Court Rules Israel's West Bank Barrier Illegal

[Prozac the Robert]

source

The International Court of Justice ruled today that the barrier Israel is building to seal off the West Bank violates international law, and urged the United Nations to take action to halt its construction.

The court in the Hague dismissed Israel’s arguments that the barrier was essential for its security, and said the infringement on Palestinians’ ability to move freely was unjustified by arguments of military necessity.

The ruling was a rebuff not only to Israel – deepening Israelis’ perception that the world does not appreciate the terror threat they face – but also to the United States and several European nations which had argued that the issue should not be before the court.

The Palestinians viewed it as important international support against a stronger rival.

“Israel is under an obligation to terminate its breaches of international law it is under an obligation to cease forthwith the works of construction of the wall being built in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, to dismantle forthwith the structure therein situated,” said the ruling, read by court president Shi Jiuyong of China.

The court also ordered Israel to pay reparations to Palestinians harmed by the barrier and return land seized to construct it.

“The court is of the view that the United Nations, and especially the General Assembly and the Security Council, should consider what further action is required to bring to an end the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall,” the judgement said.

The judges were unexpectedly united in backing the decisions, by a vote of 14-1 for most paragraphs of the decision, with only the American judge dissenting.

The court also said all countries “are under an obligation not to recognise the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction”.

In Washington, White House spokesman Scott McClellan denounced the decision, saying the United States believed the dispute should be resolved politically.

“We’ve always said that is not the appropriate form to resolve what is a political issue,” he said.

At the Palestinians’ request, the UN General Assembly asked the world court last December for its opinion on the legality of the barrier – a 425-mile long complex of high concrete walls, razor-wire fences, trenches and watch towers. About a quarter has been completed, much of it close to the pre-1967 border, but some dipping into the West Bank.

The court said the barrier was routed in a way that would encompass 80% of the Israeli settlers in the West Bank, while cutting off more than 230,000 Palestinians from their surrounding areas.

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” by creating new facts on the ground.

It said the building of the barrier “severely impedes the exercise of the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination, and therefore is a breach of Israel’s obligation to the respect of that right”.

The 15-member court’s advisory opinions are nonbinding, but bear moral and historic weight.

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.

At the outset of the 2 1/2-hour session, the court ruled it had jurisdiction and dismissed Israel’s objections that the UN General Assembly acted irregularly in asking the court for an advisory opinion.

It also rebuffed the argument that the court’s interference could disrupt Mideast peace efforts, and that the issue was political, not legal.

“A legal question also has political aspects,” said the ruling.

The court said it was aware of the political negotiations – in particular a US-sponsored peace plan called the Road Map – but said it was not clear its legal opinion would influence those efforts.

The court dealt in passing with issues long at dispute between Israel and the Arab states.

It determined that the lands captured by Israel in the 1967 Middle East war are occupied territory, including East Jerusalem. Israel has refused to recognise Jerusalem as occupied since it was formally annexed by the Israeli parliament shortly after the war.

While the General Assembly and Security Council had never recognised Israel’s claims, it was the first time Israel’s status in the West Bank was the subject of an international legal judgement.

The court said Israel was obliged by all international treaties and conventions of international law, including the Geneva Conventions and common humanitarian law.

Also: the International Court of Justice website if anyone wants to read more.

[Stravo]

Isn't the wall being built on Israeli soil? I don't undertsand the argument since Palestinain rights to movement and travel are already severly curtailed by the Israelis who only let a very limited number of workers through and whenevre they start letting more in...boom...another suicide bombing. So how is that different than a wall?

[Keevan_Colton]

Isn't the wall being built on Israeli soil? I don't undertsand the argument since Palestinain rights to movement and travel are already severly curtailed by the Israelis who only let a very limited number of workers through and whenevre they start letting more in...boom...another suicide bombing. So how is that different than a wall?

Eh, not exactly, it's israeli soil in that its where they call the shots, but its through the "occupied territories" so...it's in the land they like to pretend isnt really theirs...

I have to say kudos to them though on their efforts to create the largest walled in ghetto going.

[MKSheppard]

Watch as thus ruling has absolutely no effect at all

[Stravo]

Isn't the wall being built on Israeli soil? I don't undertsand the argument since Palestinain rights to movement and travel are already severly curtailed by the Israelis who only let a very limited number of workers through and whenevre they start letting more in...boom...another suicide bombing. So how is that different than a wall?

Eh, not exactly, it's israeli soil in that its where they call the shots, but its through the "occupied territories" so...it's in the land they like to pretend isnt really theirs...

Ahh...different story then.

I have to say kudos to them though on their efforts to create the largest walled in ghetto going.

Kind of reminds you of children who have been abused end up being abusers no?

[Stravo]

Watch as thus ruling has absolutely no effect at all

I expect no less from a ruling of an international body.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Watch as thus ruling has absolutely no effect at all

Isreal ignoring the opinion of an international group? Say it isn't so man!!!

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

"International Court of Justice"- who the fuck pays for this thing?

[Prozac the Robert]

Don't know who pays for it, but if you take a look at it's website I believe you will find that it is actually fairly effective at what it does.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Don't know who pays for it, but if you take a look at it's website I believe you will find that it is actually fairly effective at what it does.

Make rulings that change absolutly nothing in the world? I'm pretty good at that too. In fact, the entire board is.

[Keevan_Colton]

Don't know who pays for it, but if you take a look at it's website I believe you will find that it is actually fairly effective at what it does.

Make rulings that change absolutly nothing in the world? I'm pretty good at that too. In fact, the entire board is.

Actually it was the UN that consulted them to get a legal ruling on this...

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Don't know who pays for it, but if you take a look at it's website I believe you will find that it is actually fairly effective at what it does.

Make rulings that change absolutly nothing in the world? I'm pretty good at that too. In fact, the entire board is.

Actually it was the UN that consulted them to get a legal ruling on this...

And that changes what I said how?

[Keevan_Colton]

And that changes what I said how?

They dont sit around spouting shit...people come to them and ask for rulings. Unlike people on the board here, they dont give unsolicited opinions on any shit that happens to be going on.

[Durandal]

Don't know who pays for it, but if you take a look at it's website I believe you will find that it is actually fairly effective at what it does.

Make rulings that change absolutly nothing in the world? I'm pretty good at that too. In fact, the entire board is.

I wasn't aware that world leaders came to SD.Net and solicited our judgments on world affairs. What's Ariel Sharon's username again? And which admin approved Arafat's membership request?

[Keevan_Colton]

What's Ariel Sharon's username again?

Axi...nevermind.

[Prozac the Robert]

Don't know who pays for it, but if you take a look at it's website I believe you will find that it is actually fairly effective at what it does.

Make rulings that change absolutly nothing in the world? I'm pretty good at that too. In fact, the entire board is.

I sugest you have a good look at this section of their website. Case Summaries

As I understand it, once both nations have agreed to take a case to the ICJ then it is a contentous case and the ruling is binding. Otherwise the court is offering an advisary opinion, which isn't binding.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

And that changes what I said how?

They dont sit around spouting shit...people come to them and ask for rulings. Unlike people on the board here, they dont give unsolicited opinions on any shit that happens to be going on.

THAT DOSEN"T REFUTE WHAT I"VE SAID. The people who make "rulings" here have EXACTLY the same effect that this ridiculous court does- which is to say- none at all.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Don't know who pays for it, but if you take a look at it's website I believe you will find that it is actually fairly effective at what it does.

Make rulings that change absolutly nothing in the world? I'm pretty good at that too. In fact, the entire board is.

I sugest you have a good look at this section of their website. Case Summaries

As I understand it, once both nations have agreed to take a case to the ICJ then it is a contentous case and the ruling is binding. Otherwise the court is offering an advisary opinion, which isn't binding.

So in other words- their irrelevant unless the nations in question agree to what they say. Which is another way of saying that they have no real power.

[Prozac the Robert]

You don't quite seem to see its purpose. If two countries have a dispute thn rather than going to war or whatever, they can take the case to the ICJ. It makes a rulling and then both countries have to abide by the decision.

The advisory opinions are not completely useless either, since a lot of countries will follow the law as interpreted by the court.

[Stravo]

Make rulings that change absolutly nothing in the world? I'm pretty good at that too. In fact, the entire board is.

I sugest you have a good look at this section of their website. Case Summaries

As I understand it, once both nations have agreed to take a case to the ICJ then it is a contentous case and the ruling is binding. Otherwise the court is offering an advisary opinion, which isn't binding.

So in other words- their irrelevant unless the nations in question agree to what they say. Which is another way of saying that they have no real power.

President Andrew Jackson showed that unless the Executive Branch is willing to follow what the Supreme Court says the it too has no real power thus we have the Trail of Tears.

[Prozac the Robert]

President Andrew Jackson showed that unless the Executive Branch is willing to follow what the Supreme Court says the it too has no real power thus we have the Trail of Tears.

Care to expand a little for a non-american please Stravo?

[Joe]

President Andrew Jackson showed that unless the Executive Branch is willing to follow what the Supreme Court says the it too has no real power thus we have the Trail of Tears.

Care to expand a little for a non-american please Stravo?

Indian Removal; the Cherokee Nation went to the Supreme Court to argue that they had a right to stay where they were, and they won. Jackson removed them anyway, and is reported to have said "John Marshall [the Chief Justice at that time] has made his decision; now let him enforce it."

This doesn't really happen anymore, generally Supreme Court rulings will be obeyed, but it is a sad chapter.

[Joe]

Kerry to ICJ: Piss off, ya bloody wankers

[Howedar]

Kerry is on the next step to the Presidency, he's already deep-throating Israeli cock.

[Durandal]

Kerry is on the next step to the Presidency, he's already deep-throating Israeli cock.

Of course. If he doesn't, then he's an anti-Semite, after all.