by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright July 10, 2004
All Rights Reserved.

uling that Israel's proposed 437-mile security fence violates international law, the World Court gave Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat something to squawk about, sitting in his bombed-out Ramallah compound. Israelis simply believe that good fences make good neighbors, since Arafat declared war on Israel in Sept. 2000, just after he walked away from President Clinton's peace talks at Camp David. Arafat—and the world community—hasn't quite admitted that his “intifada” or uprising amounted to a declaration of war. Whether he takes responsibility or not, turning Palestinian militias loose on a four-year suicide-bombing spree sparked Israel's decision to build a security barrier. Arafat called The Hague's ruling “a pronunciation from the world it is standing beside the Palestinian people against the apartheid wall,” accusing Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's government of racism.

      According the World Court, Israel's security concerns don't justify seizing Palestinian land in the West Bank used to form a generous buffer around Israel's wall. Yet the same court makes no mention of Arafat's war on the Jewish state. As the U.S. found in Afghanistan and Iraq, all bets are off when it comes to security in times of war. Saying the wall “severely impedes” progress toward peace, The Hague forgot to mention Arafat's ongoing war for Palestinian independence. It's tempting to forget that Israel, like the U.S., is currently on a war footing, otherwise negating international obligations. Also ignored is the fact that Palestinians have no legal claim to the West Bank, a former Jordanian territory seized by Israel during the 1967 War. While it's true Jordan has no objections, it's also true that Jordan never offered the land until it was in Israeli hands as a spoil of war.

      It's disingenuous for the World Court to make its ruling without mentioning Arafat's undeclared war or the fact that Palestinians have no legal authority over the West Bank until negotiating a comprehensive peace treaty. Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia hoped the U.S. wouldn't “sabotage our efforts,” expecting veto in the U.S. Security Council. Focusing on the non-binding Hague ruling or ignoring Arafat's unwritten declaration of war, Palestinians hope to rally world opinion against Israel. Oureia wants to muster world support in the French-dominated European Union, sidestepping the U.S., which no longer recognizes his boss. Neither Israel nor the United States accept Yasser Arafat as a legal negotiating partner for the Palestinian people. Since Arafat scuttled Camp David and Clinton left office, he was no longer recognized by the U.S. State Department.

      Since marginalized in Ramallah, Arafat has looked unsuccessfully for international backing. Going to The Hague was a clever PR move but has limited practical value, since the U.S. can veto any resolution in the U.N. Security Council. However Israel's security fence encroaches on the West Bank, The Hague forgot that Palestinians do not yet hold title to the property. Only through direct negotiations with Israel can Palestinians lay claim to the land. When Jordan went to war against Israel in 1967, they forfeited land rights, leaving Israel the legal landholder. Before The Hague loses all credibility, they should insist that Palestinians formally end their war with Israel. Arafat has already admitted he has no control over Palestinian groups unwilling to accept his authority. Ruling for Arafat's now defunct Palestinian Authority no longer has any legal significance.

      How ironic that World Court Judge Shi Jiuyong of China concluded that Israel's security fence “gravely” violates Palestinian rights, since his own country built the Great Wall to keep out Mongol invaders. No one in Israel preferred to build a wall. But 45 months of relentless suicide bombings forced Sharon to take draconic steps. “It is a temporary, nonviolent security means, and it saves lives. So long as terror continues, Israel will continue to defend its citizens,” said a written statement from the Sharon government. Sharon made it clear that the fence was temporary measure before a comprehensive peace agreement gives Palestinians sovereignty over the West Bank and draws the exact borders of a new state. It's unrealistic for the court to ignore that Palestinians are currently at war with Israel. Without a peace deal and under the current conditions, the court has no jurisdiction.

      Allowing Arafat to further undermine the credibility of the World Court, The Hague has too many other problems fumbling with the trial of ex-Serbian strongman Slobodan Milosevic. At least the new Iraqi government is committed to administering its own justice to Saddam Hussein. Before the court passed judgment, it should have asked the Palestinian Authority to end its nearly four-year-old war and negotiate a comprehensive peace treaty. It's premature ruling in favor of Palestinians when they have no coherent legal authority or ownership of lands seized by Israel during the 1967 war. Instead of grandstanding at the World Court or U.N., Yasser Arafat should step aside and allow new Palestinian leadership to rein in violent factions and move quickly to the bargaining table. Arafat's new cause célèbre does nothing to stop violence or make a new beginning.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2002 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.