The world now acknowledges that the Palestinians have the moral and legal upper hand, writes Lamis Andoni The landmark victory for the Palestinians at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague has dramatically altered the dynamics of the political process by identifying the root cause of the Israeli-Arab conflict as Israel's illegal occupation and consequent annexation of Palestinian lands. The international setback for Israel handed the isolated and battered Palestinian leadership an unprecedented opportunity to counter Israel's strategy of perverting "the peace process" into a mechanism to consolidate its grip on the occupied territories. The Palestinian leadership, revitalised by the rush of international support, has already taken its diplomatic battle to United Nations to seek a binding agreement and timetable to force Israel to tear down the segregation wall, undo its de facto land grab and end the displacement of thousands of Palestinian families. At a meeting that followed last week's verdict, Palestinian leaders agreed in principle that the ICJ verdict should form the cornerstone of the Palestinian strategy. They also argued that it should be used to promote the US roadmap towards the formation of a Palestinian state. Others, especially the more sceptical members of Fateh and leftist PLO groups, believed that the verdict should be used to prevent Israel from emphasising its own "security needs" instead of focusing on the future status of Palestinian lands. "The Hague decision has stripped Israel of the legality of its argument that its security justifies its aggression, occupation and annexation of lands," said Abdul-Kareem Samerai -- also known by his nom de guèrre Abu Leila, a leader of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Abu Leila and other Fateh leaders argue that only a strategy that focuses on the illegality of the occupation could prevent Israel and the US from keeping Israeli security as the major political focus. "The PA cannot use the verdict only for short-term gains. It has to be a real strategy that starts with getting the UN to vote," Abu Leila explained. PA officials are also wary of the emerging political coalition between Ariel Sharon and the opposition led by Shimon Perez. They fear the political gambit is aimed at lessening, if not aborting, the political repercussions of the ICJ decision on Israel. The inclusion of Perez is seen as dangerous by the Palestinians because he had previously played a crucial role in exposing Sharon's deceitful international image and revealing Israel's immoral actions through his articulate preaching of "peace". The US has already stepped up pressure on Arab countries and the Palestinians to not seek a resolution at either the UN General Assembly or the Security Council. The American administration has also been consulting with Israel to ensure that the emerging coalition boosts its effort to combat the ICJ decision and prevent it from becoming a basis for a campaign against Israel. Stephen Hadley and Elliot Abrams, two envoys from the US National Security Council, have been entrusted with the Middle East region and recently met with Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei and Sharon. Their talks with the Palestinians were limited to the emerging Israeli political coalition and Israeli security demands. "They did not have much to tell us. They did not even discuss The Hague verdict or the wall. The trip was primarily about helping Israel in its political crisis," a Palestinian official who attended the meeting in Rammallah said. The Palestinians, however, started the meeting by stressing that the ICJ resolution made an unequivocal demand that Israel stop violating international law and proclaimed that the Palestinians would continue their demands "in deference to international law". The two American officials, known for their hawkish pro- Likudnik views, asked few questions of their Palestinians hosts. Hadley, who is also know for supporting the "regime change in Iraq" since the early 1990s, focused on understanding the "security implications" of an Israel unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, the possible outcome of Palestinian elections and Palestinian security reforms. The American emphasis on security issues has become standard at such meetings, because the roadmap, which Yasser Arafat has been clinging to as an alternative to Sharon's plan, includes a list of stipulations aimed at ending the Intifada and stripping Arafat from control of security operations. Therefore, official Palestinian moves are expected to be confined to promoting the integration of a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Gaza into the roadmap. Palestinian insistence on the roadmap is based on the fact that it is the only document endorsed by America which has the establishment of a Palestinian state as its final outcome. Although the process does not prohibit the building of settlements and other Israeli actions. Palestinian minister Ghassan Al-Khatib, believes that if the Palestinians succeed at the United Nations, then the illegality of the occupation would be reconfirmed in the political process. In other words, some PA officials hope that the emphasis on the illegality of the occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem will undermine Israeli plans to create a fragmented Israeli-controlled Palestinian puppet state. Diplomats within the Palestinian ranks disagree on whether to keep the roadmap as the main strategy for Palestinian moves or to redefine their tactics and attempt to end the occupation and regain the occupied territories and Palestinian rights. The other internal argument revolves around the timing of their case with the UN. The PLO has already pushed for a resolution at the General Assembly, where an appeal to the Palestinians' plight would all but guarantee a majority vote for a resolution. But the argument continues on when to move to the UN Security Council. Initially there were reports that the Palestinian leadership was postponing its UN appeal until the November US Presidential elections are over. Khatib later clarified to Al-Ahram Weekly that the Palestinians were going immediately to the UN General Assembly but were still considering the most opportune moment to move to the Security Council. "If we go the UN Security Council immediately, the US would try to abort our momentum with a veto. We have to build more international support and make concrete gains in the General Assembly before going to the Security Council," Khatib said. He also confirmed that the PA prefers to go to the Security Council after the American elections. But for many Palestinians, encouraged by the recent legal and political victories, there are fears that a combination of Israeli and American pressure, Arab political paralysis and Palestinian leadership questions could squash their rare ray of hope in this continuous saga of destruction. Legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territory Excerpts: * 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, and to repeal or render ineffective forthwith all legislative and regulatory acts relating thereto, in accordance with Paragraph 151 of this Opinion; * Israel is under an obligation to make reparation for all damage caused by the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem; * All States 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; all States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 have in addition the obligation, while respecting the United Nations Charter and international law, to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in that Convention; * 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, taking due account of the present Advisory Opinion. Over the next few days, the battle over the legality of Israel's apartheid wall will shift to the United Nations' headquarters in New York. The General Assembly is scheduled to meet tomorrow, Friday, to take up a draft resolution presented by the group of Arab governments seeking to implement the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling. Meanwhile, the deputy chief of Israel's UN mission, Arye Mekel, said on Saturday that Israel has already started intensive talks with the Europeans to try and get them not to support any General Assembly resolution on the wall. According to Susan Akram, a professor at Boston University School of Law, the General Assembly will take a series of steps in light of the ICJ's guidance on the important questions underlying its advisory ruling. "At the same time," she told Al-Ahram Weekly, "the Security Council is likely to act to take the issue away from the General Assembly, and debate a resolution that addresses the wall in a way favourable to Israel, since the US is the powerful actor at the Security Council and will likely protect Israel from the most serious consequences of this opinion." But while this is likely to be the case, the ICJ's ruling will still have a notable effect, as the ICJ is the final authority in international legal questions, and is heavily cited by both states and legal scholars, said Akram. "There will certainly be pressure by the international community in various ways for Israel to conform to the opinion, and the opinion creates an opportunity for those states who are concerned about compliance with international law to have the legal authorisation to separately and collectively [through the UN] take measures against Israel to cease construction of the wall." Aware of the ICJ's potential, the Israeli government rejected the ruling, openly announcing it would deploy all its efforts to "undermine" the opinion. The ruling referred to the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza Strip as "occupied territories", rather than as "disputed territories", as Israel has claimed since its occupation of these areas in 1967. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon ordered the Israeli army to accelerate the construction of the wall in the central West Bank, ignoring an earlier ruling by the Israeli Supreme Court to minimise the damage inflicted by the wall on the Palestinians. The wall seriously disrupts the daily lives of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians as it cuts off farmers from their land and separates tens of thousands from their schools, jobs and essential services. Upon completion, the wall will have effectively ensured the annexation of more than 55 per cent of the West Bank into Israel, rendering the prospect of a viable Palestinian state virtually impossible.
