Three days of hearings into the legality of the barrier being built by Israel in the West Bank ended before the International Court of Justice here Wednesday just as they began – with passionate legal arguments inside, and highly emotional protests outside.
The Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) were the last of 15 countries and organizations which made submissions this week to judges examining the legality of the controversial structure being built to stretch across some 440 miles (700 kilometers) of territory.
Israel boycotted the hearing, saying the court had no right to decide on the case. It argued that what it calls a "security barrier" is necessary to prevent infiltration of suicide bombers into its territory.
The United States and some European countries supported Israel in challenging the legitimacy of the court. That opened the floor inside to a constant parade of opponents.
The tone of the arguments before the court and the intensity of events outside could make this the most contentious decision ever made by the court, an official said.
Palestinians say the structure represents an attempt by Israel to reinforce its occupation of Palestinian land. This latter position received strong support from almost all the countries which gave oral testimony to the court. The OIC, a grouping of 55 countries, said Wednesday the wall was "a massive appropriation of Palestinian land."
Counsel for the OIC Monique Chemillier-Gendreau said suicide bombings and other attacks against Israel must be "linked to the far more bloody terror by Israel against the Palestinians – with the wall there is no longer a viable Palestine, thus no peace possible between the two states."
Michael Bothe, counsel for the 22-member Arab League said the wall is "an affront to international law and adds to the suffering of the Palestinian people." He said the tribunal should issue a firm ruling that the barrier be destroyed, lands confiscated by Israel returned, and compensation paid.
The international court initiated the hearings at the request of the United Nations General Assembly. The judges are expected to take a couple months to deliberate on the issue before handing down a finding.
That verdict will be non-binding but influential. The hearings have given considerable exposure already to one of the most contentious issues impeding the peace process in the Middle East, and demonstrated the deep differences between the two main parties.
From the start of the proceedings Monday, the Peace Palace where the court is located was the scene of poignant demonstrations. Relatives of victims of suicide bombings appeared daily holding pictures of loved ones.
The Israelis also put on display the shell of a bus destroyed by a suicide attack January 29 in which 11 people were killed. They said this demonstrated the need for the barrier, which is made of high walls and fences bordered by wide trenches.
Palestinian groups and their supporters held counter-demonstrations. They highlighted the personal hardships, and the social, economic and political consequences of the erection of the structure. Protests also took place in the West Bank.
Several arguments were aired against the barrier. In an oral submission to the court Tuesday, legal counsel for the government of Jordan, Sir Arthur Watts said the proposed route would connect Israel with its settlements in the West Bank – territory Israel captured 37 years ago.
"This wall is not primarily about the defense of Israel’s territory," he said. "If the wall defends anything, it is – the position of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories." Head of the Jordanian delegation Prince Zeid Al Hussein expressed fear the barrier would force affected Palestinians to flee to the neighboring kingdom. This would put a strain on Jordan’s resources and upset the delicate demographic balance, he said.
Several of the submissions raised questions about the wall in relation to the occupation policies of the Israeli government. Palestine representative Nasser Al-Kidwa said the barrier would "entrench the occupation and the de facto annexation" of parts of the West Bank.
Countries without a direct stake in the Middle East such as Cuba, Belize, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia and Senegal also spoke in like vein.
"We have to bring to an end the ignoble terrorism that takes place in Israel and we recognize Israel is entitled to protect itself," said Belize representative Bassam Freiha. "But the building of a wall is a bad and inappropriate response."
Israel made plain its intentions on the ground. As arguments proceeded, its bulldozers leveled a field of olive trees to extend construction of the barrier in the northern West Bank village Beit Surik.
