The International Court of Justice at the Hague has ruled: In a nearly unanimous decision, with only the U.S. judge dissenting, the Court determined that Israel's anti-terrorism partition fence is a violation of international law, that Israel must tear down whatever has been built so far, and must compensate Arab residents for the damage done.
The decision, agreed to by 14 of the 15 justices, called on the United Nations to consider what steps should be taken in order to "end the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the partition." Thirteen judges - not including the representative of Holland - also called upon the international community to act against Israel's counter-terrorism partition.
The Court thus rejected several Israeli claims. Israel had maintained that the Court has no authority to rule on an internal Israeli matter, and that the fence was built for reasons of vital security. The Hague justices responded by declaring that the wall, "along the route chosen," was rather a violation of "international humanitarian law" and "human rights" by harming Arabs' "freedom of movement and their rights to employment, education and health."
Israeli security data released last month indicate that in northern Samaria areas where the fence has been completed, the rate of terrorist penetrations has been cut down to zero. IDF Central Command sources said that the barrier played a crucial role in the 75% decline in suicide attacks and attempts during the first half of this year, as compared with the corresponding period in 2003.
Israeli officials responded cautiously to the reports of the ruling, saying they would wait for the official ruling this afternoon, at which time they would review and consider it. Israel has often made clear, however, that what binds the government is Israeli law, and not The Hague's interpretation of international law.
Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom told US National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice last week, "We believe Israel can rule on the barrier on its own. We will not accept any foreign intervention. This issue should be debated between the Israelis and the Palestinians together with the officials involved in the peace process."
Other Ministry officials noted that the entire issue was "born in sin. They put the victim on the defendant's chair... The sole reason for the fence is terrorism, which was not even mentioned." Ministry officials are convening this morning to discuss the decision.
Left-wing MKs attack the government for not having built the partition along the Green Line that separates Judea and Samaria from the rest of Israel. The Hague's ruling implied that the problematic nature of the wall was its location in Judea and Samaria. This area was controlled by Jordan between 1949 and 1967, yet was never internationally recognized as belonging to that country. Israel liberated the areas in the Six Day War of 1967; it did not annex them, but its Jewish Biblical/historical claim to them is a matter of international consensus. At the same time, however, an Arab group, some of whom have lived there for a number of decades and who now go by the name "Palestinians," claims ownership to these areas - and enjoys the support of much of the international community.
Coincidentally or not, just this week for the first time in history, the Catholic Church equated anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Haaretz reports that the Church's announcement was made at a gathering of leading Jewish and Catholic figures in Buenos Aires. "We oppose anti-Semitism in any way and form, including anti-Zionism that has become of late a manifestation of anti-Semitism," the statement said.
The decision, agreed to by 14 of the 15 justices, called on the United Nations to consider what steps should be taken in order to "end the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the partition." Thirteen judges - not including the representative of Holland - also called upon the international community to act against Israel's counter-terrorism partition.
The Court thus rejected several Israeli claims. Israel had maintained that the Court has no authority to rule on an internal Israeli matter, and that the fence was built for reasons of vital security. The Hague justices responded by declaring that the wall, "along the route chosen," was rather a violation of "international humanitarian law" and "human rights" by harming Arabs' "freedom of movement and their rights to employment, education and health."
Israeli security data released last month indicate that in northern Samaria areas where the fence has been completed, the rate of terrorist penetrations has been cut down to zero. IDF Central Command sources said that the barrier played a crucial role in the 75% decline in suicide attacks and attempts during the first half of this year, as compared with the corresponding period in 2003.
Israeli officials responded cautiously to the reports of the ruling, saying they would wait for the official ruling this afternoon, at which time they would review and consider it. Israel has often made clear, however, that what binds the government is Israeli law, and not The Hague's interpretation of international law.
Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom told US National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice last week, "We believe Israel can rule on the barrier on its own. We will not accept any foreign intervention. This issue should be debated between the Israelis and the Palestinians together with the officials involved in the peace process."
Other Ministry officials noted that the entire issue was "born in sin. They put the victim on the defendant's chair... The sole reason for the fence is terrorism, which was not even mentioned." Ministry officials are convening this morning to discuss the decision.
Left-wing MKs attack the government for not having built the partition along the Green Line that separates Judea and Samaria from the rest of Israel. The Hague's ruling implied that the problematic nature of the wall was its location in Judea and Samaria. This area was controlled by Jordan between 1949 and 1967, yet was never internationally recognized as belonging to that country. Israel liberated the areas in the Six Day War of 1967; it did not annex them, but its Jewish Biblical/historical claim to them is a matter of international consensus. At the same time, however, an Arab group, some of whom have lived there for a number of decades and who now go by the name "Palestinians," claims ownership to these areas - and enjoys the support of much of the international community.
Coincidentally or not, just this week for the first time in history, the Catholic Church equated anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Haaretz reports that the Church's announcement was made at a gathering of leading Jewish and Catholic figures in Buenos Aires. "We oppose anti-Semitism in any way and form, including anti-Zionism that has become of late a manifestation of anti-Semitism," the statement said.