ISRAEL/ PALESTINE: It took the president of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague three hours to read the 59-page decision entitled Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Lara Marlowe reports from Paris
Yet despite the painstaking references to chapter and verse of international law, the message of the ICJ came through loud and clear: "The construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, and its associated regime, are contrary to international law," the ICJ said, adding that Israel must stop building, dismantle the approximately 180 km already completed and compensate Palestinians whose property has been destroyed.
Repeated allusions to "negative votes by a permanent member" of the Security Council implied condemnation of Washington's unconditional support of the Jewish state in its refusal to obey Security Council resolutions.
"The council has failed to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security as a result of a negative vote of one or more permanent members . . ." the court's president, Judge Shi Jiuyong of China, read.
The ICJ is the highest judicial authority of the United Nations. Almost all of the court's findings were voted by a 14 to 1 majority, with US judge Thomas Buergenthal dissenting.
The advisory opinion was requested by a UN General Assembly resolution on December 8th, 2003. The Palestinian ambassador to the UN, Mr Nasser al-Kidwa, has said he will seek a General Assembly resolution demanding that Israel dismantle the wall.
The Israeli Prime Minister, Mr Ariel Sharon's government maintains the ICJ had no jurisdiction to rule on what it considers a "political" rather than a "legal" matter. The first 25 pages of the court's decision explained why it does have jurisdiction over the separation barrier.
The Dutch judge Pieter Koojimans supported Judge Buergenthal in voting against one finding, that: "All states are under an obligation not to recognise the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction . . ."
The Irish section of Amnesty International said that following the ICJ ruling, the Irish company, Cement Roadstone Holdings, must explain its position on the barrier. "CRH has conceded to Amnesty International that in all probability cement from a company in which it has a large shareholding is being used in the construction," a statement from Amnesty said.
However, Cement Roadstone Holdings said yesterday that neither the company nor its subsidiaries had any "direct" link to the construction of the wall.
Mashav, an Israeli company in which CRH has a minority stake, owns Nesher Cement, which manufactures cement in the region. Egyptian, Turkish and Jordanian cement is also available in the region, CRH says.
A CRH spokesman said: "Neither Mashav nor Nesher manufactures concrete products of any type or for any application. They have no contracting activities and therefore are not involved in the construction of the fence or any other building/civil engineering projects in the country."
In its ruling, the ICJ said "the wall, along the route chosen, and its associated regime, gravely infringe a number of rights of Palestinians residing in the territory occupied by Israel, and the infringements resulting from that route cannot be justified by military exigencies or by the requirements of national security or public order," the ICJ said.
The decision relied extensively on reports by the UN Secretary General and the Special Rapporteur for human rights. They reported that 975 square kilometres of Palestinian land - 16.6 per cent of the West Bank - will lie between the Green Line (as the 1949 armistice line is called) and the wall. Some 237,000 Palestinians live inside that area, and another 160,000 will be caught in almost completely encircled communities.
Israel maintains that the barrier does not constitute annexation and that the wall is temporary. The ICJ rejected these arguments, saying it "considers that the construction of the wall and its associated regime create a 'fait accompli' on the ground that could well become permanent, in which case, and notwithstanding the formal characterisation of the wall by Israel, it would be tantamount to de facto annexation."
The ICJ's advisory document notes that 320,000 Israeli settlers will live in the area that will fall between the Green Line and the wall. It recalls numerous UN Security Council resolutions demanding a halt to settlements.