|
UN court 'was hijacked' by foes of Jewish state
Part I Chris Wattie National Post, with files from news services Ruling on Israeli fence rejected Canada, the United States and other Western nations yesterday rejected a world court ruling that declared Israel's 700-kilometre-long security fence in the West Bank illegal. The "advisory opinion" from the International Court of Justice at The Hague, which carries no legal weight, drew praise from Palestinian and Arab spokesmen and condemnation from other countries that said the United Nations' highest court had no mandate to rule on the issue. Shimon Fogel, head of the Canada-Israel Committee, said the court allowed itself to be used by anti-Israeli groups and its ruling focused only on Palestinian grievances over the barrier. "The world court was hijacked by the anti-Israel forces, who were using the court for their own narrow, partisan purposes," he said. "They're abusing the institution and undermining the credibility of the court." Mr. Fogel said the real goal of the legal effort was to further isolate Israel. "It's of no practical value in advancing peace whatsoever ... it's going to be one more futile, meaningless gesture in a long line of futile, meaningless gestures." The International Court of Justice ruled 14-1 that the barrier, a network of electric fencing, barbed wire and concrete walls that is still under construction, violates international law and that parts of it should be torn down. "The construction of such a wall accordingly constitutes breaches by Israel of various of its obligations under the applicable international humanitarian law and human rights instruments," said presiding judge Shi Jiuyong, of China. The court said the security fence "gravely infringes a number of rights of Palestinians residing in the occupied area" and called for Israel to pay compensation for damage caused by its construction, parts of which cut deep into Palestinian areas of the West Bank. The only dissenting vote was cast by U.S. Judge Thomas Buergenthal, who wrote the court should have taken more note of Israel's security concerns. "The nature of these ... [terrorist] attacks and their impact on Israel and its population are never really seriously examined by the court," he wrote. "Without this examination the findings made are not legally well founded." Israel boycotted the world court's hearings when they began last February and dismissed the final decision as "one-sided." Posted by: Mark Espinola 2004-07-12 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=37788 |