Israeli officials scrambled to minimise the impact of the court ruling on the wall of separation. Emad Gad provides a few examples The opinion issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at The Hague declaring Israel's separation wall in the West Bank illegal was the source of much concern in Israel this week. While the Palestinian Authority, the Arab League, various Arab capitals and the European Union welcomed the news, Israel expressed its contempt for the judgement, saying it would not implement the ruling. As the United States declared that the ICJ was not the appropriate place to raise issues of a political nature, the Israeli government followed suit, clearly expressing its rejection of the ruling, saying that if it accepted the judgement, it would be subject to pressure in other areas as well. As a result, Israel would open itself up to the intervention of "others" who might dictate their own agenda. The ICJ ruling confirmed that the separation wall being constructed by Israel is a violation of international law. It called on Israel to cease construction, demolish parts of the wall built thus far, and return the property of Palestinians damaged by the wall and compensate them. Disagreeing with Israeli claims, which were summarised in a written brief presented to the court, the ICJ confirmed that it does have the authority to consider the issue of the separation wall, which it described as "established on occupied Palestinian lands". The justices rejected the Israeli claim that the wall is a security necessity. "With the construction of its separation wall, Israel has violated international humanitarian law and international human rights law due to the infringement on the freedom of movement of Palestinian civilians and their educational and health rights," the court wrote in the brief of the verdict. In a summary of the opinion, the justices called on the United Nations to discuss the steps that must be taken "to end the unbearable situation created by the wall, reinforce a police presence for this purpose, and take the opinion of the court into consideration". Following the declaration of the verdict, the Israeli Foreign Ministry said it was shocked. Sources at the ministry said that it was an undoubtedly difficult situation but that Israel was only bound by a decision from the Israeli High Court of Justice. "We are disappointed that the report did not mention terrorism," one source said. "How can a court discussing a reaction to terrorism not even discuss the issue of terrorism itself?" For his part, Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom remarked, "Israel will continue to build the separation wall. The Palestinians would be better off taking responsibility for their destiny and leaving aside operations." He added, "The fact that the advisory opinion issued by the court did not take up terrorism proves that we are dealing with a one-sided political process. The wall is a non-violent, defensive reaction." Israeli President Moshe Katsav called on the Israeli government and the security establishment to continue with the construction of the separation wall. "The International Court of Justice in The Hague erred in its ruling," he said. "It should have examined this issue, which is about people's lives and terrorism." Katsav described the wall as a "security wall", and he confirmed its usefulness. He added that in any case, the wall was not permanent and could be removed under the terms of any future negotiations. Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert commented that the ICJ's ruling was expected. "There's nothing surprising about this ruling except for the extreme disregard for the problem of terrorism," he said. "On one hand, there are lethal attacks that are taking the lives of women and children while, on the other hand, there is a wall that may upset the lives of some people but does not kill, maim or create orphans and disabled." Olmert added, "Writing hundreds of pages without mentioning terrorism and its consequences can only be done by an authority that has lost its ethical values." "The capital of Israel is Jerusalem, not The Hague," commented Israeli Minister of Justice Tommy Lapid. "The Israeli High Court of Justice will decide the issue, not the ICJ." He added, "The ruling is about a political issue and should not have gone to The Hague in the first place. It is not a ruling but an advisory opinion requested by the UN. We have become accustomed to being a minority in the UN. We have lived this way for 56 years and we'll continue to live with it. All of this is simply incidental, serving the interests of Palestinian propaganda." Lapid also said, "We are not considering implementing the ruling. I think that a recommendation was made before the court convened its first session. It's a transparent game. This was just a call from the UN to which the court responded... It has not increased the court's standing." MK Ehud Yatom (Likud) commented on the opinion, "Although the wall separates Jews from Jews and Palestinians from Palestinians and is creating an international problem for Israel, the ruling must be condemned." He added, "The court's ruling is the result of absolute blindness towards the real victims and a disregard for the reason behind the construction of the wall: the Palestinian refusal to make peace with Israel." As for the leader of the opposition and the head of the Labour Party, Shimon Peres, he commented, "The court at The Hague ignored the fact that the right to life is a basic human right. The impact of The Hague is its ability to issue a ruling against terrorism, not only against those who fight it. The problems caused by the course of the wall must be settled through negotiations, not through the courts." Meanwhile, Arab parties and organisations and peace movements welcomed the court's decision. The leader of the Knesset's Democratic Front for Peace and Equality bloc, Mohamed Barakeh, welcomed the court's opinion, describing it is as necessary. "The objective of the separation wall is not to prevent violence because the wall itself was and remains violence," he said. "It is a colonial project whose objective is to annex land and make the lives of Palestinians miserable, in hopes that they will emigrate. Israel cannot ignore the decision at The Hague and abolish it. If it does, it will only help to isolate itself from the international community." MK Ahmed Tibi, who attended the opening sessions at the ICJ, was also pleased with the ruling. He called on the Israeli government to respond to the ruling and asked it to consider its justifications, which he described as having great weight. "The wall creates suffering and violates international law," Tibi said. "The international community will ostracise Israel if it remains a rogue nation that tramples on the basic rights of Palestinians." To learn more about the separation wall, its course, its impact, the ruling from The Hague, and the controversy over the ruling in Israel, visit the website of Arabs Against Discrimination (www.aad-online.org)
