|
|
December 12, 2003/Kislev 17 5764, Vol. 56, No. 12
Israeli fence to go to international court
MICHAEL J. JORDAN
Jewish Telegraphic Agency
NEW YORK - The pro-Palestinian diplomatic assault on Israel soon will reach a new venue: The International Court of Justice at The Hague.
Arab states succeeded Dec. 8 in winning U.N. General Assembly support to petition the court to rule on the legality of Israel's West Bank security barrier.
Though The Hague has the power to issue binding decisions, the type of advisory opinion the U.N. resolution requests is not binding. Still, some advocates for Israel have expressed concern that if the International Court of Justice, a U.N. arm, deems the wall a violation of international law, it might expose Israeli officials to prosecution.
One Israeli official expressed outrage at the special General Assembly session called to debate the fence.
"We have a right to self-defense that cannot be adjudicated," a senior Israeli official said Dec. 8. "Those who would harm that are in fact devoted to Israel's destruction."
The resolution approved Dec. 8 made no mention of Israel's stated rationale for building the security fence: to keep suicide terrorists away from civilians in Israel's major population centers.
U.S. and Israeli officials had said they would lobby vigorously against what they consider the politicizing of an international court. In any case, there's no guarantee the court at The Hague will in fact weigh in on the matter. The 15-judge panel has the latitude to decide what cases to consider or disregard.
While the Palestinian move in the General Assembly ratchets up the pressure on Israel, Edward Abington, a former U.S. consul general in Jerusalem, suggests it also reflects Arab frustration with the U.S. roadblock at the more influential U.N. Security Council.
That U.S. obstructionism can be traced to a 16-month-old policy known as "The Negroponte Doctrine," named for the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte. He and his staff say they arrived at their criteria after the Palestinians and their advocates re-sponded to the ongoing bloodshed of the intifada, launched in September 2000, by putting forth resolutions on a near-weekly basis.
The United States for-mulated five criteria that had to be part of Security Council resolutions on the Israeli-Palestinian situation for the United States to withhold from exercising its veto power:
- Resolutions must contain "robust condemnation of acts of terrorism and all forms of incitement to terrorism"
- contain "explicit condem-nation of Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades as organ-izations responsible for acts of terrorism"
- "call for dismantling the infrastructure, which sup-ports these terror opera-tions, wherever located"
- "call upon all parties to make a commitment to pursue a negotiated settlement"
- recognize that "the issue of Israeli withdrawal to the September 28, 2000, positions is connected to an improvement in the security situation through reciprocal steps by the Palestinians and Israelis"
Palestinian supporters say the Negroponte Doctrine is Washington's means of giving Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon a green light to crack down on the Palestinians.
|
