The Guardian - UK - 10 July: The world court yesterday branded Israel's vast concrete and steel barrier through the West Bank a political not a security measure, and a de facto land grab. The judges told Israel to tear it down and compensate the victims.

The International Court of Justice at The Hague said signatories to the Geneva convention, such as Britain and the US, are obliged to ensure Israel upholds the ruling.

It condemned what it described as the widespread confiscation and destruction of Palestinian property, and the disruption of the lives of thousands of protected civilians, caused by construction of what Israel calls the "anti-terror fence". It also called on the UN to consider measures against Israel. Sanctions appear unlikely in the face of US opposition, but Palestinians hailed the ruling as a landmark judgment that could mobilise international opinion.

"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," the court ruled.

The decision, endorsed by all but the American judge on the 15-person bench, is non-binding. But the Palestinian leadership said it would use the ruling to seek UN action against Israel.

"This is an excellent decision," said the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat. "This is a victory for the Palestinian people and for all the free peoples of the world."

But Israel rejected the ruling as politicised and one-sided, saying that it failed to address "the very reason for building the fence - Palestinian terror".

Raanan Gissin, the Israeli prime minister's spokesman, said: "I believe that after all the rancour dies, this resolution will find its place in the garbage can of history. The court has made an unjust ruling denying Israel its right of self-defence."

The US said the issue of the barrier should be resolved through the peace process not in court. The European commission said the ruling reinforced the EU's call for Israel to remove the fence and wall.

The court's damning judgment will be a severe public relations blow to Israel.

The court said that Israel had a duty to protect the lives of its citizens from "numerous indiscriminate and deadly acts of violence", but that did not permit it to flout international law.

The court found that construction of the first 125 miles of what is planned as a 435-mile barrier "has involved the confiscation and destruction of Palestinian land and resources, the disruption of the lives of thousands of protected civilians and the de facto annexation of large areas of territory".

It said the land seizures further entrenched illegally built Jewish settlements in the West Bank. In doing so, Israel was responsible for illegal destruction of homes and the forced removal of Palestinians from their villages, which is changing the demographic face of the West Bank.

The court concluded that the wall and fence severely impedes the Palestinian right of self-determination in breach of the Geneva convention and international humanitarian law.

Israel says the barrier - a series of fences and 8m (26ft) high walls with barbed wire, trenches and electronic motion detectors - has greatly reduced the number of suicide bombings. The Palestinians argue that the same result could have been achieved by building it along the 1967 border without cutting off people from land, work or schools.

The world court agreed. "The court considers that the construction of the wall and its associated regime create a fait accompli on the ground that could well become permanent, in which case, and notwithstanding the formal characterisation of the wall by Israel, it would be tantamount to de facto annexation," it said.

Israel, which refused to put its case to the court because it said the ICJ had no jurisdiction, has previously argued that the fourth Geneva convention governing the treatment of civilians in occupied territories, and various elements of international humanitarian law, are not applicable in the West Bank.

The court said otherwise and called on other signatories to the Geneva convention to ensure they are upheld. It also referred its ruling back to the UN.

"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 and the associated regime," it said.

Israel's justice minister, Yosef Lapid, said hat whatever the UN general assembly may decide, his government would only recognise decisions by Israel's own courts.

Last week the high court in Jerusalem ordered that the route of part of the barrier be changed because of its impact on Palestinians but said construction was legal as a security measure.







The Guardian - UK - 10 July:
If the Palestinians have their way, historians will look back on yesterday's court ruling against the vast West Bank barrier as the decision that mobilised the world to end Israeli occupation.

The ruling by the international court of justice in The Hague is non-binding, and has already been rejected by Israel as politicised and one-sided.

But Palestinian lawyers heralded yesterday's victory as a milestone. They have in mind the path trod three decades ago, after the same court ruled that South Africa was illegally occupying Namibia. That set in motion votes in the UN general assembly and security council that established international sanctions against the apartheid regime, which evolved into a popular global boycott of South African goods and sport, contributing to the long-term collapse of white rule.

Yesterday, the world court called on the UN general assembly and security council to press Israel to comply with the ruling, and on signatories to the Geneva conventions, including the US and Britain, to meet their legal requirement to ensure the Jewish state respects international law.

"Palestinians are looking to Namibia 1971 as a precedent," said Anwar Darkazally, a legal adviser to the Palestine Liberation Organisation who worked on the case. "Namibia is not perfect as a precedent because it was 17 years before South Africa ended its involvement and obviously we don't want this conflict to go on that long. But I think this is a milestone; the symbolism of non-violent legal action against Israel we can use to start pushing."

There is likely to be overwhelming backing for the world court ruling in the UN general assembly, but the security council is a different matter. Israel expects Washington to veto any security council resolution in support of enforcing the world court's decision. Jonathon Peled, a foreign ministry official, said Israel was also pressing other countries to block support for the ruling.

"Israel has a very close dialogue with the American administration and our European friends to discuss the implications of this advisory opinion and to enlist their assistance and their cooperation in preventing the Palestinians from exploiting United Nations and international bodies for their political gain," he said.

Israel believes it can count on British support. The UK has criticised the barrier but opposed the world court hearing the case on jurisdictional grounds.

Mr Darkazally says the Palestinians may not press it all the way to the security council. "It would highlight America's role as a friend of Israel and I'm not sure the Palestinians actually want to isolate the Americans."

But he believes that the world court ruling could be the launch pad for other forms of international pressure such as popular boycotts of Israeli goods in some European countries.

"I think this is a chance for those campaigns to get many more people behind them on the basis that Israel will be branded a pariah state, a state that does not comply with international law and a state that cannot really hold its head up and claim it's the only democracy in the Middle East," he said.

"I would hope the knock-on effects of that would be the boycott of Israeli goods in shops, the boycott of holidays in Israel and really trying to employ the sort of popular economic pressure that was very successful against South Africa."

The Palestinians say they will also look to some European countries to exert pressure through Israel's trade agreement with the EU, which includes a clause requiring the Jewish state to adhere to certain human rights standards.

The Israelis dismiss any possibility of the Palestinians mobilising an international boycott, in part because they are offended by comparisons with the apartheid regime and also because they believe that many will not take a strong stand so long as suicide bombers keep killing.

Gideon Meir, a senior foreign ministry official, says that events on the ground, led by Ariel Sharon's plan to pull all the Jewish settlers out of Gaza, will overtake attempts to whip up international action.

"It won't happen because it's a different situation [to South Africa]. We have a rightwing government already committed to a two-state solution," he said. "But let's assume the Palestinians score political points in public opinion, does this bring them close to a Palestinian state?"

That is also the question posed by Palestinian armed groups such as Hamas, who ask what the point is in fighting legal battles when Israel and the US are so ready to reject court rulings they do not like.

"The Jews tell us we are outlaws but look what happens when Palestinians win in court," said Sami Abu Zuhri, the Hamas spokesman in Gaza. "We already know what international law says: that we have the right of armed resistance against the occupation."