The main argument that the Palestinians are making in the Hague is that Israel is building the security fence on “occupied territory.” Only the Islamic Conference has gone so far as to say that any security barrier is illegal under international law before a final settlement is reached, which is essentially a recognition that they don’t accept any Israeli border as legitimate.
At the very least, from a juridical standpoint, the occupied status of the West Bank is in dispute (without even mentioning East Jerusalem). In order for a territory to be “occupied” under international law, it has to have been the legitimate territory of a sovereign nation-state. The problem is that the status of the West Bank has never been settled. Pockets of the West Bank were supposed to be Israeli under the Partition, so Jordan’s invasion and occupation of the West Bank in 1948 was illegal under international law – they never had a legitimate claim to the land. Jordan’s subsequent annexation of the West Bank was largely rejected as illegal. So when it was taken by Israel in 1967, the West Bank was arguably not anyone’s territory.
Now, under international law, “occupation” is very different than “occupying disputed territory.” Building a wall on disputed territory may be politically problematic, but that of course is Israel’s point – that the placement of the wall is a political, not a legal, question.
There is, however, some merit to Bibi’s quip that it should be Palestinian terrorism that’s on trial. The Palestinians have repeatedly violated black-letter international law by:
All this has passed without even a whisper of condemnation form the UN. So forgive my skepticism about the neutrality of international law.
