WASHINGTON, 4 March 2004 — George C. Marshall was the military genius who helped the United States deal with two wars, in Europe and the Far East, at the same time. When the war was over, this World War II hero was deeply troubled when President Harry Truman wanted to recognize Israel even before it agreed to define its borders.
Marshall said that if the president went ahead with this project he would vote against Truman in the next election.
Marshall lost his argument and to this day the US has never required Israel to agree on its final borders. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s partition wall is creating de facto final borders deep inside Palestinian lands.
After listening to three days of testimony from Feb. 23 to Feb. 25, the International Court of Justice in The Hague is now deliberating the legality of the separation wall. A UN General Assembly resolution on Dec. 8, 2003 had asked the International Court of Justice to rule on the barrier. Asking for the nonbinding opinion of the ICJ, which had ruled against Apartheid South Africa, was a well-intentioned move. The trial brought Israel’s occupation policies before an international tribunal for the first time.
The trial was opposed by Israel and its supporters at every turn. Israel had asked the world to ignore the proceedings and the US, Russia, the European Union and, of course, Israel stayed away from The Hague. Both Israel and the US claimed that the Arab-Israeli conflict could only be solved by political agreements and not by court rulings. The US even charged the ICJ hearings could undermine the peace process.
Legally, the Jewish state has no leg to stand on. Building this wall on occupied land was a unilateral act which defied international law and the Geneva Conventions. Michael Tarazi, legal adviser to the Palestine Liberation Organization, said the Israelis’ decision to boycott the court showed “they do not have a case worth defending.”
A number of statements put before the ICJ were very well reasoned. The chief Palestinian delegate Nasser Al-Kidwa told the court, “This wall is not about security. It is about entrenching the occupation and the de facto annexation of large areas of Palestinian land.”
If the wall is completed, Al-Kidwa said, it “will leave the Palestinian people with only half of the West Bank within isolated, non-contiguous, walled enclaves.”
Fowzi Shubokshi, Saudi Arabia’s UN representative, told the ICJ that the barrier would prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state and trigger new violence in the region.
Prince Zeid Al-Hussein, head of the Jordanian delegation, warned the court that the barrier could make life unbearable for large numbers of Palestinians. They would be forced to flee into Jordan and his country’s resources and delicate demographic balance would be strained.
A Human Rights Watch briefing paper charged that “Israel’s separation barrier seriously impedes Palestinian access to essentials of civilian life, such as work, education and medical care.”
While Israel has said it is building the wall for security purposes, to prevent suicide bombers, that is a pretext, according to Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qorei. The wall amounts to a land grab, cutting deep in the West Bank to unite Jewish settlements with Israel’s own territory.
As the court listened to arguments, Qorei told protesters in Abu Dis, “To all those who want peace in Israel, we say that the wall has not been built for security purposes but to steal our land and shut in 250,000 Palestinians. We will never accept it.”
The Palestinian Authority criticized 12 of the 22 Arab League states for not submitting legal arguments to the ICJ. Those Arab League members that did submit arguments included Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Algeria. Indonesia, Malaysia and Cuba also challenged the barrier. Cuba said the wall turned Palestinians into a “population of prisoners.”
While the three-day hearings continued in The Hague, Ariel Sharon seemed almost frantically busy. What he was doing, however, was unfathomable.
On Feb. 23, Sharon was quoted as saying on public radio that Israel will not negotiate with the current Palestinian leadership because it has not met its obligations under the US-backed road map.
He talked about unilaterally withdrawing from Gaza but in such an ill-defined manner that it seems impossible to say what it is Sharon is actually planning, if anything. He also talked about evacuating many of the Jewish settlements in Gaza, beginning by the end of the year.
To some extent Sharon’s hyperactivity indicates that he is deeply concerned about Israel’s legal troubles. His actions, real or fancied may serve to distract the Israeli public and prevent the fall of his government.
Meanwhile Sharon has embarked on a new phase of construction of the “apartheid wall.” Days before the ICJ proceedings, Sharon suddenly announced that an eight-kilometer stretch of the wall near the West Bank villages of Baka Al-Sharqiya and Zeita would be torn down and rerouted to follow the “Green Line.”
Palestinian Cabinet Minister Saeb Erekat called the move a public relations stunt. Even Israel’s Justice Minister Yosef Lapid said Israel would reap “very positive media spin” from tearing down this small section of the wall. Whether this last-minute change has any significance at all is not clear, but if Sharon is looking for ways to obfuscate or hide his real intentions, he is doing a superb job of it.
An International Court of Justice opinion will not be binding. But nevertheless, it will become a useful tool for everyone trying to solve the Palestinian problem. It will influence world opinion in a positive way. A ruling could even pave the way for international sanctions against Israel. That is probably what will have to happen next if justice is ever to be served.
— Richard H. Curtiss is executive editor of Washington Report on Middle East Affairs magazine.
