High Court approves new fence route

[Englander]

The High Court of Justice approved on Sunday a revised route of the security fence for southwest Jerusalem.

Submitted by the IDF, the 26-kilometer long route annexes some 5000 dunams of Palestinian-owned land within Israeli territory.

The High Court rejected seven petitions from local Palestinian villages, the Mount Hadar Regional Council, and from residents of Mevasseret Zion, all of whom were opposed to the new route.

The state promised to install gates in the fence and approve crossings for Palestinian farmers.

In his ruling, Supreme Court President Aharon Barak wrote that the new route minimizes the harm caused to Palestinians, and satisfies the balance between the security needs of the state and Palestinians' rights.

More at;
JPost

[Stockholm]

1. I doubt

that caging in the Israeli people from the world will increase their "security".

[breakaleg]

2. Outrageous!!! How can anyone support Israel in the face of this?

[Tom Joad]

3. I was hoping the new route would go right into Olmert's big fat....

house. It doesn't seem to do that.

[Tom Joad]

4. Just out of curiosity, how many Palestinians sit on the

Israeli supreme court? If the answer is zero, as i expect it to be, how can they make unilateral decisions as to what is "fair" for them?

[Englander]

5. FWIW;

'International Court of Justice
9 July 2004

Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall
in the Occupied Palestinian Territory

Advisory Opinion

The Court finds that the construction by Israel of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian
Territory and its associated régime are contrary to international law; it states
the legal consequences arising from that illegality

THE HAGUE, 9 July 2004. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), principal judicial organ of the United Nations, has today rendered its Advisory Opinion in the case concerning the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (request for advisory opinion).

In its Opinion, the Court finds unanimously that it has jurisdiction to give the advisory opinion requested by the United Nations General Assembly and decides by fourteen votes to one to comply with that request.

The Court responds to the question as follows:

“A. By fourteen votes to one,

The construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, and its associated régime, are contrary to international law”;

“B. By fourteen votes to one,

Israel is under an obligation to terminate its breaches of international law; it is under an obligation to cease forthwith the works of construction of the wall being built in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, to dismantle forthwith the structure therein situated, and to repeal or render ineffective forthwith all legislative and regulatory acts relating thereto, in accordance with paragraph 151 of this Opinion”;

“C. By fourteen votes to one,

Israel is under an obligation to make reparation for all damage caused by the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem”;

“D. By thirteen votes to two,

All States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction; all States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 have in addition the obligation, while respecting the United Nations Charter and international law, to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in that Convention”;

“E. By fourteen votes to one,

The United Nations, and especially the General Assembly and the Security Council, should consider what further action is required to bring to an end the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and the associated régime, taking due account of the present Advisory Opinion.”

http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ipresscom/ipress2004/ipresscom2004-28_mwp_20040709.htm

[breakaleg]

6. So what are they going to do? And when?

I'd like to see some action where Israel and this issue is concerned.