MIDDLE EAST: Two blocks representing dozens of Arab and Muslim nations urged the World Court yesterday to deliver a decisive verdict against Israel's separation barrier that would lead to its dismantling and the prosecution of those who planned it.
The Arab League and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, which represent 20 per cent of the world population and include some of Israel's fiercest foes, testified at the end of one of the highest-profile cases in the court's 58-year history.
Concluding three days of oral hearings, the 15 judges at the International Court of Justice at The Hague retired to begin deliberations on the legality of the barrier Israel is building in the West Bank. The UN General Assembly asked the court in December to give a non-binding advisory opinion.
Palestinians are savouring the aftermath of the three-day legal onslaught on Israel's West Bank barrier. But there's little likelihood that Mr Ariel Sharon's government will halt construction, whatever the court finds.
Twelve countries, as well as the Arab League and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, all backed the Palestinians and condemned the barrier as a violation of humanitarian law. Counsel for the 22-nation Arab League, Mr Michael Bothe, made an impassioned presentation, saying the barrier was not just intended to protect Israel but to consolidate Israeli West Bank settlements which are illegal. He told the court it should issue a firm ruling that the barrier be destroyed, that confiscated lands be returned and compensation be paid.
He suggested that all those responsible be brought to justice, arguing "all state parties are thus obliged to prosecute offenders who happen to find themselves within their power or to extradite them to a state willing to prosecute them."
But that's an unlikely scenario, as the court's ruling will be solely advisory.
Israel has made no secret of its intention to push on with construction regardless of any verdict. Israel regards the case at The Hague as an attempt to deny it the fundamental right to defend itself. It stayed away from the hearings, claiming the court is not the proper venue to hear the case. Although they condemn the wall, the US, EU members and other Western countries supported Israel's claim and also stayed away. The UN and 44 member nations, including Israel, submitted written arguments. After the hearings Israeli government legal adviser Mr Daniel Taub, who attended as an observer, told journalists that UN testimony cited by the parties called into question the whole impartiality of the world body, which is one of the four co-sponsors of the troubled Middle East Road Map for Peace.
In the absence of parties in favour of the barrier, over the past three days, the judges heard an unchallenged litany of the hardships the concrete and barbed wire structure imposes on the lives of civilians. In some parts it encircles Palestinian towns and isolates their residents.
Mr Bothe said: "The wall does not stand between terrorists and potential victims. It stands between the farmer and his land. . .between patient and doctor, between the faithful and his or her holy places."
On Monday, the Palestinians acknowledged Israel's right to build defensive walls. But they argued they must be built on Israeli land rather than on confiscated property. Israel has said it could move the wall once there was a peace agreement.
French lawyer Ms Monique Chemillier-Gendreau, counsel for the 57-member Organisation of the Islamic Conference, raised questions about Israel's legitimacy as a nation within the borders it held before the 1967 conquest of the West Bank and Gaza.
She said those pre-1967 borders, too, were gained through the illegal use of force in the first Arab-Israeli war of 1948.
Ms Chemillier-Gendreau said suicide bombings and other attacks against Israel "should not be seen in a vacuum. They have to be linked to the far more bloody terror by Israel against the Palestinians since its founding - which is worse."