Posted on: Monday, July 12, 2004

EDITORIAL
Ruling on Israel's wall should lead to its end

What's surprising about last week's ruling by the International Court of Justice against Israel's barrier in the West Bank is not the finding that it violates international law.

Rather, it is the fact that the ruling is a forthright condemnation ordering that it be dismantled, along with payment of appropriate compensation.

Many observers assumed that pressure from the United States, some European countries and Israel would have forced the court into a narrower ruling.

Instead, the court ruled plainly that "Israel is under an obligation to terminate its breach of international law, and under obligation to cease forthwith the construction of the wall being built in the occupied Palestinian territory."

The court went on to issue a comprehensive statement of the rights, infringed by the wall, to which Palestinians are entitled: self-determination, freedom of movement, work, health, education.

The ruling adds moral suasion to an argument that seemed intuitively obvious to many: The wall is wrong and wrong-headed.

Historical precedents such as Hadrian's Wall, the Great Wall of China, the Berlin Wall and (with obvious irony) the walling off of the Warsaw Ghetto all suggest its ultimate folly.

Israel says it is building the barrier as self-defense against attackers, but Palestinians call it an attempt to grab land.

It is both. While the court recognized Israel's right to protect its citizens, it enjoined Israel to do so within the confines of international law.

The advisory ruling by the world court, in the Hague, Netherlands, is nonbinding — but important. The court's ruling against the South African presence in Namibia in the 1970s is widely believed to have contributed to the imposition of sanctions against South Africa — which ended apartheid.

The same positive result should happen this time.