UNprecedented Decision

[abu afak]

Had Enough?
The U.N. handicaps Israel, along with the rest of us.

By Anne Bayefsky

The recent decision on Israel's security fence by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the U.N.'s legal arm, is a classic example of how the vilification of Jews does not end with Jews.

United Nations mistreatment of the Jewish state takes many forms, from the refusal to admit Israel into the negotiating and electoral groups of many U.N. operations, to Israel's demonization by U.N. human-rights machinery applied to no other state. Though antithetical to the U.N.'s founding principle of the equality of nations large and small, many believe that the consequences of these facts of U.N.-life can be confined to Jewish self-determination. The ICJ has proved them wrong.

U.N. ASSAULT

The Court has declared four new rules about the meaning of the right of self-defense in the face of terrorism today:

(1) There is no right of self-defense under the U.N. Charter when the terrorists are not state actors.
(2) There is no right of self-defense against terrorists who operate from any territory whose status is not finalized, and who therefore attack across disputed borders.
(3) Where military action is perpetrated by "irregulars," self-defense does not apply if the "scale and effects" of the terrorism are insufficient to amount to "an armed attack...had it been carried out by regular armed forces." (The scale in this case is 860 Israeli civilians killed in the last three years — the proportional equivalent of at least 14 9/11's.)
(4) Self-defense does not include nonviolent acts, or in the words of Judge Rosalyn Higgins: "I remain unconvinced that non-forcible measures (such as the building of a wall) fall within self-defence under Article 51 of the Charter."

These conclusions constitute a direct assault on the ability of every U.N. member to fight international terrorism. The U.N. Charter was not a suicide pact and Security Council resolutions in response to 9/11 were intended to strengthen the capacity to confront violent non-state actors, not defeat it.

Having couched their analysis in general terms, however, some of the judges were concerned that the go-ahead for Palestinian suicide bombers might not be obvious enough. So Judge Abdul Koroma of Sierra Leone wrote: "It is understandable that a prolonged occupation would engender resistance." Judge Nabil Elaraby of Egypt said, "Throughout the annals of history, occupation has always been met with armed resistance. Violence breeds violence." He "wholeheartedly subscribe[d] to the view" that there is "a right of resistance." Judge Hisashi Owada of Japan spoke of the "the so-called terrorist attacks by Palestinian suicide bombers against the Israeli civilian population."

The judges need not have worried. Within hours a joint statement from Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Yasser Arafat's Fatah organization announced: "We salute the court's decision." Proclaimed a Hamas communiqué "The racial wall represents the true image of the Zionist entity...The Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, welcomes the ICJ's decision and considers it a good step in the right direction.... We stress the need to continue our efforts and use all available means to stop the construction of the racial wall and remove its effects." The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine issued a statement hailing the ruling as "a step forward." This judgment clearly played very well to an audience from the State Department's list of foreign terrorist organizations.

[......]

Furthermore, said the Court, the right of self-defense does not apply against Palestinian terrorism because it operates from Israeli-controlled territory and is therefore not international. The international borders between Iran, the departure point of the arms-laden ship Karine-A and its intended port in Gaza, or between Damascus, headquarters of The Front for the Liberation of Palestine's General Command, and suicide bombers in Haifa, apparently slipped the judges' minds.


LONG ROAD

These legal results did not materialize in a vacuum: They were the product of the Court's insidious historical revisionism and selectivity. The 1948 war was not an aggressive assault on the nascent Jewish state by combined Arab forces after their rejection of the U.N. Partition Plan. Instead, "On 14 May 1948 Israel proclaimed its independence...armed conflict then broke out between Israel and a number of Arab States and the Plan of Partition was not implemented." The 1967 war was not another of the five successive wars Israel has been forced to wage by successive Arab rejectionists. Instead, "the 1967 armed conflict broke out between Israel and Jordan." The pre-1967 status of the territories as either "disputed" or "occupied" is crucial to the legal issues. Occupied territory requires that the land previously have belonged to somebody else. But the Court said: "there [is] no need for any enquiry into the precise prior status of those territories."

Judge Elaraby apparently forgot he was no longer Egyptian Ambassador to the United Nations — a post he held until 1999 — and used his judicial robes to deliberately misrepresent the content of Security Council Resolution 242. In his words "Resolution 242...called for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from the territories occupied in the conflict." In fact, painstaking negotiations resulted in the omission of "the" before the word territories. 242 speaks of "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict..." precisely so as not to pre-judge the outcome of negotiations over ownership of the territories or future lines of withdrawal.

Having decided that the historical ownership of the territories prior to 1967 is irrelevant, the Court took it upon itself to determine that today all of the territories "which before the [1967] conflict lay to the east of the Green Line" "including East Jerusalem" are "Palestinian territories" It did not matter that the parties to the conflict have agreed that final borders and the status of Jerusalem will be determined by negotiation. Instead, Judge/Ambassador Elaraby used his judicial pulpit to advance a long-held U.N. strategy of imposing results. Having misstated Israel's obligation under 242, he claimed: "It is...politically unsound to...confin[e] it [242's obligations] to a negotiating process." Or as Jordanian Judge Awn Al-Khasawneh, a representative of Jordan at the U.N. General Assembly for 17 years until the mid-1990s, said: "The discharge of international obligations...cannot be made conditional upon negotiations" — international obligations to negotiate notwithstanding.

Into this cumulative distortion of history and law was injected the biggest U.N. deception of all. The Court's operating premise (accurately described by Elaraby) was simply this: "Occupation, as an illegal and temporary situation, is at the heart of the whole problem." A 56-year Arab campaign to end the "Judaization" of the region — as a U.N. Human Rights Commission resolution describes Jews on Arab land — was totally ignored. Judge Higgins disparagingly describes the Court's behavior (though she refuses to dissent) in a concurring opinion: "the Court states that it 'is indeed aware that the question of the wall is part of a greater whole, and it would take this circumstance carefully into account in any opinion it might give.' In fact, it never does so."

[..]

Therefore, it is no surprise that within a week the Court's decision has become the subject of another 10th General Assembly Emergency Session — reconvened for the thirteenth time to condemn Israel and to call for a plethora of future activities intended to further demonize and isolate the Jewish state. Taking their cue from Annan, who immediately pounced on the decision to make demands of Israel, there will be no pause for a single emergency session of the General Assembly on the millions dead or dying in Sudan.

[...]

It was no accident that the only dissenting opinion on the merits of the case came from Tom Buergenthal, a child survivor of the concentration camps of Auschwitz and Sachsenhausen. He needed no lessons about the face of evil, its methodologies, and its consequences. How sad for the rule of law that he spoke alone.

The Arab drive to destroy the state of Israel has debased the U.N., sullied its charter, perverted the meaning of human rights, and ransacked international law and its highest Court. How many more of the universal ideals upon which our world depends must be desecrated before we say "enough"?

http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0407171024.asp

Anne Bayefsky is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.

[Mediocrates]

http://www.israelnn.com/image.php?id=40

[CanDo]

The violent, greedy, incompetent Arab pigs, who pretend to be the leaders of the Arab nations, keep their own people in misery. These Arab thugs sure don't want to see the Arabs living in Israel have a higher standard of living than their own Arab people.

Plus...... it is embarrassing to ALL Muslim countries to witness the Jews of Israel having a much higher standard of living and individual freedoms than the Muslims within Muslim countries.

Combine the world's jealousy and envy of Jewish achievement, with the corrupt governments of most of the world, and you get stupid, mindless, disgusting, dishonest rulings by the "world body". The "world body" is comatose.

[Mediocrates]

http://zioneocon.blogspot.com/2004/0...rth-along.html

Sunday, July 18, 2004
"They have reasons"

Steve North along the barrier with British "journalists"
Special to The Jewish Week

The Israel Defense Forces were taking foreign reporters on a tour of the “separation fence” late last month, days before Israel’s Supreme Court balanced humanitarian and security considerations, ordering the army to remove a small portion of the barrier and re-route other sections that might impose undue hardships on Palestinians.

Conducting our tour was a lieutenant colonel named Shai, the former battalion commander for the area. Also in the van: an IDF spokesman and the two Brits: Harriet, a foreign editor of the influential UK publication The Guardian, and Martin, a correspondent for the Times of London.

Shai, a wiry, upbeat, fast-talking Israeli with a desert-dry sense of humor, pointed to the bustling highway that skirts the town.

“This is Route 6, the main route between the north and south,” he said. “It’s a toll road. I’m not sure how it is in England, but I don’t know any Israeli that will pay money to get shot. We don’t like that over here, so we built this wall to make sure no Palestinians can shoot onto the road.” (Less than 4 percent of the barrier is comprised of concrete walls, which are used only in sniper-prone areas).

While Shai was in charge of the area, a terrorist had opened fire on an Israeli family returning from a wedding. A 7-year-old girl was killed; Shai removed her body from the car.

“When you take out a child with a big hole in her chest,” he said, pointing to the spot where the attack occurred, “you understand why you need this wall. We measured the angle from the highest house where a sniper might be hiding to the road and built it accordingly.”

Harriet had a question, but it was not about the horror that Shai, himself a father of young children, had witnessed that day. “So if they build something higher, you’ll raise the wall?” she asked.

No, Shai explained, the army has basically cleared the terrorists out of Kalkilya, so one benefit for the residents is that an Israeli army battalion no longer must be stationed inside the town.

“Wait,” Harriet interrupted, “are you trying to say that the fence is making life better for the Palestinians?”

“In some cases, yes,” replied Shai, echoing recent comments by the head of the Jenin Chamber of Commerce, who said the retreat of the Israeli army following the construction of the security fence has led to a revitalization of business, nightlife and investment in that Palestinian community.


Martin was having none of it. “This wall is killing Kalkilya economically,”he said, clueless to the irony in his choice of words. “Do you see signs of ordinary citizens turning into terrorists because of it?”

I listened without comment.

As we stood next to the wire fence and its motion detectors, Martin asked, “Is it electrified?”

“Touch it and see,” Shai suggested. As we laughed nervously, Shai, then Martin, grabbed the barrier. “It’s electronic,” said the soldier, “not electric. We’re not trying to electrocute them; we’re trying to stop them from coming in and killing us.”

Shai contrasted the numbers of dead Israelis, pre- and post-construction of the fence in the northern region. In a subdued tone, he spoke of the bus with a suicide bomber on board that he happened to be driving behind on Mount Meron two years ago. He was one of the first on the scene, removing bodies and limbs, and giving CPR to a Filipino woman who died in his arms. “You don’t forget something like that,” he concluded, “and it makes you understand why we need this fence.”


But Harriet and Martin persevered. “How long must the Palestinians wait at this checkpoint?” they asked. “Can you shoot them from the fence, or are those just cameras up there? You say you compensate Palestinians if you confiscate land for the fence; what if there are olive trees growing on that section for 100 years — how can you compensate them for that?”
As our tour concluded, I asked some questions of my own. “It seems to me that most of the British coverage I’ve seen of this story is inordinately focused on the inconveniences suffered by the Palestinians due to this fence, as opposed to the Israeli lives it is apparently saving. Why might that be?” I wondered.


After heated denials by both journalists, Martin said, “I could turn the question around. Why is there no coverage in America given to the root causes of terrorism? We try to understand why Palestinian people feel driven to take such extreme measures as suicide bombings. I understand why Israel is building a wall to stop terror, but terrorists only flourish if they have grievances to exploit.”

“Grievances? You know, I’m from New York,” I said. “Should I try to understand the grievances of the terrorists who flew into the World Trade Center?”

“Well, yes,” answered Martin. “I think bin Laden tapped into grievances.”

Harriet chimed in,


“Do you think they just did it for fun?

They have reasons.”



See the pictures at the bottom of the page provided.

[Mediocrates]

"We in this country, in this generation, are -- by destiny rather than choice -- the watchmen on the walls of world freedom. We ask, therefore, that we may be worthy of our power and responsibility, that we may exercise our strength with wisdom and restraint, and that we may achieve in our time and for all time the ancient vision of "peace on earth, good will toward men." That must always be our goal, and the righteousness of our cause must always underlie our strength. For as was written long ago: "except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.""

-- John F. Kennedy, speech planned for 11/22/63

with references to Isaiah 62:6-7 and Psalm 127 in italics.

[abu afak]

Pimping for Palestine
by Shoshana Rubin
Jul 22, '04 / 4 Av 5764

The World Court at the Hague has loudly told the global community that terrorism and an average legal argument will spell victory at the World Court. By omission, the Court told Palestinian Authority Muslims who make human bombs of their own children, in order to kill other children, that they have every right to do so, because they are "occupied" by Israel. The World Court decided Israel has no right to defend herself by erecting an anti-terror wall to keep out suicidal, genocidal killers.

Was the Muslim slaughter of Jews in Hebron, or in Jerusalem, in 1929 due to the anti-terror wall of 2004?

The Palestinians have become the Chosen and the Jews have become the Condemned. The path of the barrier, according to the court opinion read by Judge Shi Jiuyong of China, "gravely" violates Palestinian rights, "and the infringements from that route cannot be justified by military exigencies or by the requirements of national security or public order."

The World Court decided that the Holy Land with its Arab olive groves, grapes and rocks are more important than the lives of Israeli citizens. How many Arab olives are worth one Jewish child? How many Arab grapes are worth one Israeli soldier? How many Arab rocks are worth one Jewish family?

The only surprise about the World Court's decision would be if anybody is surprised. No one is surprised in Israel, or in the Middle East; not in America, in Canada, Latin America, Australia, India, Asia or Europe. How normal is it to expect to be treated unfairly, cynically and with prejudice? The democratic, human- rights abiding World Court has sent the undemocratic PA Muslims a silent and clear message: you have the right to murder and maim Jews wherever you find them and we, who are pimping for Palestine, have no ruling if you choose to murder your own children in order to murder Israeli children, because we find the Wall of 2004 to be an obstacle to "national security or public order."

The Western world is digging its own grave. When Muslims loudly and often declare, "Thanks to your democratic laws, we will invade you. Thanks to our Islamic laws, we will conquer you," does anyone believe these Islamic invaders and conquerors will listen to the esteemed World Court at the Hague?

The Palestinians have become the darlings of a cruel, perverted, leftist Western mentality. This decision by the World Court reveals the reason the citizens of Israel should become more independent. If the West is drowning in self-hatred, how much more do they hate the Jew and blame him for their own self-loathing.

There is nothing Israel can do about a self-loathing Western World. If more Israelis could only see their own beauty, their own humanity, their own very talented, kind and brilliant souls, we wouldn't have to constantly throw ourselves on the mercy and goodwill of the West, which is dangerous to our own survival as a nation and a people. The result of our obsessive, neurotic, insecure dependence can only be the rage and wrath of the world. Are we setting the stage for another Shoah?

http://www.israelnn.com/article.php3?id=3961

[medkorp]

Hi,

The violent, greedy, incompetent Arab pigs, who pretend to be the leaders of the Arab nations, keep their own people in misery. These Arab thugs sure don't want to see the Arabs living in Israel have a higher standard of living than their own Arab people.

It's true most of the leaders in the muslim-arab world are incompetent, but it's not a news ! But you're wrong when you think that muslim or arab are jealous of the israelis standard of living, they are angry by Israel behavior with palestinians, that's all !

Plus...... it is embarrassing to ALL Muslim countries to witness the Jews of Israel having a much higher standard of living and individual freedoms than the Muslims within Muslim countries.

Wrong, arabs doesn't like the behavior of Israel, that's all ! They don't care about the standard of living in Israel, there's a lot of country with such standard, so don't think Israel is the number one !

Combine the world's jealousy and envy of Jewish achievement, with the corrupt governments of most of the world, and you get stupid, mindless, disgusting, dishonest rulings by the "world body". The "world body" is comatose.

Poor guy, everybody is jealous about him...Everybody is jealous of the jewish achievement..., Israel become closer of South Africa, before Mandela of course...

Medkorp

[redcake]

Hi,



It's true most of the leaders in the muslim-arab world are incompetent, but it's not a news ! But you're wrong when you think that muslim or arab are jealous of the israelis standard of living, they are angry by Israel behavior with palestinians, that's all !

So you're saying that the "leaders in the muslim-arab world" care about Palestinians? Is that why they left them at the borders as refugees? Is that why Jordan and Syria killed more Palestinians then anyone? Or why Saudi Arabia expelled tens of thousands of them ? The only Palestinians they care about, are the ones they can use to scapegoat Israel with.

[Mediocrates]

Posted: 7/22/2004 7:16:00 PM
Author: Dan Gillerman
Source: http://www.standwithus.com


Statement by Amb. Gillerman to the UNGA 10th Emergency Session


16 Jul 2004

Statement by UN Ambassador Dan Gillerman to the 10th Emergency Special Session of the 58th UN General Assembly

"Illegal Israeli actions in occupied East Jerusalem
and the rest of the occupied territories."

Mr. President,

For years, if not decades, this assembly has entertained the Palestinian representative's attempts to manufacture a virtual reality. An alternate world in which there is but one victim and one villain, in which there are Palestinian rights but no Palestinian responsibilities, in which there are Israeli responsibilities but no Israeli rights.

This persistent campaign has contributed little to the credibility of the United Nations, and nothing to the cause of peace. It has pushed the parties further apart. With each successive partisan initiative we are left to wonder how can the United Nations contribute to the welfare of both peoples, if it sees the suffering of only one?

Last December, despite the reservations of many states, including the members of the Quartet, the International Court of Justice was dragged into that virtual reality. To add the ICJ to the list of United Nations organs harnessed to this one-sided agenda, a grotesquely distorted question was devised that placed the response to terrorism on trial, but ignored the terrorism itself. The hope was to create so perverted a process that the court would be compelled to ignore the suffering of innocent Israelis from terrorism, and the obligations of the Palestinian side to prevent it. Last Friday, sadly, that hope was realized.

The Israeli and Palestinian peoples do not live in that reality. While states are engaged in studying the Advisory Opinion, Israel is burdened with the heavy responsibility of saving the lives of its citizens from the most brutal of terrorist campaigns. We live in the reality in which, just two days after the opinion was issued, terrorists belonging to Yasser Arafat's Fatah faction attacked a commuter bus in Tel Aviv, killing one woman and injuring 34 others. In a reality where after such a horrific attack, Arafat can make the sickening accusation that Israel orchestrated the murder of its own citizens, and have it pass without comment. This is the reality in which we are seeking out partners in peace, and trying - despite all the difficulties - to create conditions in which both sides can live up to their responsibilities and realize their rights. The path to peace does not lie in The Hague or in New York, it lies in Ramallah and Gaza, from where the terrorism is directed.

We can all agree that our goal must be a situation in which no fences between Israelis and Palestinians are necessary. But delegates are deceived if they think, even for a second, that that goal can be attained by considering the obligations of only one side.

Mr. President,

As you will recall, Israel together with a large number of states did not support the request for this advisory opinion. Like the members of the Quartet and countries such as the United Kingdom, Cameroon, Italy, Canada, Australia, Germany, the Netherlands, and others, we submitted a detailed document to the court noting that the request was inappropriate, a misuse of the advisory opinion procedure and damaging to the Road Map. For its part, Israel could not grant legitimacy to this tainted procedure, or be a fully engaged party in what we knew to be a counterproductive and harmful initiative. We continue to believe that it was wrong for the General Assembly to put the court in this position. Simply put, the assembly put the wrong question before the wrong body, and in so doing made it more difficult for the court, even with the best will in the world, to reach a fair, balanced and helpful response. As noted by Judge Kooijmans of the Netherlands, by politicizing the court, the assembly turned this judicial organ into an actor on the political stage. By being drawn into a partisan procedure, the court has become the latest victim of the Palestinian political campaign, and it is the worse for it.

All those states that expressed concern about this misuse of the advisory process should now be wary of allowing this process to dictate the international agenda. There are already worrying indications that the request last December was a test case, a precedent for further abuse of the court. It would be a grave mistake to allow this essentially political maneuver to undermine the prospects for progress on the ground. And it would be equally dangerous for the assembly's actions to be viewed as rewarding such a misguided and politically motivated recourse to the court.

Key states also warned that isolating one issue out of a complex conflict reserved for political negotiations could only lead to a distorted result. They warned of the lack of legitimacy inherent in a process that placed the victims of terrorism on trial, but spared the murderers of any judicial scrutiny. And they warned that any opinion reached as a result of such a skewed process could only lead to politicization and the misrepresentation and misuse of the law with ramifications well beyond the confines of our conflict. These warnings were all too real, but they were not heeded.

Israel has respect for the institution of the International Court of Justice and we believe in its ideals. We represent a people that knows all too well the cost of living in a society in which individuals are not protected by the balanced application of the rule of law. That is perhaps why we are especially disappointed by the exploitation of the court in this case. We will not be the first state, and certainly not the last, to have differences with the positions expressed in an opinion of the court, its historical and factual analysis or central aspects of its reasoning. We note that other states too, as well as several judges on the court, have serious disagreements with key portions of this opinion. This is not the time or the place to explain those differences in detail. But we are compelled to address a number of aspects of this process that bear directly on the deliberations of the assembly.

Israel is dismayed that in the 60-plus pages of the opinion, it was deemed inappropriate to seriously address the brutal terrorism that innocent Israeli civilians are facing, or the ongoing refusal of the Palestinian leadership to bring that terrorism to an end. Those crimes are the very reason that the fence is being erected, and the court's silence in this regard is deafening. While realizing the constraints placed on the court by the distorted question and the partial dossier placed before it, we find this glaring omission legally inexplicable and morally inexcusable.

We note the deep concerns expressed by Judge Higgins of the United Kingdom, Judge Owada of Japan and others, about the failure to declare in the clearest terms that Palestinian terrorism directed at Israeli civilians is a violation of the basic tenets of international humanitarian and human rights law. We agree that this failure fundamentally undermines the balance and credibility of the opinion.

We also share the concerns of some of the judges on the court regarding the selective reliance on facts and secondary materials, and a historical presentation which, to quote Judge Higgins of the United Kingdom, was "neither balanced nor satisfactory". A presentation that addresses the League of Nations Mandate but ignores the Mandate's express recognition of the Jewish people's right to self-determination in their ancient homeland. A presentation that addresses the wars between Israel and its neighbors as if they materialized out of thin air, rather than as a result of deliberate acts of aggression designed to wipe Israel off the map. We share too the deep reservations about a narrow statement in the opinion that could read as though it questions the right of states to self-defense against terrorism, despite all the evidence in law, Security Council resolutions and state practice to the contrary. There is no justice and no law in such an interpretation. It is not a rule that states can live by.

Israel is occasionally urged to put more faith in international institutions and actors, to trust in their objectivity and their fairness. We are told to have faith that the political manipulation of their noble goals will not be tolerated. What will we tell our citizens now?

[Mediocrates]

Mr. President,

Israel recognizes that, like every measure that tries to prevent acts of terrorism emanating from civilian areas, the security fence raises complex legal and humanitarian issues. Accordingly, the fence and its route are under a process of constant review and change. This process includes giving every affected individual, Palestinian or Israeli, the right to petition Israel's Supreme Court, and numerous such petitions are pending. Indeed, Israel's Supreme Court is one of the few courts in the world, and certainly the only one in the region, that vigorously applies international law to examine the domestic actions of its own government. It is a fiercely independent judicial institution that has earned the respect of jurists and lay people around the world. And it is probably the only court in the entire Middle East in which any Arab can challenge his own government's actions and be assured of justice, rather than jail.

On June 30th, in response to one such petition, Israel's Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling on the security fence. Relying on specific provisions of international humanitarian law, the Israeli Supreme Court recognized Israel's authority to erect a fence as a defensive measure against terrorist attacks. It affirmed also that had the fence been built along the so-called Green line - an arbitrary line that has never served as an international border - that itself would have been evidence that the route was being determined by inappropriate political considerations rather than justifiable security ones.

At the same time, the Israeli Supreme Court stressed that the fence must be carefully balanced against the rights of those affected by it. The court, in a thorough and rigorous judgment, laid out a detailed proportionality test by which such a balance could be reached. It went on to find, by reference to that test, that sections of the fence required rerouting.

There are, of course, important differences between the ruling of the Israeli Supreme Court and the ICJ's Advisory Opinion. The Supreme Court was petitioned by Palestinians and Israelis who wanted practical solutions on the ground; the ICJ was asked a question as part of a political and manipulative campaign. The Israeli Supreme Court sought to find a balance between competing rights; the ICJ was asked only about the rights of one side. Perhaps most important, the Israeli Supreme Court had before it detailed and specific evidence, including witness testimony, on all aspects of routing, its security rationale and associated humanitarian effects; the ICJ was supplied only with partial, outdated and often misleading information. Finally, of course, while the opinion of the international court is advisory only, the Supreme Court ruling is binding upon Israel.

As always, Israel as a country that respects the rule of law, will fully comply with decisions of its courts. Following the judgment of the Israeli Supreme Court, the government announced that it would not only reroute those parts of the fence that were the subject of the petition, but reexamine the entire routing of the fence so as to ensure that it complies with all the requirements of international law. That reexamination has already led to decisions to reroute large portions of the fence. As Israel's court declared, and as the Government of Israel fully accepts: "Only a separation fence built on a base of law will grant security to the state and its citizens. Only a separation route built on the path of law will lead the state to the security so yearned for."

And yet, in the virtual reality created by the General Assembly's request, none of these facts was taken into account. Despite Israel's official objections, there was extensive reliance on a dossier that not only contained inaccuracies and critical omissions, but misrepresented Israel's legal position. The Palestinians and certain other parties appearing before the court grossly distorted the nature of the fence, its purpose, and its actual route. No account was taken of the terrorist threat, no account was taken of the significant changes that continue to be made to the route of the fence; no account was taken of the binding decisions of Israel's Supreme Court, no account was taken of the fact that humanitarian arrangements have been vastly enhanced and continue to be improved.

The views expressed by the ICJ do not relate to the legal authority to erect the fence in principle, but to a "specific course" which the court has presumed to exist by relying primarily on the selective and one-sided information with which it was supplied. The court has reached its opinion on this specific question "on the material before it" - but the material before it refers, in large measure, to a fence that does not exist. Indeed, even if the information before the court had been accurate when presented, it does not reflect the actual route of the fence that is under consideration today.

Examining the legality of the route demands a detailed proportionality assessment. It requires specific knowledge of topographical, security, environmental, and humanitarian considerations at each section of the fence. It requires a thorough appreciation of the precise scope of terrorist attacks that Israelis face and the manner in which the specific route chosen has proven an effective means for thwarting those attacks. Such analysis cannot be based solely on reports about the alleged humanitarian impact of the fence - which are themselves outdated and alarmingly inaccurate. As Judge Buergenthal notes, in the absence of such a detailed and serious examination, it is simply impossible to reach definitive legal conclusions.

We do not believe so complex an issue can be addressed with so little opportunity for forensic examination. We do not believe that definitive conclusions can be reached on so obviously inadequate an evidentiary record. The opinion of the court does not rule out the authority to erect a fence in the West Bank. Indeed, it recognizes that military exigencies and security imperatives could justify the erection of such a fence. But it fails to properly examine those exigencies. And its opinion relates only to a phantom route that bears little resemblance to the route actually under review. It should be considered accordingly.

Mr. President,

We are not impressed by lectures from Palestinian spokesmen about respect for the rule of law. We have all witnessed first hand the extent of the Palestinian leadership's respect for law in its support for a brutal campaign of terrorism that violates every basic legal norm. We have learned of their concern for human rights and humanitarian law, when rejoicing over the murder of innocent citizens in terrorist attacks, not only in Israel but around the world, or when plundering international donor money intended to benefit their own people.

We have heard similar self-righteous rhetoric from some other regimes in our region. Those enraged when Israel seeks to protect itself under extremely difficult conditions, but unable to muster a word of condemnation for the systematic and shocking ethnic cleansing under way in the Sudan, or the violations of basic rights and freedoms in their own countries. This rage and concern, this spirited defense of the rule of law, would carry a little more conviction if it were a little less self-serving. For too many regimes in the region, this declared adherence to the rule of law is advanced only when politically expedient. The cause of peace and the lives of people in the region would be far better served if these states actually held themselves to the standard to which they demand Israel alone to adhere.

For all those that speak so hypocritically of "compliance", "the rule of law," and "outlaw states," let me say this: Are there laws for Israel, and different laws for everybody else? We await to see a supreme court in any of these regimes call on its authorities to alter their security plans, let alone see the authorities abide by such a ruling. We await an advisory opinion or even a single UN resolution that addresses the legal obligations of these regimes to end terrorism, stop hate-filled incitement, and respect the human rights of their own citizens, let alone those of other states. These regimes have the gall to speak of sanctions for a measure that saves lives, we await sanctions for the terrorism they sponsor that takes lives. If these regimes, or the Palestinian Authority - where only this morning armed militants kidnapped the head of their own police force - are entitled to lecture anyone about the rule of law or accuse others of being outlaws we have reached a point where the inmates are running the asylum.

Israel recognizes that it has responsibilities. But it is not alone. The Palestinian side calls on Israel to comply with a non-binding opinion. We call on them to comply with their binding legal obligations. There is after all, one straightforward measure that would lead to the removal of the fence - and it is not more resolutions adopted in UN halls. It is, simply put, for the Palestinian side to abandon terrorism as a strategic choice and comply once and for all with its obligations to fight terrorism and incitement. As controversial as the fence may be, one issue is beyond controversy: the terrorism that made the fence necessary is not only a grave violation of international law, it is the enemy of the Israeli and Palestinian peoples, and its eradication is an indispensable step to lasting peace.

Mr. President,

[Mediocrates]

Throughout this process, there have been excited attempts to present the advisory opinion as something that it is not - a binding verdict that must be complied with and that necessarily dictates the action of the political organs of the United Nations. This assertion is simply inconsistent with the actual legal status of such opinions as non-binding under international law and runs counter to the history of their subsequent treatment by UN organs. The record of United Nations bodies is replete with examples of states, from every continent and regional group, that have taken serious issue with aspects of an advisory opinion. Many states have voted against resolutions that, like the draft resolution before us today, take the advisory opinion out of their political context. In some cases, the assembly has chosen merely to take note of, rather than expressly endorse, the opinion. And in most cases, the UN membership has recognized that its political organs are compelled to take broader political and strategic considerations into account, and should not be limited in their consideration to the narrow treatment of isolated legal issues.

Given the controversy surrounding the request for this advisory opinion, every one of these considerations apply in this case. If the number of states objecting to this abuse is not enough, if the serious criticism of the opinion by numerous judges on the court and by a growing number of legal experts around the world is not enough, if the obviously self-serving nature of the present draft resolution is not enough - then surely the imperative of advancing the Road Map should itself allow for no other conclusion.

Mr. President,

In the months since the opinion was requested one thing has become abundantly clear: The fence works. In those places where the fence has been erected it has succeeded in making it far more difficult for terrorists to take innocent life and sabotage the peace process. Scores of suicide attacks have been thwarted the latest just two days ago. Hundreds of lives have been saved. There has been a dramatic reduction of over 90% in successful terrorist attacks, a 70% reduction in citizens killed, and an 85% reduction in the number of wounded - all of which can be attributed directly to the security fence. Listen to Tawfiq Karaman, city manager of Umm el Fahm, who said, "God be blessed, the fence ended the parade of terrorists through this city." Listen to Sami Masrawa, an Israeli Arab injured in Sunday's bus bombing: "A month ago I went to protest the fence, now I believe it can only strengthen us." And as Israel is able to protect its citizens by more passive means, it has also been possible to remove roadblocks and withdraw troops from Palestinian areas, improving security, humanitarian and economic conditions for thousands of Palestinian residents.

By closing the avenues to terrorism, we can open the path to peace. As the Quartet and many other states have recognized, there is now a genuine chance to restart the Road Map peace process as a result of the disengagement plan. That opportunity has been created by the security benefits of the fence. It must not be squandered. The fence, and its actual rather than imagined route poses no threat to the emergence of a viable and democratic Palestinian state as part of the Road Map process. Indeed, by helping take terrorism out of the equation, a negotiated two-state solution becomes possible. As Israel has repeatedly declared, the fence does not affect the legal status of the territory, and as has been done in the past it can be moved or removed to accord with any political settlement. As Prime Minister Sharon has pledged, "The fence is a security rather than political barrier, temporary rather than permanent, and therefore will not prejudice any final-status issues including final borders." Above all, the fence is reversible. Lives taken by terrorism are not.

Rather than accepting every facile allegation as fact, we would urge delegates to see not just the response to terrorism but the terrorism itself. The assembly has already expressed itself on the issue of the security fence, but it has yet to address the terrorism that necessitated it. It is time for the assembly to ask some different questions. And it is time to ask yourselves - seriously - what steps can now be taken to bring the parties closer together, not push them even further apart.

The General Assembly has a choice today - to correct the error made last December or to compound it. The Palestinian side hopes that you will preserve the comic strip narrative of victim and villain that they have labored so intensively to create. That is why they were so angered four days ago when the special representative of the secretary-general had the audacity to suggest that both sides had to live up to their obligations. But that comic strip story can produce only paper, it cannot produce progress and it cannot produce peace. By ignoring Palestinian obligations, the assembly only sets back the Palestinian cause. By reinforcing a sense of privilege without a sense of responsibility, the assembly adopts a patronizing agenda that undermines the creation of a democratic Palestinian state at peace with its neighbors in the context of a permanent settlement. Only the political process laid out in the Road Map - that sets out mutual rights and mutual obligations - can achieve real results. And this assembly must decide whether it lives in the virtual world created by Palestinian draft resolutions, or in the real world. It cannot live in both.

The advisory opinion of the ICJ took place in a virtual reality, but it did not take place in a vacuum. On the ground, the launching of a bold and serious initiative of disengagement from Gaza and parts of the West Bank carries the potential to reenergize the peace process. That is where our attention must be focused. We are currently engaged in consultations with states in the region and with Quartet members in order to create conditions in which the disengagement plan can help facilitate genuine progress and the realization of a viable two-state solution in the context of the Road Map.

Surely we can agree that this is the goal: an end to violence, terrorism, and incitement, as required by the very first clauses of the Road Map. An end to suffering on both sides. A commitment to peace, dignity, and prosperity for both peoples based on mutual recognition and mutual compromise. All this can come only by a fulfillment of the obligations agreed to by both sides, so that temporary fences of security can quickly be replaced by permanent bridges of peace.

If the General Assembly wishes to make a relevant and constructive contribution to this noble endeavor we must keep our eye on this prize. We must avoid adopting one-sided, diversionary and divisive resolutions, inspired by the partisan interests of one party to the conflict and thus, of necessity, deficient in their impact and their claim to legitimacy.

The barrier between Israelis and Palestinians is not the security fence, but the terrorism that made it necessary. Were it not for that terrorism, a viable two-state solution would have emerged long ago. Palestinian terrorism seeks not the end of occupation but the end of Israel. The events of recent years and the hate-filled rhetoric of the terrorist ring-leaders tells us as much. As long as the assembly averts its gaze from that stark reality, it does the cause of peace a great disservice. The people of the region deserve, and in fact, demand better. We urge you to heed their call.

Thank you, Mr. President

[Mediocrates]

Isn't the basic principle of the Road Map that the Palestinians and the Israelis have to be separated permanently, by force if necessary? Wasn't the main concession that Israel gave up it's dream of Greater Israel and the PLO give up it's notion that Palestine ran from Egypt to Amman? It would seem that if nothing else the Security Fence is Israels attempt to comply with that Road Map [which is really the plan articulated by the Saudi Kingdom].

All this silly rhetoric about 'land grab' - absolute nonsense, one need only look at all the land Israel automatically gives up as a result of the Fence. Moreover - the basic criticism, which is somewhat fake by the way, that the Israelis are 'free' to defend themselves as long as they don't do it on "Palestinian Land' ring hollow? What is Palestinian land? No one, least of all the Palestinians can define it. So there the Fence sits, sticking out as the only definitive act toward compliance with the Road Map from either side. Moreover when Israel begins to implement phase 2 - the withdrawal from Gaza of the Road Map e.g. separate the parties you see the same political attacks on Israel from the very people who wrote the guidelines it is attempting to follow.

[Mediocrates]

Has anyone looked at the ICJ's docket? It has to go down as one of the funniest pieces of pulp fiction ever written.

http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket.htm

Specifically Serbia is suing 8 countries over the the war in Serbia: Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, UK ocer the legality of attacking them when they themselves were under no direct threat.

In those Applications, Serbia and Montenegro, referring to the bombings of its territory by Member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in 1999 following the Kosovo crisis, contended that the above‑mentioned States had committed “acts . . . by which [they] have violated [their] international obligation[s] banning the use of force against another State, not to intervene in the internal affairs of [that State]” and “not to violate [its] sovereignty”; “[their] obligation[s] to protect the civilian population and civilian objects in wartime [and] to protect the environment”; “[their] obligation[s] relating to free navigation on international rivers”; “[their] obligation[s] regarding fundamental human rights and freedoms”; and “[their] obligation[s] not to use prohibited weapons [and] not to deliberately inflict conditions of life calculated to cause the physical destruction of a national group”. Serbia and Montenegro requested the Court to adjudge and declare inter alia that the States referred to above were “responsible for the violation of the above[‑mentioned] international obligations” and that they were “obliged to provide compensation for the damage done”.

All of the countries listed are demanding the court remove them from the list of countries under adjudication because [for various reasons and they vary from country to country], the ICJ has NO authority and no jurisdiction to adjudicate the case against them. Basically they are saying that they are excused from international law

[Binyamin]

Israel has respect for the institution of the International Court of Justice and we believe in its ideals.

No, we have no respect for it, and say it clearly.

[Gilgamesh]

It's true most of the leaders in the muslim-arab world are incompetent, but it's not a news ! But you're wrong when you think that muslim or arab are jealous of the israelis standard of living, they are angry by Israel behavior with palestinians, that's all !

Well, you are wrong!
Nobody in the Arab world cares about the "Palestinians". Arab in the region do want an end to the curroption of their ragimes and an end to poverty, and they do jealus about the freedom in the West, Israel included, the rule of law and personal security in Western world, which has no rival in human history.

The most anciant way to stabilize the country in such conditions, and supress and grass roots demand for reforms, is by starting a war or by focusing the blame else where, at Jews, at ethnic minorities and out side powers. Most anciant trick in the book.

The fact you people can't accept that truthes, but rather swallow Arab propaganda in gallons. There is a reason, I won't repeat, of why you choose one explaination, however false, over the truth, Israel represents.

Wrong, arabs doesn't like the behavior of Israel, that's all ! They don't care about the standard of living in Israel, there's a lot of country with such standard, so don't think Israel is the number one !

If this is the truth, then WHERE ARE the millions of Arab fighters? (answer: under thier bed, or dressed like women), where are the Arab armies (stowed away)? Why does Egypt and Jorden keep their peace treaty with Israel? Why Egypt keeps open the channel and the Eilat gulf straits?

Because Arabs fear Jewish power tomuch, regardless the billions of military aid and advanced weapon Egypt recieves every year, and the French made shoulder missiles the Syrian has, and the billions of oil dollars, the Arabs have.

Poor guy, everybody is jealous about him...Everybody is jealous of the jewish achievement..., Israel become closer of South Africa, before Mandela of course...

You don't have a clue what you're talking about, do ya?