THE HAGUE: The World Court hearing into the West Bank barrier is one-sided and fails to address the question of Palestinian terrorism, Israel said yesterday after the Palestinians launched their case against the wall.
Israel decided not to send any legal representatives to the oral hearings at the International Court of Justice - the UN's highest legal body. But in a statement, a group of observers from the Israeli government said a ruling by the court in favour of the Palestinians, would upset the troubled road map peace plan.
In its written submission, Israel argued that the case is beyond the court's jurisdiction. The UN General Assembly asked the World Court in December, to give an advisory opinion on the legal consequences of Israel's construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
Israel claims the security barrier is needed to keep out suicide bombers. The Palestinians see it as a land grab because it juts deep into parts of their territory. The crux of their argument is that the wall crosses parts of the Green line, the 1949 Armistice line between Israel and the Palestinian territories.
In places close to the Green line, the barrier consists of a 26-foot high concrete wall with watchtowers along it. In West Bank rural areas it becomes an 80-yard-wide strip of razor wire and electronic fence. In places it separates Palestinians from hospitals, schools and their farms.
The Palestinian delegation at the World Court was headed by the Palestinian ambassador to the UN, Mr Nasser Al-Kidwa, who said the route of the wall takes 50 per cent of West Bank territory. He expressed the hope that the court's ruling would lead to international sanctions against Israel. Professors from Britain, Belgium and Switzerland spoke for the Palestinians, arguing in favour of the court's jurisdiction.
Their case was backed up by maps and photos of the impact of the wall on the lives of civilians in the West Bank as well as their testimony.
South Africa spoke of the "horrendous effects" of the wall. Saudi Arabia described it as "aggressive and disproportionate". Algeria and Bangladesh also argued against the wall yesterday. Outside the court, thousands of demonstrators argued for and against it.
Around 2,000 pro-Israeli demonstrators from Israel, the United States and Europe turned out in The Hague. Some carried photos of victims of suicide bombers. One orthodox Israeli rescue team, ZAKA, brought the mangled wreck of bus number 19 that was hit by a suicide bombing in Jerusalem last month.
Hundreds of Palestinians vented their anger by building a symbolic wall in the centre of The Hague.
The United States, the European Union and Russia, who back the Middle East Peace Plan, say that although they condemn the building of the barrier by Israel, they agree the World Court is not the proper forum to hear the case. They regard it as a political issue and feel it should be settled by negotiation between the two sides.
Many western nations believe that taking the matter to the World Court could damage the peace process. Like Israel, these nations stayed away from the hearings. In their written statements, they asked the judges not to make a ruling.
There is a possibility that after they've looked at all the written submissions, the judges could decide not to give an advisory opinion to the UN General Assembly. The court received written submissions from 44 UN member states, the UN, the Palestinian Authority, the Organisation of Islamic States and the League of Arab States. But only 16 parties attended the hearings.
The Palestinians said the fact that some of their allies - Egypt, Lebanon and Syria - didn't turn up, put a damper on their efforts. But there does seem to be a substantial body of argument in favour of the Palestinian case. International experts feel the court is likely to rule in favour of the Palestinians. An advisory opinion by the court is non-binding but a ruling that the wall is illegal would be an embarrassment for Israel.