“The International Court of Justice should decide whether Israel is justified in building a security fence.”
The most important issue at stake in the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is how to bring about a two-state solution that offers peace and security to both parties. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has nothing to contribute to resolving this issue and actually subverts the prospects for peace by undermining direct negotiations, diverting attention from the Palestinians’ failure to fulfill their road map obligation to stop the violence, and singling Israel out for opprobrium while ignoring the Palestinian terrorism that necessitated the construction of the security fence.
Counting the countries that did not vote, as well as those that voted against the Arab proposal, 101 member-states — a majority of UN members — did not support referring the fence issue to the court, and at least 30 countries, including the United States, Great Britain, Russia, and 15 members of the European Union submitting affidavits to the ICJ saying that the issue does not belong in the Court.
The UN General Assembly has already adopted a position on the matter and prejudged it. Moreover, the decision to submit the issue of the fence to the court ignores Article 36 of the Court’s Statute which stipulates that contentious issues can only be brought before the Court with the consent of all sides. In this case, the issue is clearly contentious, Israel did not consent to arbitration before the court, and the parties already have mechanisms in place for resolving such issues.
The question put to the Court misleadingly refers to the barrier as a “wall” when, in fact, less than 3% of the anti-terrorist barrier is concrete and more than 97% consists of a chain-link system.
Israel only built this fence to defend its citizens after three years of unrelenting Palestinian violence that has taken the lives of nearly 1,000 Israelis. No outside court or international organization has the authority to determine how Israel should protect its citizens.
The United States shares this view and that is why it objects to the Court’s involvement. After all, if the Court can tell Israel that it can’t build a fence to defend itself from terrorists, why can’t the justices tell the United States that it is illegal to build a barrier to keep Mexicans from entering the United States, or that its war in Iraq was not justified?
What is the basis for challenging the fence in the first place? Contrary to the language of the General Assembly resolution, the fence does not stand on “occupied Palestinian” land. The fence does not affect the final status of the territories. Israel has not annexed any territory around the fence; the land itself is a matter of dispute and, should a peace settlement be reached, the fence can be moved or torn down. Israel has already said it would reroute the fence to minimize the impact on the Palestinians.
And why should the Court single out Israel’s actions? Has it ever ruled on the dispute between India and Pakistan over Kashmir or the conflict between Greece and Turkey over Cyprus (in both cases similar fences have been built), or any of the dozens of other international border disputes?
The court may issue an advisory opinion on “the legal implications of building a wall,” but its decisions do not have the force of law. The court is a political body and Israel has no representation on the court. The 15 judge panel does, however, include a Palestinian from Jordan and an Egyptian.
The politicization of the proceedings is clear from the Court’s decision to allow 56 countries from the Organization of the Islamic Conference, along with the 22 members of the Arab League, to testify against Israel. While Palestinians may legitimately criticize the fence, none of these other parties are in any way affected by Israel’s efforts to defend itself. Is it any wonder that Israelis expect the trial to resemble the Israeli-bashing forum that occurred in Durban and the one-sided debates in the General Assembly?
Israel is in a no-win situation. By virtue of being “taken to court,” Israel is automatically put on the defensive. If Israel puts its case before the Court, it would legitimate the tribunal’s authority; however, if it ignores the proceedings, Israel increases the probability that the testimony will be one-sided and that the Court will ultimately censure Israel.
Israel ultimately decided it would not participate in the trial and was joined in this decision by the United States, Russia, and the EU. This left the hearings to Israel's critics who, predictably, used them as a propaganda forum to castigate Israel.
=====================================================================
MODS: Please note this was received in an email stating "The preceeding information is presented as a public service. It may be reprinted without charge -- with attribution." Thank you.Attribution - Source: Myths & Facts Online -- A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict by Mitchell G. Bard, http://www.JewishVirtualLibrary.org.
Myths & Facts is also available in Spanish, German, French, and Swedish.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(59 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
