Victims of terror appoint representation to fence hearings at the Hague

Victims of terror appoint representation to fence hearings at the Hague
Tovah Lazaroff - Jerusalem Post
Thursday, January 15, 2003

The Almagor Victims of Terror organization has appointed a lawyer to represent them at the security fence hearings on February 23 in the Hague. The move is in reaction to the Arab League's decision to join petitioners against the fence at the trial scheduled to take place at the UN's International Court of Justice.
Attorney Yaakov Rubin, a former head of the Israel Bar Association, will attempt to add his clients to the list of petitioners. In November 2001, Rubin represented the group when he filed suit against PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat at the Palais de Justice in Brussels.
On Thursday, the court ruled that Arab League nations can join with the Palestinian Authority in testifying against the security fence. The decision further incensed Israeli officials, who fear it is symptomatic of the type of anti-Israeli sentiment that could corrupt the proceedings.
The government is already working to stop the trial. Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom told reporters after a meeting with Irish Foreign Minister Brian Cowen on Thursday that forwarding the security fence problem to the ICJ is a mistake that will hamper any future peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
(...)
The government is asking countries that voted against sending the case to the Hague to write letters to the court explaining why it is not the proper venue to deal with the matter.
Israel has not yet decided whether to send anyone to the court to present an oral statement; but it is taking the matter seriously nonetheless. It is negotiating with two international public relations firms to help it craft its message during the propaganda battle that is sure to accompany the proceedings.
Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz has offered to help the Israeli campaign, officials said. British international law expert Daniel Bethlehem is helping Israel craft a legal argument as to why the case should not be heard.
(...)
The planned route would enclose thousands of Palestinians and some 45,000 Jewish settlers by dipping 30 kilometers into the West Bank.
Some 97 percent of the barrier is made of chain-link fencing enhanced with electronic sensors. Only 3 percent consists of segments of concrete anti-sniper walls at areas subject to repeated Palestinian terrorist attacks.
On Wednesday evening, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon met with high-ranking government officials to strategize about the fence. Preparing Israel's defense is a team of four ministerial committees, each one tackling a different point of argument; security, politics, law, and public relations.
(...)

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Read the rest here.

make no mistake ..this is a very important case and it will be heard..

On Wednesday evening, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon met with high-ranking government officials to strategize about the fence. Preparing Israel's defense is a team of four ministerial committees, each one tackling a different point of argument; security, politics, law, and public relations.

Mr. Sharon's government is taking this seriously. We who support the concept of international law welcome this gravity.

I agree.

In reality, I know this will be a show-trial.

They will use it to deride Israel and then the U.N. will pass another resolution against Israel.

But the Palestinians are definitely the underdogs. :eyes:

This will not be a show-trial. There are many possible decisions the court could make. I seriously doubt the one that will be made will be that Israel has the right to build the fence anywhere she wants. I also seriously doubt that the court will decide that Israel has no right to build a fence at all.

As a believer in international law, I will be watching this case. It is less important to me that the court reach an outcome that I believe is the best one than it is that the court be fair, listen to all sides impartially and arrive at a decision by applying the facts of the case to the law.

If that is done and Israel abides by the decision, whatever it is, why would the UN pass another resolution condemning Israel? Condemn for what? Abiding by international law? If they do that, I'll join you in thumping the UN.

were to happen, it would be the first time; so, I doubt I have the hope to even go to your paragraph 3. :cry:

Could you please please point to an ICJ decision you find not in compliance with paragraph 2?

The slowdown in terrorist attacks against Israelis is partly the result of the fence. The recent attack in Gaza was, notably, at a crossing point, not the result of infiltrating across a barrier.

The more attacks that happen inside the Green Line, by infiltrating across, the more world support there would be for building the fence, so that sort of activity has slowed down. Of course, the partially built fence is also physically stopping some infiltration.

Regarding the issue of the route of the fence being an annexation, that is only to be expected. The creation of the Second Intifida with their "Days of Rage" was a sort of declaration of war. The Palestinians have lost the war they started and so the logical result is the loss of both lives and territory. That's what happens when you lose a war.

If Israel had put the Fence up along the Green Line, they would worry that it would become a permanent political barrier. This way the Palestinians worry about that, clearly preferrable to the Israelis.

Those who object to building the fence have come to accept the continuous killing of Israelis. The Israelis, apparently, have another attitude.

What, if anything, would the court in the Hague actually do if they decided against the wall? They would encourage more Terrorist attacks, that's all. They must be held accountable for deliberately and willingly acting to encourage more Terrorist Attacks against Israel.

With one post, you are probably unaware that most of the discussion on this board does not focus on Israel's right to build a wall, but where the wall is built. That is the point on which I believe the decide the case.

In other words: Is the route of the fence an annexation?

Contrary to what you said, a unilateral annexation is not be expected in this case. Resolution 242 specifically notes the unacceptability of gaining territory through war. This is in line with the modern convention of respecting national sovereignty. Losing territory is no longer what happens when one loses a war any more than losing lives after the end of the conflict is something to be expected.

Consequently, borders need to be negotiated. Whether the Green Line is in fact a border or not, it has certainly been used as one since 1949; it stands to reason that Green Line would be the starting point of negotiations between the state of Israel and representatives of the Palestinian people in the territories for final borders. Were the court to rule that Israel has the right to build a wall on the Green Line, it would seem a reasonable decision.

To the objection that were Israel required to build the wall on the Green Line, that would become a permanent border, there is the argument that the Israelis put forward, often echoed by Israel's supporters on this board, against the idea that building a beyond the Green Line constitutes an annexation. When that objection to the wall is raised, the counter invariably comes that the wall is not a permanent border and can be removed pending negotiations. If that is true for a wall built on its present course, it would be true for a wall built on the Green Line.

Therefore, you seem to be at odds with many of Israel's most vocal defenders on this board. First, you justify building the wall beyond the Green Line as an annexation; then you say that the problem with building on the Green Line is that it would become a permanent border. However, we are used to hearing that the wall is not a permanent border, regardless of where it is built.

Perhaps you would like clarify your points.