The International Court of Justice (ICJ) gave its much awaited verdict on the wall that Israel has been building, in blatant disregard for Palestinians' rights, international opinion and law on the occupied West Bank. In a fourteen to one - no prizes for guessing right that the only dissenting opinion came from an American judge - the Court said that if the barrier became permanent that would be tantamount to a "de facto annexation".
It called for an immediate halt to the construction of the wall, and that its sections, which encroach on Palestinian territory, should be dismantled. It also said that the barrier infringed upon the rights of the Palestinian residents whose homes and farmland have been seized or destroyed, telling Israel to pay compensation for the hardship caused to the affectees of the barrier - better known in the region as the New Berlin Wall.
Aware of the fact that it had no legal or moral standing to build the barrier, Israel had boycotted the proceedings though it did try to mount a huge propaganda campaign that included transportation, all the way from Israel to The Hague, of a bus that had been destroyed in a suicide bombing, to display outside the Court and invoke sympathies. Of course, there was no way the other side could collect, for exhibition, all the missiles that Israeli helicopter gunships, tanks, and naval boats fired or the bombs F-16-warplanes dropped on Palestinian habitations, killing thousands, many of them small children or teen-aged boys. Neither could they reassemble scores of their homes destroyed by Israeli bulldozers to bring them for display at The Hague.
Still, they had a strong legal and moral case to make in the Court. And as expected, the Palestinian position stands vindicated and that of Israel thoroughly rejected.
So what is Israel going to do now? What it has been doing all along, ie, refusal to comply with all UN resolutions, international laws and conventions. In keeping with its usual conduct, the Zionist state has made it clear that it has no intention of submitting to the ICJ verdict. It has offered some flimsy arguments in its defence, such as that it is "inappropriate" for the Court to issue a ruling on a "political issue". But then all international disputes are political in one way or another. In any case, it is not for Israel to decide which issue falls within or outside of the ICJ jurisdiction.
More importantly, it must remember that the Court was asked by no less a body than the UN General Assembly to assess "the legal consequences" of building the wall, which is basically a part of Israel's land grab schemes.
The Zionist state has also declared its intention to defy the ICJ ruling on the ground that it has the right to defend itself against what it calls "Palestinian terrorism". If security indeed is its main consideration in building the illegal barrier that separates Palestinian families from their relations, schools, and farmlands, there are easier ways to achieve that goal.
It should build that barrier on its own land, on its side of the Green Line that marks the pre-1967 borders, rather than on the occupied Palestinian lands; or it can resort to an even better solution which would be to end the occupation - the root cause of all violence. Notably, the only time the Israelis enjoyed peace and security was during the slow but visible implementation of the Oslo Accords.
The ongoing Intifada was triggered by Ariel Sharon's provocative visit to the holy sites on the Temple of the Mount, and sustained by Israel's decision to dump the peace accords and ignore its commitments to a phased withdrawal from the occupied territories.
Israel is also dismissive of the ICJ verdict on the ground that such verdicts are not binding and constitute mere "advisory opinion". Technically, that is true. However, it is also true that they carry immense moral weight which is why all the previous ICJ decisions, numbering more than twenty, have been implemented.
There is no reason why it should be any different this time round. The Palestinians have rightly demanded that the international community should impose sanctions on Israel "for its violation of the international law". That though is not likely to happen. For the unfortunate reality is that Israel's protector, the US, regards itself and its protégé both above all international laws and conventions.
It will yet again use its veto in the UN Security Council if the issue of sanctions comes up before the world body, further reinforcing the growing anti-US sentiment worldwide.
Comments
Comments are closed.