International court may decide not to hear fence case

[Trey Brister]

International court may decide not to hear fence case


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tovah Lazaroff Jan. 30, 2004

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hopes in Israel have been raised that the International Court of Justice may decline to hear the controversial case against the security fence, after more than 20 countries contested The Hague's jurisdiction on the matter.

The ICJ has yet to issue a statement in response to Friday's deadline for written arguments.
Optimism rose particularly on Friday, after the European Union sent documents to the judges stating that the court is the wrong venue in which to debate the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians over the fence.

"I hope that these declarations will convince the judges at the ICJ in The Hague not to hear the case against the fence within this legal framework, because this is a political matter, not a legal one," said Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom.
The Foreign Ministry claimed that intense lobbying efforts on its part spurred the decisions by the EU and, separately, European countries such as Russia, Germany, France, and Great Britain to argue against The Hague's jurisdiction.

Shalom has met with many world leaders in the past month, explaining that the fence is not a border, but a tool against terrorism. Thursday's bus bombing that killed 11 in Jerusalem only points to the need for a fence, the Foreign Ministry said.

The European states opposing the hearing at The Hague were careful to explain that their opposition to the hearing was not a vote of support for the 650-kilometer fence, in spite of Shalom's argument that it prevents terrorism.

"The security fence is, according to its current route, not in line with international law and has terrible humanitarian implications," said an EU spokesman. However, the spokesman said, all the member states abstained from December's General Assembly vote to send the case to The Hague. They have now come to believe more strongly, the spokesman said, that it would not be helpful for the judges to review the issue.

British Foreign Office Minister Lady Symons told London's Jewish Chronicle on Friday that the hearing would "serve to politicize the court in a way for which it was not designed."

A spokesman for the British Foreign Office told The Jerusalem Post that the ICJ is only supposed to arbitrate disputes in which both parties willingly seek The Hague' s help, and that it is not supposed to hear cases in which one side opposes the hearing.

Diplomatic sources said the EU is also concerned about the implications of bringing such a case to The Hague. "It's not exactly from love of Israel but from concern that today, Israel is in the dock, and tomorrow some other country will be brought there due to a political conflict," they said.

The US, South Africa, Canada, and Australia are also contesting the ICJ's jurisdiction regarding the fence.

The Palestinian Authority said on Saturday that it had filed an affidavit to the ICJ supporting its right to contest Israel over the security fence.
PA Negotiations Minister Saeb Erekat told US State Department official David Satterfield that Palestinian leaders are upset with the American position that the ICJ should not consider hearing the case.

"I cannot understand it," Erekat said Thursday. "We seek to use diplomacy against the wall in going to the Security Council and the Court of Justice, and we find these countries, the US and Britain, trying to shut the door in our faces."

Erekat said that Satterfield told him that the "issue will not be resolved through courts."

Israel on Friday submitted its own affidavit to the ICJ, in which it reiterated the claim that the barrier is an internal Israeli matter. Israel added that the fence is essential to protecting the lives of its citizens.

Although the ruling of the ICJ is to be non-binding, both Israel and the Palestinians have made serious efforts in presenting their respective cases. Israel fears a negative ruling could lead to United Nations sanctions and that the country, not the fence, would ultimately be on trial.

Hearings are scheduled to begin February 23 at The Hague. Israel has yet to decide if it will attend. Israel's High Court of Justice is set to hear its own case against the fence in February, in advance of the judicial proceedings at The Hague.

AP contributed to this report.

The ICJ should have no jurisdiction over any issue.

Who the hell is that court to think they get to decide issues of any kind anyway?

[USAcommitteeX]

Let them goto court, it wont prevent the security fence from being completed, Israel will take unilateral steps to separate from the Palestinians.

"I cannot understand it," Erekat said Thursday. "We seek to use diplomacy against the wall in going to the Security Council and the Court of Justice, and we find these countries, the US and Britain, trying to shut the door in our faces."

How many times do you have to tell these people, to enforce law, disarm the terrorist, prevent the terrorist orginazations from recruiting Palestinians to carry out suicide attacks.

[Krash]

Originally posted by USAcommitteeX
How many times do you have to tell these people, to enforce law, disarm the terrorist, prevent the terrorist orginazations from recruiting Palestinians to carry out suicide attacks.

You have no clue how difficult that is, do you?

You expect them to change decades of inbred hatred and mistrust in a second? Without the ability to invest in their infrastructure and educate themselves? The only way you will beat the hatred is through education - not easy when they have a mighty great sodding wall between you and your school.

Funny, really, that most of the wall cuts in to palestinian 'territory'. Looks more like a land grab, than a security concern - the fact that is isn't even sealed perhaps gives that one away.

[USAcommitteeX]

You have no clue how difficult that is, do you?

I don't give a damn how hard it is, Yasser Arafat the chairman of the PLO, is responsible for his peoples actions, he must enforce law. The Israelis who go after Palestinian terrorist are arrested and thrown in jail, Palestinians should do the same thing, but they don't, its unaccpetable for these terrorist groups to undermine The Palestinian Authority.

[johnny861]

Originally posted by Krash

You expect them to change decades of inbred hatred and mistrust in a second? Without the ability to invest in their infrastructure and educate themselves? The only way you will beat the hatred is through education - not easy when they have a mighty great sodding wall between you and your school.

Very true.. however, until that said generation is brought up with the proper education, they will have to endure 20 some odd years of suicide attacks and retailiations while their teacher's try to explain the hatred of one another in a postive way, while behind the educational system, their parents and religious teachers are telling them otherwise... I lke to think of hate in this scenerio as a dirty rag... sure you can throw soap on it.. but you are going to have to keep wringing it over and over again.. until the dirt has washed clean...

and does a hand washed rag caked in dirt ever truly get clean?

[Krash]

Originally posted by USAcommitteeX
I don't give a damn how hard it is, Yasser Arafat the chairman of the PLO, is responsible for his peoples actions, he must enforce law. The Israelis who go after Palestinian terrorist are arrested and thrown in jail, Palestinians should do the same thing, but they don't, its unaccpetable for these terrorist groups to undermine The Palestinian Authority.

Great, I'll blame GWB for everything every wacko your side of New York does, then I'll visit that blame on you, the people that elected him.

Get a grip.