The wait is over. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) at The Hague has finally ruled on Israel’s Separation Wall, kicking the ball out of its court, and into that of all major players in the Arab-Israeli conflict. But the question remains: Will the historic decision of July 9, 2004 become another memento of United Nations incompetence, US and Israeli arrogance, and Arab political worthlessness?

“The construction of the wall and its associated regimes are contrary to international law,” read the document of the ruling, leaving little room for intentional misinterpretation.

The ruling was convincing, not only because of the clarity and meticulousness of the language used, but also because there was a near consensus on all the provisions it entailed. Only the American judge, Thomas Buerghenthal, opposed the ruling, in an obvious, albeit disheartening, loyalty to political considerations rather than to the legal substance of the matter.

The ICJ ruling went even further than expected: “All states are under obligations not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall.” The court successfully contextualized the wall within the framework of the overall conflict, in which the wall is only one disturbing product. Thus, it reminded Israel that it’s “bound to comply with its obligations to respect the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and its obligations under international humanitarian law and international human rights law.”

The ruling of what is presumably the world’s most influential and respected court has illuminated the legal standing of the Israeli wall – it is now formally illegal. But doubtless, it achieved more than that.

First, it re-shifted attention back to international law as the only viable frame of reference for solving world conflicts, rendering irrelevant all that had resulted from the imprudence of the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the political coercion imposed on the Palestinians by the US and Israel.

Second, it restated the historic and political relevance of past United Nations resolutions, particularly 242, which calls for an Israeli withdrawal from the Occupied Territories.

Third, it reminded the international community and major signatories of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 of their obligations under international law, holding them accountable for any transgression upon Palestinian rights and for directly or indirectly supporting the violation of these rights.

Finally, where Arab and Muslim countries (including the Palestinian leadership) rely on the incompetence or indecisiveness of international law to justify their own shortcomings, the ruling pulled the rug out from under their feet.

The ICJ has done all that a legal body of its capacity can do. But the court cannot, nor should it be expected to, carry out the provisions of the ruling. This is a job for the UN member states and for those who claim to champion the rule of law.

Israel’s response to the ruling held no surprises. Various Israeli government officials declared their country’s intention to move forward with the construction of the 600 km long Separation Wall. When asked by a CNN anchorwoman: why not build the wall on Israeli land? (since the wall will eventually sprawl over 900 km into the West Bank), current Israeli finance minister Benjamin Netanyahu replied that the West Bank is not Palestinian land, it’s “disputed land.”

While Israel insists on living in a world of its own, free from the constraints of international law, world courts and UN resolutions, shouldn’t the champion of the new world order and democracy, the self-imposed executor of international law, the US government, adhere to the ICJ ruling? Not in a context in which Israel is the antagonist. This is the resounding reality that places Israel above the law, thanks to the United States’ coercive politics and its generous use of Security Council vetoes.

White House spokesmen and other US officials received the ruling with the same tired argument, that the ICJ has no place in a political dispute, that the ruling will complicate matters not solve them, and that such a decision will make difficult the implementation of the US-sponsored Roadmap peace initiative.

If a transgression as deeply ingrained as that of the Arab-Israeli conflict, with its tremendous human cost on both sides, its extensive harm and constant threat to an entire region, topped with an illegal wall twice the size of Berlin’s and one-fifth that of China’s is not a matter for the ICJ to decide, then the court is better off filing for an early retirement.

As for the Roadmap, I wonder if it’s the same Roadmap “envisioned” by US President George W. Bush, altered by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, then completely shelved by the latter with the support of major US Zionist organizations and neoconservative ideologues, for its being tantamount to US “pressure” on Israel? Is it the same Roadmap that was discarded in favor of Sharon’s Disengagement Plan, a plan that was hailed by President Bush, despite the fact that it gives Israel a mandate to unilaterally configure the final solution to the Middle East conflict, since Palestinians cannot be trusted as “peace partners”?

If so, why decry the death of a Roadmap that was shot, bombed, and bulldozed to death by Israel with the support of Bush, the Roadmap’s creator?

On the other hand, Europe has messed about long enough, and must take a decisive stand to avoid making any enemies. The urgency of the situation leaves no chance for the balancing act Europe had adopted, ostensibly because of its geopolitical uniqueness. While it has called on Israel to halt the construction of the wall in carefully worded statements, it continues to forge relations and alliances with the rogue state. Some European countries are major arms suppliers to Israel; so quick to condemn Palestinian militant groups, yet so slow to confront Israel’s flagrant violations of international law.

However disheartening the general political equivocalness of Europe (with the exception of a few EU members), it is still a great political weight in favor of a just solution to the Middle East conflict, perhaps greater than most, if not all, Arab and Muslim countries.

This unpleasant fact has been highlighted time and again as the Arab and Muslim world experiences one of its most disunited phases in modern history. While most Arabs and Muslims are still united around the idea that Palestine is their foremost cause, it seems that not one Arab or Muslim government is capable of asserting itself in any tangible form to counter the profound regional imbalance infused by the US government’s policies.

Without the reinvention of a solid political platform, Arab and Muslim governments will remain marginal to this conflict, deriving their relevance merely from their historic and cultural proximity.

As far as the Palestinians are concerned, the ICJ ruling has helped decisively reinstate the legitimacy and sanctity of their struggle. The ruling absolved and freed the Palestinian people from the irresponsible and incoherent political line adopted by their leadership through the re-establishment of the role of international law; it should not be used as substantiation of the PA’s bankrupt and reckless political approach.

On the contrary, the PA, an immature body born of an illegitimate peace process initiated with the Oslo Accords in 1993, has ominously contributed to the localization of the Palestinian struggle, stripping it of its international context and reducing it to a platform for corruption and nepotism.

Among the more outrageous scandals that have tainted the PA’s dismal legacy was the legitimate charge that various Palestinian companies affiliated with PA ministers and officials helped construct illegal Jewish settlements in the occupied territories for a quick buck. Additionally, a recent report, prepared by a Palestinian Legislative Council committee and months in the making, concludes that major Palestinian companies have been smuggling and selling cut-rate cement to Israel, speeding the construction of the Separation Wall. The report, which has gained an added relevance in light of the ICJ ruling, is now sitting in the office of the Palestinian attorney general.

Not only are many top PA officials implicated in the cement scandal, which involved 420,000 tons of Egyptian cement, but the PA’s top leadership seems inclined to sweep the accusations under the rug, as it has done so frequently in the past.

Without serious reforms (not self-serving Israeli and American reforms) that engender accountability, the PA is on its way to becoming a liability to the Palestinian struggle. It is becoming almost nonsensical to demand that the international community fulfill its obligations in implementing international law and the latest ICJ ruling while Palestinian fat cats help build the cage that will imprison their own people for years to come.

Indeed, the International Court of Justice has done an honorable a job in granting this moral victory, not only to the Palestinian people, but to politically weak and unprotected nations worldwide. But the ruling shall remain in the realm of the intangible until those involved in the conflict are reminded of their legal and political duties toward international law.

Without such an awakening, the doctrines of Sharon and Bush are likely to prevail, above the law, above the ICJ and its 15 judges, and above our world’s moral decency, or whatever remains of it.

Ramzy Baroud is a veteran Arab-American journalist. A regular columnist in many English and Arabic publications, he is editor-in-chief of PalestineChronicle.com and head of Research & Studies Department at Aljazeera.net English

The articles posted on this page reflect solely the opinions of the authors. Views Archive Advanced Search Views & Analyses