ICJ the world court ruling that Israel's West Bank barrier is illegal

[Don Rizzle]

Parties split on barrier ruling
Palestinians have hailed a world court ruling that Israel's West Bank barrier is illegal and should be torn down.
Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat described it as a "victory for the Palestinian people".

But Israel said it would not accept the "unjust" - and non-binding decision of the International Court of Justice.

The court said the construction of the Israeli "wall" was "tantamount to annexation" and impeded the Palestinian right to self-determination.


Israel insists the barrier is needed to keep out West Bank militants. Palestinians consider it a land grab.


 The construction of the wall is contrary to international law

 

Several countries, including the US and UK, had argued the court should stay out of the issue, warning that any opinion it gave could interfere with the Middle East peace process.

"We do not believe that that's the appropriate forum to resolve what is a political issue," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

The court's decision can serve as a basis for United Nations action.

'Racist wall'

"We salute this decision condemning the racist wall," Mr Arafat told reporters at his West Bank headquarters.

His Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei said it was "a historic day".


"They [judges] said it has to be torn down and we say that we must tear it down," Mr Qurei said


Israeli spokesmen were quick to dismiss the ICJ ruling.


"I believe that after all the rancour dies, this resolution will find its place in the garbage can of history," said Raanan Gissin, a senior aide to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

"The court has made an unjust ruling denying Israel its right of self-defence."

Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu went even further, pouring scorn on possible action by the UN General Assembly - which took the issue to court.

"They [the GA] can decide anything there. They can say that the earth is flat. It won't make it legal, it won't make it true and it won't make it just."

No action expected

After spending five months considering the issue, the court in The Hague unanimously rejected Israel's argument that it had no right to rule on the legality of the barrier.

It ruled that:


the construction and its associated regime was contrary to international law;
Israel was under obligation to cease construction and dismantle the wall;
Israel should compensate owners of land seized to construct the barrier and those harmed by the barrier;
all states are under obligation not to recognise the situation and ensure Israel's compliance with international law;
the UN should consider what further action to take.
Reading the judgment, ICJ President Shi Jiuyong of China said the court was not convinced the barrier's construction was the only means to achieve Israel's aim of protecting its people from suicide attacks.
The construction of the wall would be "tantamount to de facto annexation," Mr Shi said.

One of the 15 members of the court, US Judge Thomas Buergenthal, dissented from all the findings.

BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus says the real question is what, if anything, will change now that the barrier has been declared illegal.

Arab governments are likely to seek an emergency session of the UN General Assembly to try to secure a resolution endorsing the court's decision.

But experts caution against any expectation of tough UN action - not least because of the US veto in the Security Council.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/middle_east/3881799.stm

[Maradona]

No shit the land grabs are illegal.

[smerlus]

i'm glad palistine is losing their land...if they had their way 50 years ago, there wouldn't be a jewish person alive today...tables have turned and they are getting what they deserve....don't write a check your ass can't cash

[I TO DA GEEZY]

I do believe The International Court Of Justice shouldn't have rulled on this metter, even for the sake of it's credabillity,I can tell you with 100% of certainty that not only it is politicized but it also serves certain interests, and why...Do you for once recall This court condemning Yaser Arafat \Leadership of the Palestinian authority, for support of terrorism? Crimes against humanity? Support-Money concealation? .....I can't even start explaining to you how great the double standart is- the so called international law is in support of Arafat's instabillity tactic that result's as the continuation of sucide bombings...See, certain people simply want this feud to continue, They make too much money of it...

[Don Rizzle]

until palestine becomes a proper country without israeli restrictions we'll never know

[I TO DA GEEZY]

It had multiple chances to become a country by now, the reason it's not a PROPER country by now however is not because of Israel's restrictions but because of it's leadership and the millitant organizations it supports...Israel's restrictions are merely a reaction to terroristic actions the Palestinian Authority produces and by which it endangers Israel's safety.

[Don Rizzle]

yea i agree that has happenned in the past but i think arafrat would be willing to what it takes NOW if israel offers a fair deal. the road map was supposed to see and independent palestinian state by 2005 if we can get back on track with that come up with an agreement all sides can agree on israel would be so much more secure you could even keep your wall if wour willing to give up more land.

[I TO DA GEEZY]

Not long ago Ive seen this interview with former President of the U.S Bill Clinton who along with Rabin and Prez pioneered Oslo, He said that he feels the Israeli public(that may've been in support of Oslo before) has lost trust in Arafat in the last few years, After Camp David failed with Araft declining the offer and generally since the start of the Intifaada, And I think he depicted the situation quite acurrately, Any deal with Araft in the leadership of the Palestian Authority could turn against Israel in any time as far as we're concerned right now.

[Don Rizzle]

yea i think he should have less control but the problem will be creating a government willing to cooporate with israel and credible in the eyes of palestinians who have alot of resentment of israel for how they have been treated and i think they will probably need him to take them to the next step before more reform can be put in place and peace can prevail. i also agree to the suggestion of an arab force taking over from israel for a temporary period while the peace process goes forward to ensure there is no repeat of oslo, but an ease on their restrictions. i also think refugees should be able to return, and illegal settlements should be removed. i disagree with israel current isolation on the PA and israels stance of only talking to america especially in the current election year where the bush administration is trying more so than ever to please the jewish voters and not to mention their hugely deminished reputation since bush came to power and lack of indepence in being a mediator of peace.

[infinite59]

Bottom line, Isreal drives Palestinians from their land and then blames the Palestinians for it.