Court to rule 'Apartheid Wall' should be removed
-9/7/04
The international court of justice will rule that the wall Israel is building around the West Bank which has come in for criticism [0] from Christian groups, agencies, churches and denominations, is illegal and should be removed, according to a leaked copy of the report.
Christian leaders including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops told President Bush in April that they were increasingly concerned about what some palestinians call the "apartheid wall".
The leaders said the barrier, which Israel says it is building to protect itself from terrorists, is dividing communities, complicating the peace process, unfairly taking land from churches and preventing Christian groups from functioning properly.
The international court of justice is due to publish its findings this afternoon but according to Reuters news agency, it will say that the barrier is illegal under international law. "...The construction of the wall and its associated regime are contrary to international law," says the leaked report.
In line with criticism from Christian groups, according to Reuters, the document states that the barrier has infringed the rights of Palestinians living on land occupied by Israel in the 1967 Middle East war and adds that the barrier should be removed, and compensation paid for the damage it had caused.
The Electronic Intifada [1] website also claims to have obtained a copy of the court's ruling, although the source of the document is not identified.
Israel has insisted it will not accept the ruling by the court, based in The Hague, and which began its deliberations following a request from the UN general assembly in December.
The concrete and steel barrier runs close to the pre-1967 border but some of it juts into the West Bank, cutting Palestinians off from their farmland and dividing some villages in half.
The court has received written arguments from more than 40 countries. But Israel, the United States and several European countries argued that the court should stay out of the issue. They said the problem was political rather than legal and any opinion the court gives could interfere with the region's peace process.
[11]This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 England & Wales
License [12].
Although the views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent the views of Ekklesia, the article may reflect Ekklesia's values.