ISRAEL: Palestinians want the UN to itemise assets being damaged due to Israel's security barrier, Nuala Haughey reports from Jerusalem.
Palestinians secured a landmark legal victory with last week's ruling by the World Court that Israel's massive West Bank barrier is illegal, that it should be taken down and Palestinians affected by it compensated.
But what difference will this milestone in international law make for Palestinians whose livelihoods are threatened by the barrier, or equally the Israelis who feel it is a vital bulwark against attacks by suicide bombers? The answer to this question will emerge in the coming days, weeks and months as attention shifts from The Hague headquarters of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to the United Nations in New York.
It was the UN's General Assembly which last December asked the World Court for its advisory opinion on the legal consequences of the barrier.
The next step is for that 191-nation body to consider a resolution on foot of the court's opinion in an emergency session scheduled for Friday.
The court urged the General Assembly to consider what further action is required "to bring to an end the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and the associated regime".
As one Palestinian source put it - with no wall pun intended - the assembly will now have to pass a resolution to "concretise" what the court stated.
A draft General Assembly resolution being circulated by the Palestinians calls on the UN to compile a list of Palestinian real estate or assets damaged as a result of the construction of the wall, as well as a deadline for Israel to comply with its legal obligations outlined in the court's advisory opinion.
While the General Assembly could agree to measures including sanctions against Israel if it falls short of its obligations, its resolutions are not legally binding on governments.
"We don't predict that the General Assembly will propose sanctions," an Israeli official told The Irish Times yesterday.
"But the final resolution could be drafted in such a way as to encourage the international community to take steps to ensure Israel complies with the court's opinion. We fear that that would start a popular campaign in several countries, Scandinavian countries and Ireland of course, which have been citing international law as one of the main tenets of their foreign policy."
The lobbying of UN member states in advance of the General Assembly meeting is well underway. Israel is particularly targeting EU states in its bid to fend off a harmful resolution.
The EU has consistently opposed the route of the barrier, claiming it is illegal and a major obstacle to peace.
However, the bloc abstained when the General Assembly voted last December to refer the issue to The Hague court, as it considered the problem should be resolved politically. The court rejected that argument, saying it had jurisdiction on the issue, a development which gives the Palestinians hope that European states will feel themselves bound to respect the court's stance on international law.
The General Assembly vote will be one of the first tests on the world stage of the solidity of the newly expanded 25-member EU. Israel is hoping to have some success with Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic.
"We are hoping for the bloc to break, but we are not deluding ourselves into thinking that it will vote in our favour," said the Israeli official. "To be realistic, we don't foresee that many European governments would take on the ICJ. It's a well-respected institution. That is the kind of melodramatic gesture that only the Americans are capable of."
And the Americans are on standby should the issue be brought after the summer recess to the 15-member UN Security Council, which has the power to impose sanctions.
Any efforts in this forum would face a possible US veto in favour of its ally Israel. America has already used its veto 38 times since 1972 to kill resolutions critical of the Jewish state.
Israel has rejected the court's ruling as politicised and biased. A government spokesman said newly-drafted proposals for amendments to the route of the 788 km barrier, to ease the suffering of Palestinians while protecting Israeli lives, stem from a recent Supreme Court ruling, not from The Hague court.
However, Israeli public opinion could yet play a crucial future role in pressurising the government to change the route of the fence, Mr Anwar Al Darkazally, a legal adviser to the PLO, predicted.
"The numbers of Israelis against the wall is small but we could see the numbers of people against the route growing," he said, particularly if external pressure builds up, the domestic economy suffers as a result and Israelis realise that their state is being viewed by the world as a pariah.
"I believe very strongly that one of the greatest players that people really ignore is the Israeli public," he added.