THE HAGUE, 26 February 2004 — The world court hearings into Israel’s West Bank barrier wrapped up yesterday with arguments by pro-Palestinian parties that the massive structure was destroying the chances for peace in the Middle East.
Israel, which boycotted the three days of hearings at The Hague, voiced hope afterward that the UN’s International Court of Justice would not “fall into a trap” and decline to issue any verdict on the barrier’s legality.
The Palestinians, who argue Israel is in clear breach of international law by building the barrier on their land, were optimistic that the court would find against the Jewish state.
Declaring a close to proceedings, Presiding Judge Shi Jiuyong said “a date and time for the court to announce its rulings” would be set later. Any verdict will be merely advisory.
In the final round of hearings, both the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference argued the barrier was not about security but merely an attempt to grab Palestinian land.
“The wall does not stand between terrorists and potential victims but between the farmer and his land …the child and its school, patient and doctor and families who want to unite and the faithful from his or her holy places,” said the league’s chief counsel Michael Bothe.
“The wall being constructed in the Palestinian occupied territories presents separation, leads to discrimination ...and destroys real prospects for a fair and lasting peace,” he told the judges.
“The effects of the wall are many, but all negative. It is an affront to international law (and) adds to the suffering of the Palestinian people.” OIC Counsel Monique Chemillier-Gendreau said “with the wall, a viable Palestine is no longer possible and therefore no peace” is possible.
“The wall occupies large areas of summarily confiscated Palestinian territory.
“It has been abundantly demonstrated that this huge military installation has led to a massive violation of human rights.”
Israeli government legal adviser Daniel Taub, who observed proceedings, said they had been completely one-sided.
“There is nothing that we have heard to make us believe it’s anything other than an attempt to put people who are trying to defend themselves from terror on trial rather than the terrorists themselves,” he said.
He took heart from the decision by the United States, European Union and Russia — three of the four backers of the road map peace plan — who all boycotted the hearings on the grounds it was an inappropriate venue for such a case. “We still hope that the court will realize it’s a trap,” said Taub.
“All the issues have to be dealt with as part of a comprehensive settlement” rather than in a courtroom, he added.
Israel’s hawkish Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has already vowed to forge ahead with its construction, insisting it is essential to halt Palestinian attacks.
Military sources in Israel yesterday said the planned route was to be shortened by some 80 km. It was previously expected to snake across the West Bank for more than 700 km by the time work is completed late next year.
The Palestinians argued at the hearings that the barrier would increase the likelihood of attacks and is wrecking the road map, which aims for the creation of a Palestinian state next year alongside a secure Israel.
After the end of the hearings, chief Palestinian delegate Nasser Al-Qidwa refused to be drawn on the future Palestinian strategy. “The next step is to receive the advisory,” he told reporters. Michael Tarazi, legal advisor to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), voiced confidence that the judges “will do their job and apply international law.”
The Israelis’ decision to boycott the case showed “they do not have a case worth defending”, he said.
The $3.4 billion barrier — a combination of razor wire, electronic fencing and concrete — is Israel’s most expensive ever project.
