “Unlike a court in which all citizens are equal before the law, not all countries share equal circumstances,” said Labor Party leader Shimon Peres. “How can a country that knows no terror judge a country that lives under constant terror?”
The complexities of protection versus fear have led to considerable Israeli domestic debate since the project’s inception in 2002. Prominent leftist politicians blamed the Sharon government for inviting international condemnation by mapping a path that strayed so far into the West Bank.
Palestinians living in and near the barrier’s path were pleased by the court’s ruling, but they were hardly euphoric. Most said they doubted the advisory ruling would force Israel to tear it down.
“It’s a good decision, but I do not expect it to change anything,” said Ahmed Abu Farha, a shopkeeper in the dusty West Bank village of Abu Dis, on Jerusalem’s outskirts. He added that his sweet shop, in the shadow of the towering concrete barrier that passes through the village, would soon close because customers could no longer reach him.
“In spite of my objection in principle to the fence, if Israel really wanted one, it could have built it on its own territory and no one would have made a peep in the entire world, because it wouldn’t have made Palestinians’ lives a misery,” said Ahmed Tibi, an Israeli Arab who serves in Israel’s parliament. “It wouldn’t have created cages keeping a boy from school or a woman from giving birth in a hospital. There is a certain balance that even the international court is aware of.”