WARNING: This is a high volume ping list
Posted on 02/24/2004 5:46:37 AM PST by SJackson
The International Court of Justice opened its second day of hearings on Tuesday with seven countries arguing the legality of the West Bank security fence before the United Nations court at The Hague.
The "wall" will push more refugees into our country, argued Jordanian Prince Zeid Ra'ad Zeid Al-Hussein before the International Court of Justice at The Hague, early Tuesday afternoon.
"With the exception of the Palestinians themselves, we believe it is us who are the ones most affected by Israel's decision to place the wall where it has, and where it intends to do so in the future," said Al-Hussein, who is Jordan's permanent representative to the United Nations.
"My country already hosts a number of refugees and displaced persons and my country is now faced with the new threat of refugees" as a result of the barrier that Israel is constructing, said Al-Hussein.
Much like Belize and a number of other countries who testified before the court since the proceedings opened on Monday, Al-Hussein said that no one questions Israel's right to construct a security barrier within its own borders. The problem is that the majority of the fence exists within "occupied" territory.
"If the wall had been constructed wholly within Israel's sovereign territory, these proceedings would not have come about," said Al-Hussein.
Like the Palestinians before him, Jordan's legal representative to the court, Sir Arthur Watts argued that the court did have jurisdiction on this matter. The United States and Europe have argued that the court lacks jurisdiction. It is for this reasons that they have boycotted the proceedings, even though they also believe that the fence should not be constructed in the territories.
They, along with Israel, have also said that the ICJ should not be interfering in a local dispute between two parties with the consent of both the Israelis and the Palestinians.
But Watts said that the court is not being asked to settle the dispute. It is merely answering a request by the General Assembly as to the legal consequences which follow from Israel's decision to construct the fence.
The dispute is not between Israel and the Palestinians, but Israel and the United Nations, said Watts. For 37 years Israel has refused to act according to the UN view that the West Bank is "occupied territory," said Watts.
Belize: The wall is an illusion
"The wall is an illusion," which will increase hatred more than it will guarantee security, Belize argued as it opened the second of three days of oral testimonies before the International court of Justice.
Belize argued that no one is protesting Israel's right to secure borders, rather it and other countries are opposed to the construction of a barrier beyond the pre-1967 border into what it is considers to be "occupied territory."
Cuba, Indonesia and Jordan will follow Belize in presenting their arguments before the court in the morning session and Madagascar, Malaysia and Senegal will argue before the court in the afternoon.
On Monday, the Palestinian legal team told the court that the security fence imperils the road map peace plan and destroys any hope of peace or an independent Palestinian state.
Battle outside the court continues
Pro-Israeli demonstrators were protesting the court proceedings outside the ICJ for the second morning in a row. They stood in a circle in front of the bombed out shell of bus No. 19 in which 11 people were killed last month, holding signs and singing peace songs.
To counter the hearings, which Israel is boycotting, the Foreign Ministry, the Jewish Agency, and the World Union of Jewish Students is planning a day of counter events.
They plan to hold their own trial for terrorism in the afternoon with victims of terror and a number of European parliament members, followed by a candle lit vigil in the evening.
Meanwhile Tuesday, the bombed out shell of Bus No. 19 pulled away from the ICJ on it's way to the United States.
The bus, in which 11 people were killed in Jerusalem last month, was parked in front of the Hague to show that it is terrorism and not the fence which should be on trial in front of the court. It was brought there by Zaka (Disaster Victims Identification)
"For the first time the people of Europe have understood what we have been going through for the last three years," said Zelig Feiner. "If a picture is worth a thousands words, than this bus is worth a million," he said.
PA: 'Wall' prevents two-state solution
Palestinian Authority envoy to the UN Nasser al-Kidwa told the court Monday that the "wall" will "render the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict practically impossible."
"The wall is not about security," he said. "It is about entrenching the occupation and the de facto annexation of large areas of Palestinian land." He condemned suicide bombings, but blamed Israel for the violence, explaining that it is the result the of "occupation."
Israel, the US, and Europe have absented themselves from the proceedings, arguing that the court lacks jurisdiction in this matter.
They have also argued that a ruling by the court imperils the peace process, including the US-backed road map, through which it is hoped a solution will be found.
Outside the courtroom on Monday, pro-Israeli supporters held up pictures of the victims and sang songs of peace.
They held up the Israeli flag and signs saying, "ICJ: Justice or politics?"
They argued the fence is saving lives and Palestinians argued that it is victimizing them. But running alongside this debate is the question of the right of the court to hear advisory cases in general and this case in particular.
Speaking at a press conference organized by B'nai B'rith Monday, US Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) said: "We are here to send an unequivocal message to the ICJ and the UN, that the case pending against Israel impunes the integrity of the court of justice, deligitimizes the UN, and undermines the fragile multilateral diplomatic process that is under way."
He noted that the court has not intervened in other cases where security barriers exist, such as in Cyprus between the Greeks and the Turks or between India and Pakistan.
"I think it is somewhat telling that the resolution passed by the UN General Assembly in supposed concern for the Palestinian people failed to mention the fact that over 900 Israelis have been killed," Wexler said.
PA lawyer: Court should issue advisory opinion
International lawyer James Crawford spent a good portion of his Monday morning argument for the Palestinians defending the court's right to hear the case.
In so doing, he brought legal arguments written to the court by Israel and others disputing that right into the oral proceedings. "The court should not in principal refuse to give an advisory opinion," he said.
A number of countries which submitted written arguments complained that a ruling on this matter politicizes the court, said Crawford, but it is precisely with respect to political matters that a legal opinion is needed.
He further dismissed the idea that this is local dispute which should be settled between the two parties.
"Israel and Palestine are not two member states of the United Nations, and the dispute over the wall is not a pre-existing bilateral dispute on a matter falling in principle within Israel's domestic jurisdiction," Crawford said. "There is no pre-existing bilateral dispute arising between Israel and Palestine.
"Rather, the wall is an attempt by Israel to impose a unilateral settlement in relation to a multilateral conflict and to do so in violation of fundamental obligations. These relate to humanitarian law and human rights, including self-determination. The people of Palestine have an unfulfilled right to self-determination.
"Israel cannot veto or negate the interests of the General Assembly in having a legal answer to the questions asked. Indeed that interest and the General Assembly's long standing and legitimate institutions role is a compelling reason for answering the question.
"If a veto in principle does not exist, then it can not be created by a back door of refusing to present substantive arguments," he said.
"Anyway, the basic facts are clear. The dominant fact is the $2 billion fact of the wall growing daily and dividing Palestinian communities from each and from their lands and water."
He added that the "wall is inconsistent with the road map, and the wall, if allowed to be completed, will destroy the road map."
South Africa: It is a wall to enforce the occupation
South Africa sent its deputy foreign minister to back the Palestinian case, arguing that the security fence is a bid to annex territory.
"It is not a security wall. It is a wall to enforce the occupation," Aziz Pahad told the court.
He asked the court to rule that the security fence violates international law.
Pahad said that the court's 1971 ruling that South Africa's occupation of Namibia was illegal led to international sanctions against the apartheid government and contributed to its downfall in 1994.
Precisely.
WARNING: This is a high volume ping list
Maybe this legal charade isn't as bad as it seemed.
If there is a true international consensus that Israel could build the fence in its own land, then the only dispute is where Israel's borders are.
According to UN Resolution 242, passed after the 1967 war, Israel was required to give up "territories" (not THE territories") it acquired in that war as part of a comprehensive peace. Despite virtually constant Israeli efforts over the years, that peace still has not come.
Therefore, if Israel's hold on the West Bank (and Gaza Strip, if that were applicable) can be found legal under international law, there would be no basis for objection to the fence.
Therefore, it seems to me, the only issue is whether there is a legal reason for Israel to accept the 1949 armistice lines (pre-1967 Israel) as its final border.
The Fourth Geneva Convention, of which Israel is a signatory nation, would be one legal reason.
Nobody wants 'em!!!!
There’s tons of room up in Canada, and its way nicer than the desert.
There, I just solved the Middle East problem.
But we'll need a fence.
" I assume you'll cite text."
On the above? Hardly -- that's a pretty strict standard, isn't it?
"In February 1999 the GA adopted a resolution calling for a special U.N. session in Geneva to examine "persistent violations" by Israel. International efforts led by the United States were successful in scaling down a special U.N. meeting held in Geneva on July 15, 1999. The closed-door meeting lasted a mere 45 minutes. However, a resolution was unanimously passed stating that the Fourth Geneva Convention does apply to Israeli settlements in the "occupied territories."
-- adl.org/israel/israel_geneva.asp
If Israel were to dismantle the settlements in the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights which are violating the Fourth Geneva Convention and numerous UN Resolutions, they can then build the fence along the Green Line.
The General Assembly? GA resolutions are non-binding. Dozens of them are passed every year against Israel.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.