Something there is that loves a wall

No real surprise here, times two.

First, as reported by the BBC, today, by a vote of 14-1, the International Court of Justice at the Hague

has ruled that Israel's West Bank barrier is illegal and construction of it should be stopped immediately.

The ruling said the barrier's construction was "tantamount to annexation" and impeded the Palestinian right to self-determination. ...

The court ruled that:

- the construction and its associated regime was contrary to international law;
- Israel was under obligation to cease construction and dismantle the wall;
- Israel should compensate owners of land seized to construct the barrier and those harmed by the barrier;
- all states are under obligation not to recognise the situation and ensure Israel's compliance with international law;
- the UN should consider what further action to take.

It also held that contrary to its claimed purpose, the route of the fence was not justified by military needs.

The Court reached it's decision after unanimously rejecting the deceptive argument made by the US, the UK, and some others (Israel refused to participate in the hearings) that the wall is a "political issue" that should be resolved by negotiation among the affected parties - an argument made at the same time that Israel insists there is no "partner" among the Palestinians with who they can negotiate, a position supported by both the US and the UK.

The rulings of the ICJ are not legally binding but they do carry weight in considering any future actions. However, in this case the effect is purely symbolic because there is no chance whatsoever that the Security Council would be able to take any action in the face of a certain US veto - that is, if the other members wanted to even try. Palestinians hope to use the decision to lobby the General Assembly to push for Security Council action to "punish" Israel, but they face a "brick wall of U.S. opposition" to any such attempt, as Reuters put it today.

Israel refused to accept the judgment.

"I believe that after all the rancour dies, this resolution will find its place in the garbage can of history," said Raanan Gissin, a senior aide to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

That's the second no real surprise, especially since Israel had already announced precisely that a week before the decision was released, as noted by Reuters for July 2:

"We believe that Israel can deal with this issue by itself," Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said at the White House after talks with U.S. national security adviser Condoleezza Rice. "We can't accept any external involvement from the International Court of Justice."

"We don't believe it's the place that this issue should be discussed. It should be discussed between the two parties - the Israelis and the Palestinians - with other members that are involved in the peace process," he told reporters.

Two things stand out about that statement. One should be obvious: The business, again, about "discussions" at the same time Israel insists there is no one on the other side to talk to. The other is perhaps more subtle but still important: It means the official Israeli position is that what happens on the West Bank is an internal Israeli matter. That the West Bank is not only controlled by Israel, not even occupied by Israel, but is part of Israel.

As recently as January 10, Ariel Sharon threatened to formally annex parts of the West Bank, but it hasn't actually been done - but Israel's statements here would strongly indicate that in the mind of the government of Israel, such an annexation exists de facto even if not (yet) de jure.

Footnote one: The BBC has a nice little pop-up about the barrier here. We've all seen the dramatic pictures of the tall concrete blocks but that only accounts for a small portion of the distance. This shows you the design of the rest.

Footnote two: The one judge to vote against the ruling was the lone American on the panel, Judge Thomas Buergenthal. He's a professor of law at George Washington University with a record of being an advocate for human rights, including having served on the United Nations Truth Commission for El Salvador.

He's also a Czech-born Jew who was a child survivor of Nazi concentration camps (including Auschwitz) and now is member of the US Holocaust Memorial Council - a background which would seem to suggest more than the possibility of bias, especially since his objection to the ruling was that it didn't take sufficient account of Israeli security concerns.

Why do I mention that? To point up a different fact: If the situation had been reversed, if the vote had been 14-1 in favor of Israel and the lone dissenter was an Arab, you know damn well that fact - along with any factors indicating possible bias - would have been clearly made in the media.